Poll: Is there anything Rypt doesn't know?

[Ricochet J]

He's an expert in the nuclear industry.
He's an expert in automotive engineering.
He's an expert in economy and finance.

Is there anything he doesn't know?


(Tongue in cheek thread. Take it as you wish.)

 

[Ricochet J]

I don't know everything about everything, but I know something about most things.

I no expert on the nuclear industry, but I know enough to say that we have not poured any concrete and are building too slow

I work in the nuclear industry. I'm not directly involved in new build, but I have done projects for it, and will do in the future. I can assure you, nothing is going too slow.

 

[Ricochet J]

Depends how you view "too slow".

I see oil prices increasing and battery electric cars gaining popularity.
I see stupid global targets on reducing CO2 meaning that building/using coal powerstations will become harder/more expensive.

Flue gas desulfurization is becoming more wide spread. Conventional fosil fuelled stations will stay and upgraded. Aberthaw Power Station in the Vale of Glamorgan is a good example.

Combined cycle gas turbine plants use fossil fuel and possibly power-from-waste. These are a strong competitor to nuclear. They have higher Carnot efficiencies due to the combination of both Brayton and Rankine cycles. West Burton CCGT is a good example.

I see China building 28 new nuclear reactors, which in total have 3x their current nuclear capacity.

I see our grid being already almost at the limit (weren't blackouts being predicted by 2012-2015?

Now tell me, if by 2020 50% of the cars on the road are battery electric - will the current grid (minus any stations that are being closed) + the new nuclear builds be able to handle it? (hell, will the new powerstations even be operational by 2020?)
What about 75% of cars battery electric by 2020?

China are building nuclear reactors because:
- They have a different regulator to the UK, and the rest of the world. Although fundamentally overseen by WANO.
- They have consortium's with the cash backing such schemes.
- They have a much larger energy deficit than the UK. They needed to act.

There are a lot of construction projects happening in the UK. Don't be fooled into thinking nuclear is the only build that is happening power station wise. There will not be blackouts in 2015.

You base your arguments on assumptions. Battery technology has been out for a long time, and less than 30% of the UK transportation is battery powered. Until the infrastructure for battery powered vehicles become more mainstream, 50% of the cars will not be battery powered by 2020.

I do not think we are building enough in volume, and I think we are late to the game as it is (aren't some of the component suppliers booked with orders from China & India for the next 10 years?).


I WANT to see us be in a position to be 80% nuclear by 2015-2020 (not happening as we are building too few and too late).

I want us to have a grid that can handle the volume it needs, plus allow us to experiment with new technologies and ideas that require plentiful energy

I want us to be actually leading research into next generation reactors (and building test reactors)

Your passion is admirable. The UK will not be 80% nuclear powered. You need a degree of flexibility in the Grid. To be able to shut down stations at an instant is a strategic importance. Something that is not easy with a nuclear station. Conventional fossil powered stations, with a mix of nuclear and renewables is the future. If you have access to journals I suggest you read some. A good start is Technologies for tomorrow’s electric power generation, by Prof. C.J. Lawn.

 

[Ricochet J]

Still something that produces CO2, and I thought we are being told that CO2 is bad (for the record, I couldn't give a monkeys if it makes CO2 or not but the general political direction seems to be to penalise CO2 producing technologies).

Carbon capturing and storage is an emerging technology. It's catching on just as FGD is.

Right, and UK didn't just have 13 years of "boom"?
If every penny Brown had wasted for the past 13 years was put into nuclear builds, how many reactors could we have?

Nuclear is a high risk game. The evidence is there. Just look at what happened to Nuclear Electric and British Energy. Even recently the combination of Magnox North and South to increase nuclear professionalism and best practise. Private investment is key for a nuclear success. You can't rely solely on Government bodies. France have learnt this.

I know we are building other things, but to me it seems that nuclear is the technology that is most likely and most easily can power us long term.

I agree. However from reading your posts, you expect nuclear to happen overnight.

Technology is quickly advancing, and infrastructure is following closely behind.

I'm afraid it's not. Just look at ErDF, they are struggling with rolling out charging points - even on a small scale.

What if next year a huge discovery is made that allows for a huge jump in range or a huge reduction in price of battery electric cars - and we DO get to a very high % by 2020, can the grid cope?

You're naive. It takes a good few years to field test and tweak discoveries.

Afaik with nuclear you cannot modulate the output, so you want nuclear to provide the base and then the modulation via other sources.

That's what I am saying. Which is why it's hard to substantiate an 80% nuclear base load. You're proving my point.

 

[Ricochet J]

As for storing nuclear waste, we should be able to manage than in the medium term, until fission is ready for mainstream - and I would think we would eventually find a way to get rid of the nuclear waste.

Really? This post does highlight your excellent ability to bs. It's quite clear you have little knowledge on the back end of this industry. Why comment?