Electric cars and the grid..... it has begun.

[daleyd]

Give some specifics as to what this bad thing is. So far nothing posted in her thread has been shown to be incorrect,

Oily waste stored in barrels that couldn’t be disposed of due to the organic oils reacting with the acids needed to dissolve the uranium, for one.

It requires huge volumes of steam, power, chemicals and manpower to reprocess one barrel. There are thousands. And this is just one waste stream. There’s loads of others that go on at the same time, I can’t really give much more specifics as it’s nuclear but trust me - that Twitter account is nothing like the reality of sellafield or springfield.

What she posts in her thread isn’t wrong, it just omits the other 90% of waste.

 

[minimutly]

Here's some numbers on the feasiblity of large scale energy storage on the scales we would need

Energy storage: Analysing feasibility of various grid scale options

How much grid energy storage do we need to smooth out the fluctuations inherent in weather dependent renewables and how much will it cost?

www.nsenergybusiness.com

To boot I don't think there's enough material to make all that.

Ahh, now I see your argument - you're saying its impractical to use storage to fill in the dips from renewables?
I think this is obviously correct, it would be, given solar overnight, damp winter and the dreaded dead weather during cold spells. The point is though, short term storage to fill in peak demands is being built right now, and paid for by the grid (in the UK). So to say its not viable is peeing into the wind - it obviously is.
Now, when you build three or four nuclear power stations, or twenty or thirty RR types, we might not need so many "fill in" storage schemes - or maybe these schemes will resuce the need to spend the huge sums needed on one or two of these nuclear stations. We are obviously short of dependable 24/7 generation, yes please build some nuclear, just not next door to me....

 

[DennisCA]

Oily waste stored in barrels that couldn’t be disposed of due to the organic oils reacting with the acids needed to dissolve the uranium, for one.

It requires huge volumes of steam, power, chemicals and manpower to reprocess one barrel. There are thousands. And this is just one waste stream. There’s loads of others that go on at the same time, I can’t really give much more specifics as it’s nuclear but trust me - that Twitter account is nothing like the reality of sellafield or springfield.

What she posts in her thread isn’t wrong, it just omits the other 90% of waste.

Ah yes the medium level waste and chemical waste of the reprocessing methods and such. Those are waste too, but its not the kind of waste that makes people worried and gets the most attention. It's energy intensive work for sure, but it's been accounted for so it's not a hidden cost. But it also isn't what most people think about or are worried about, and still in comparison to the amount of power generated...

 

[merryman]

it's been accounted for so it's not a hidden cost.

That may be true in Finland, but here in the UK all the first generation reactors were shut down by the operators who then walked away, and the bill for decommissioning was left to the taxpayer. Not sure about the ones coming to the end of life now but I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same again. Nor do I know if the new ones being built are to be decommissioned by the operator. I do know, as I posted before, the government had to guarantee 35p/kwh to get anyone interested, much more than renewables cost and much much more than gas. At present gas prices are extremely high, they will come down again but we will still be paying 35p/kwh for the new nuclear.

 

[daleyd]

Ah yes the medium level waste and chemical waste of the reprocessing methods and such. Those are waste too, but its not the kind of waste that makes people worried and gets the most attention. It's energy intensive work for sure, but it's been accounted for so it's not a hidden cost. But it also isn't what most people think about or are worried about, and still in comparison to the amount of power generated...

Certainly the stuff from the first/second generation plants is a hidden cost - it’s absolutely never been factored in to anything, hence the country currently underwrites the cost of dealing with it. The oily waste barrels were simply stored for 30 odd years, until it was deemed they were too dangerous to store any longer without actually dealing with them.

New stations apparently have the decommissioning and waste factored in, but given the massive cost over runs in the build who’s to say what they factored in is anywhere near sufficient, given that we are still dealing with ones that have shut down decades ago?

I’m sorry if that sounds pessimistic and it probably shouldn’t be but I trust the nuclear industry about as much as you seem to trust the renewables sector. (With some first hand experience to back that up)

 

[DennisCA]

Certainly the stuff from the first/second generation plants is a hidden cost - it’s absolutely never been factored in to anything, hence the country currently underwrites the cost of dealing with it. The oily waste barrels were simply stored for 30 odd years, until it was deemed they were too dangerous to store any longer without actually dealing with them.

New stations apparently have the decommissioning and waste factored in, but given the massive cost over runs in the build who’s to say what they factored in is anywhere near sufficient, given that we are still dealing with ones that have shut down decades ago?

I’m sorry if that sounds pessimistic and it probably shouldn’t be but I trust the nuclear industry about as much as you seem to trust the renewables sector. (With some first hand experience to back that up)

Ah, I see we're talking about the real early stuff from the 'cowboy era'. We never had one of those.

 

[minimutly]

Certainly the stuff from the first/second generation plants is a hidden cost - it’s absolutely never been factored in to anything, hence the country currently underwrites the cost of dealing with it. The oily waste barrels were simply stored for 30 odd years, until it was deemed they were too dangerous to store any longer without actually dealing with them.

New stations apparently have the decommissioning and waste factored in, but given the massive cost over runs in the build who’s to say what they factored in is anywhere near sufficient, given that we are still dealing with ones that have shut down decades ago?

I’m sorry if that sounds pessimistic and it probably shouldn’t be but I trust the nuclear industry about as much as you seem to trust the renewables sector. (With some first hand experience to back that up)

I think this about sums up the issue with previously built nuclear. And of course the fact that the cleaning up is a cashcow to be milked slowly, for as long as possible...

 

[daleyd]

Ah, I see we're talking about the real early stuff from the 'cowboy era'. We never had one of those.

And the new stuff that no one has actually got around to decommissioning yet…

 

[DennisCA]

Again, why I think nuclear and energy production in general should be nationalized.

 

[minimutly]

Ah, I see we're talking about the real early stuff from the 'cowboy era'.

Lol at the term "cowboys" for the best brains in the business. Just about sums up this thread. Everyone has an opinion, like you know whats...

 

[DennisCA]

And the new stuff that no one has actually got around to decommissioning yet…

And that's handled as badly you mean as the stuff from the infancy of nuclear power?

 

[daleyd]

I think this about sums up the issue with previously built nuclear. And of course the fact that the cleaning up is a cashcow to be milked slowly, for as long as possible...

I like the fact that people bang on about renewables screwing us over, like no one else ever has/will be doing for the next few hundred years?

 

[daleyd]

And that's handled as badly you mean as the stuff from the infancy of nuclear power?

Hopefully not, but as I said given construction costs soared massively compared to initial estimates I wouldn’t be confident that decommissioning costs won’t go the same way. That will be a bill that my children will need to pick up though, and probably theirs as well…

 

[DennisCA]

Hopefully not, but as I said given construction costs soared massively compared to initial estimates I wouldn’t be confident that decommissioning costs won’t go the same way. That will be a bill that my children will need to pick up though, and probably theirs as well…

That's hardly unique to the nuclear industry, there will be bills to pay for renewables too, both right now and in the future.

 

[slim_boy_fat]

Possibly. What it won't do is generate enough hydrogen to power itself down the road as it takes more energy to split the water that is gained by burning it...

BMW already produced a 7 series powered by hydrogen - not in vast numbers (yet) admittedly but it shows it can be done

CLICK HERE

 

[daleyd]

That's hardly unique to the nuclear industry, there will be bills to pay for renewables too, both right now and in the future.

Decommissioning and reprocessing stuff that lasts many decades is unique to the nuclear industry though

Undoubtedly it applies to other sectors too to varying degrees but nuclear is quite unique in the timescales and complexities involved. For this generation of plants we simply won’t know the true costs until I’m well and truly 6 ft under - for renewables we can pretty much know now what it’s going to cost, and how long. That’s not being pro renewables or anti nuclear, that’s just the way it is.

 

[fizzy]

Luckily I have worked with some projects dealing with some nasty nuclear waste that was left from the 1960/70s and don’t have to rely on public perception, I know the first hand realities of it (spoiler alert, it’s nothing like that Twitter post…)

Trawsfynydd which is near where I live will take another 70 years to fully decommission and it’s already been shut down for 30 years.

Like i said, I’m not anti nuclear, the industry actually pays a fair bit of my wages, but we need to be realistic about its downsides - not rely on pro nuclear Twitter accounts that are about as far from the reality that I see as you can get. That’s as bad as believing the renewables sector…

I love Trawsfyndd - fits into the landscape far better than the amount if wind turbines that would replace it!
I have stayed very close to the site several times. And I am still not glowing in the dark - and people I know living in the village like the place as well. They are hoping to site some SMRs there.

 

[fizzy]

BMW already produced a 7 series powered by hydrogen - not in vast numbers (yet) admittedly but it shows it can be done

CLICK HERE

BP had a hydrogen filling station in London back in the 90s I think.

 

[daleyd]

I love Trawsfyndd - fits into the landscape far better than the amount if wind turbines that would replace it!
I have stayed very close to the site several times. And I am still not glowing in the dark - and people I know living in the village like the place as well. They are hoping to site some SMRs there.

I’ve fished in the lake, but that doesn’t alter anything I’ve said. It’s going to take many decades to complete and will cost stacks of money - there’s more people employed there now (or certainly there was for some time after it was shut down) than when it was a functioning power station.

Of course it’s not going to kill everyone within 5 miles, no one in their right mind thinks that. But that’s not the argument.

 

[DennisCA]

Decommissioning and reprocessing stuff that lasts many decades is unique to the nuclear industry though

Undoubtedly it applies to other sectors too to varying degrees but nuclear is quite unique in the timescales and complexities involved. For this generation of plants we simply won’t know the true costs until I’m well and truly 6 ft under - for renewables we can pretty much know now what it’s going to cost, and how long. That’s not being pro renewables or anti nuclear, that’s just the way it is.

Unique in the sense that they have to deal with it.

There's loads of toxic waste from all sorts of industries that's just as dangerous, through being carcinogenic or poisonous or just plain heavy metal, and there aren't any long term plans like for nuclear how to deal with those thousands of years into the future. The complexities of other waste handling would also increase if put to the same rigorous standards.