Turn on thread page Beta

Nuclear Power: Accelerate or Blackouts? watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex p)
    no, he said electricity - im geussing if there are reserves of fuel that can generate electricity for longer than stated then my point would be correct? or are you just a daft little troll?
    Well I think you miss an important part of the generation story here. You need something to convert the fuel into electricity - it's called a power station. Thanks to safety rules and european legislation we will be closing many of our nuclear and coal stations by 2016.

    Fools rush in where angels fear to tread and all that...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJ99)
    He works in the British Energy offices in East Kilbride which specialises in nuclear power.
    He's also an 18 year old kid so forgive me for not being in awe of everything he says.

    What does he do? Make the tea?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    He's also an 18 year old kid so forgive me for not being in awe of everything he says.

    What does he do? Make the tea?
    Fair enough, but he is right in this case.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Immortalis)
    Wow, you had to point out he said electricity "But he didn't say we would run out of hydrocarbons" implies he said something else, which is electricity, you are really observant.

    I implied that the amount of hydrocarbons left fluctuates, no need to point it out to me. I stated there are lots of unfound ones, bound to be found, so thanks for pointing it out. I said somewhere abouting reducing CO2 and hydrocarbon usage, which anyone but a numpty would know would increase the amount of time we have those reserves of hydrocarbons currently left.

    Try quintupling your guess, otherwise it fails as much as your ability to copy what people say and then replying to them, then putting it in your own words, without CaPiTaL lEtTeRs, and spelling mistakes with a big hint of grammatical error.

    By the way, the "status" is about the quality of posts, and what other people think of them, not about the sheer number of spam you have amassed.

    Go away? Metaphorically, physically, spiritually, emtionally, sympathetically. This isn't your site, I have just as much right to be here as you, I live in my home town "born and raised", I'm not a sprite, I don't attach myself to commonplace flamers, and I actually agreed with you, but only a "numpty" wouldn't have been able to see it.

    You're patheic, I could add some slander, and probably have the best "anti-troll" post for a few weeks, but I think people deserve respect, by the way, well worded post. :P

    (In case you didn't get it, I posted before that a smiley = sarcasm)

    P.S: Fusion may be a few years away if they can harness the power of coliders. :P

    i am observent. i can also observe that you seem to be some form of power freak nerd who knows very little and is blatantly a little troll. the fact that you tried to neg rep me saying that shows what a weird control frek you are. and if my point isnt correct then you posted for no reason, which infact proves my point again.

    are you honestly retarded.
    0 New Member
    25 Junior Member
    75 Full Member
    150 Respected Member
    250 Exalted Member
    400 Adored and Respected Member
    600 Benevolent Member
    900 Exalted and Worshipped Member
    1400 Peer Of The TSR Realm
    2000 Overlord in Training
    3500 Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
    5000 TSR Demigod
    7500 TSR Idol
    10000 TSR Legend
    15000 TSR Royalty
    25000 TSR Deity
    50000 Agoraphobic
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/faq....age#faq_status

    if you don't know what youre on about then dont bother whining about it like a little know it all.

    the reputation shows peoples views on your posts. (fyi, your lack of reputation means you made no difference to my count, try learning how that system works aswell numpty).

    no you dont, if you dont have anything valid to contribute then you can go away. all of your talk has been wrong as proved in this one sentance, but then youll probably come out with some whiney rubbish troll rubbish again about how im wrong.

    if i were a troll i would have alot of warnings, or no valid posts, or low rep. 2 of those 3 characteristics being filled by you, interesting. (incase you dont know, its sarcasm, its not interesting, youre just some little nerd with no social life clearly in need of finding something than being awful at maths and trolling)

    ps: fusion has been used before, its not a few years away. are you really that pathetic you dont know that?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Fair enough, but he is right in this case.
    Maybe he is. But I'd like him to put some meat on the bone rather than just make raw declarations stated as fact.

    How about some numbers to support the claim? For example:

    How many GW is the UK using at present?
    What capacity are we running at?
    Where is it coming from - % nuke?, % oil/gas? % renewables? etc
    What's going to change by 2017? - ie: what is the projected increase in consumption? What existing capacity is being decomissioned? What's being replaced etc?

    I work in the Energy Sector myself so I'd like a more informed discussion.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Well I think you miss an important part of the generation story here. You need something to convert the fuel into electricity - it's called a power station. Thanks to safety rules and european legislation we will be closing many of our nuclear and coal stations by 2016.

    Fools rush in where angels fear to tread and all that...
    ive tried to find any references to this but having searched for changes to acts in 2016 and health and saftey of power plants ive managed to find nothing. has you any links to this to read up on?

    the thing im most curious about is that if health and saftey regs change, pre-existing things generally arent effected - e.g cars built before a certain year dont have to have seat belts etc. its interesting that changes could effect plants effected before changes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex p)
    ive tried to find any references to this but having searched for changes to acts in 2016 and health and saftey of power plants ive managed to find nothing. has you any links to this to read up on?

    the thing im most curious about is that if health and saftey regs change, pre-existing things generally arent effected - e.g cars built before a certain year dont have to have seat belts etc. its interesting that changes could effect plants effected before changes.
    Cars and power plants are different beasts. Environmental legislation on emmissions and such like from power plants are an ongoing reality which mean that they are continually updated throughout their working life spans.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Cars and power plants are different beasts. Environmental legislation on emmissions and such like from power plants are an ongoing reality which mean that they are continually updated throughout their working life spans.
    and ongoing in anything, not just power plants, yet total shut down of certain things is very rare. its in noones interests to close down half a countries power suppliers, or even the continents if the regs are eu, are there any plans for this listed?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They should invest more in Nuclear Fission of Thorium. A lot safer and difficult to make bombs out of the waste.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex p)
    ive tried to find any references to this but having searched for changes to acts in 2016 and health and saftey of power plants ive managed to find nothing. has you any links to this to read up on?

    the thing im most curious about is that if health and saftey regs change, pre-existing things generally arent effected - e.g cars built before a certain year dont have to have seat belts etc. its interesting that changes could effect plants effected before changes.
    I'm talking about the NI licencing for nukes ie the NI aren't going to licence plant operation beyond set decomissioning times because of safety issues. The NI are wanting to update their safety rules to be representative of modern nukes.

    For coal I am talking about the Large Combustion Plant Directive. This is EU law. It uniquely affects Britain because our coal plant is so old and it just isn't commercially viable to relife it with emissions control technology in many cases.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    He's also an 18 year old kid so forgive me for not being in awe of everything he says.

    What does he do? Make the tea?
    No from what he has been telling me he goes through a lot of the test and safety reports making sure all the stations meet all their requirements. He was alos involed in recent test to see whether a laser could trigger a nuclear fusion reaction.

    Also you should remember that while only being 18 he works with a team of Phd nuclear scientists and thus has direct access to some of the most qualified people in the world when it comes to nuclear power.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Maybe he is. But I'd like him to put some meat on the bone rather than just make raw declarations stated as fact.

    How about some numbers to support the claim? For example:
    Okay here goes, this is based on publicly available info:

    How many GW is the UK using at present?
    About 60 GW peak.

    What capacity are we running at?
    About 76 GW. This may look like we're okay, but we need this overcapacity to cope with the fact that not all of it will be available at any one time. Also this over capacity is needed in a commercial system to allow for profit making. There is a need for an increased margin in the future brought about by the increased amount of renewables on the system.

    Where is it coming from - % nuke?, % oil/gas? % renewables? etc
    About 20% nukes, 33% coal, 39% Gas (CCGT), 5% Oil and the rest a combination of renewables and small-scale generation.

    What's going to change by 2017? - ie: what is the projected increase in consumption? What existing capacity is being decomissioned? What's being replaced etc?
    There will be about a 10% increase in consumption by 2017 or so. We will be decomissioning over 23 GW of capacity. This includes all our oil, about 50% of our nukes and about 1/3 of our coal. It looks like we will be replacing nukes, but the timescale is too short to have complete replacement of the fleet be 2017. There is currently no movement on new coal. There are a small number of gas projects underway. Also we will be increasing the amount of wind on the grid although it is unclear how much of this will be on by 2017.

    In essence if we don't get a move on then we will be stuck with a system that is overreliant on gas and possibly OCGT, which is quite inefficient. That is if we build a large amount of gas plant in short order. We will also have a system that may not have enough capacity at the right times (too much renewable energy in the mix to be covered by thermal plant). To add to this we have a number of other issues that complicate matters. Wind intermittancy is one of them - this will require more flexible thermal plant that operates on lower load factors - we need to be building this and we need to find the money now (i.e. put up bills). We have grid constraint issues (for example most of our new wind will be in Scotland - we can only transfer 2 GW from Scotland to England at present) and we have demand side issues too these include increased use of electric vehicles and the possibility that demand-side management tools will be sold on the basis that they only buy power when it is cheap, which could, if enough are installed, cause a large increase in the steepness of the demand profile and the number of peaks.

    You see the problem is not just a genuine shortfall (which there will be unless we build about 30 GW of generation in the next 5 years but about having the right generation mix with the right grid that can cope with the demand profile. Challenging times ahead.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think I have 30 questions to answer this morning.

    Nuclear power represents 14% of the UK generation capacity. And the stations run continuously unless they are shut down for repairs.

    Coal fire and gas for instance run intermittently. Moreover Wind power (and other renewables) suffers peaks and lows in generation capacity so you require an alternative that runs in conjunction which would be Nuclear, Coal, Gas...

    To try and alleviate the effects of an energy shortage and give more breathing space for the construction of new stations, we have has life extensions on 5 of the stations; allowing them to operate for a further 10 years or so.

    By 2017 without the extensions, 5 stations will have been decommissioned. But only 2 will be decommissioned by this date. However in order to operate the remaining stations through the life extensions there load has to be reduced meaning less generation.

    And it will take until 2025 to even remotely reach the amount of electricity currently produced by Nuclear Power. And the previous statements on supply and demand highlight the need for new supplies.


    In answer to the using of coal, gas and oil to power stations, the UK is committed to reducing its amount of CO2 and Nuclear is the only alternative that can offer CO2 less energy production while providing electrical output equivalent to some of the coal and gas stations.

    In answer to my age and knowledge, I do work in the industry as a temporary engineer to gain experience and I do a lot of work on that stations and some of my work relates to the life extensions of the nuclear stations. I was lucky enough to be at the heart of the discussions for the building of new stations, the extensions of the old and the predications of energy supply issues.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goudinator)
    In answer to the using of coal, gas and oil to power stations, the UK is committed to reducing its amount of CO2 and Nuclear is the only alternative that can offer CO2 less energy production while providing electrical output equivalent to some of the coal and gas stations.
    I think the carbon credentials of Nuclear are entirely dependent on where you put your boundary conditions on the footprint calculations. It is widely accepted that claiming that Nuclear is carbon free is a bit of a fib.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Okay here goes, this is based on publicly available info:



    About 60 GW peak.



    About 76 GW. This may look like we're okay, but we need this overcapacity to cope with the fact that not all of it will be available at any one time. Also this over capacity is needed in a commercial system to allow for profit making. There is a need for an increased margin in the future brought about by the increased amount of renewables on the system.



    About 20% nukes, 33% coal, 39% Gas (CCGT), 5% Oil and the rest a combination of renewables and small-scale generation.



    There will be about a 10% increase in consumption by 2017 or so. We will be decomissioning over 23 GW of capacity. This includes all our oil, about 50% of our nukes and about 1/3 of our coal. It looks like we will be replacing nukes, but the timescale is too short to have complete replacement of the fleet be 2017. There is currently no movement on new coal. There are a small number of gas projects underway. Also we will be increasing the amount of wind on the grid although it is unclear how much of this will be on by 2017.

    In essence if we don't get a move on then we will be stuck with a system that is overreliant on gas and possibly OCGT, which is quite inefficient. That is if we build a large amount of gas plant in short order. We will also have a system that may not have enough capacity at the right times (too much renewable energy in the mix to be covered by thermal plant). To add to this we have a number of other issues that complicate matters. Wind intermittancy is one of them - this will require more flexible thermal plant that operates on lower load factors - we need to be building this and we need to find the money now (i.e. put up bills). We have grid constraint issues (for example most of our new wind will be in Scotland - we can only transfer 2 GW from Scotland to England at present) and we have demand side issues too these include increased use of electric vehicles and the possibility that demand-side management tools will be sold on the basis that they only buy power when it is cheap, which could, if enough are installed, cause a large increase in the steepness of the demand profile and the number of peaks.

    You see the problem is not just a genuine shortfall (which there will be unless we build about 30 GW of generation in the next 5 years but about having the right generation mix with the right grid that can cope with the demand profile. Challenging times ahead.
    Good information.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Good information.
    These are rough numbers so there is probably a significant amount of variability in what is reported publically.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    I think the carbon credentials of Nuclear are entirely dependent on where you put your boundary conditions on the footprint calculations. It is widely accepted that claiming that Nuclear is carbon free is a bit of a fib.
    It is a carbon free method of generating electricity, although everything has a carbon footprint. Even wind farms and tidal power. So continuing the point you raised in the last statement; nothing is carbon free.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goudinator)
    It is a carbon free method of generating electricity, although everything has a carbon footprint. Even wind farms and tidal power. So continuing the point you raised in the last statement; nothing is carbon free.
    Absolutely, nothing is carbon free. However, the fuel for wind and tidal is carbon free, the fuel for nukes isn't.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex p)
    i am observent. i can also observe that you seem to be some form of power freak nerd who knows very little and is blatantly a little troll. the fact that you tried to neg rep me saying that shows what a weird control frek you are. and if my point isnt correct then you posted for no reason, which infact proves my point again.

    are you honestly retarded.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/faq....age#faq_status

    if you don't know what youre on about then dont bother whining about it like a little know it all.

    the reputation shows peoples views on your posts. (fyi, your lack of reputation means you made no difference to my count, try learning how that system works aswell numpty).

    no you dont, if you dont have anything valid to contribute then you can go away. all of your talk has been wrong as proved in this one sentance, but then youll probably come out with some whiney rubbish troll rubbish again about how im wrong.

    if i were a troll i would have alot of warnings, or no valid posts, or low rep. 2 of those 3 characteristics being filled by you, interesting. (incase you dont know, its sarcasm, its not interesting, youre just some little nerd with no social life clearly in need of finding something than being awful at maths and trolling)

    ps: fusion has been used before, its not a few years away. are you really that pathetic you dont know that?
    TL:DR most of it, obviously you're the troll here, and I didn't say fusion hasn't been done, we have yet to use it in power stations so we havn't used it before in the sense I was talking about. And thank you for confirming what I said about status, go on google type: define:status and stop being a pathetic excuse for a student, if you're a teacher, wow no wonder your students are failing.

    And a nerd with no social life, "LOL" go look in a mirror, then hopefully you realise you need emotional supprot form your bad childhood experiences, if you need anymore help google it please, for your sake, and because my pity for you is growing more than my social life.

    And by the way Alex Pbrain (I made a funny, NOT) how would I be bad at math if I am recognised as gifted and talented (no your momma jokes here) and got an A ?



    Renewable energy sources such as a solar panel in space with a direct link to earth would mean ~24/7 power from it, people are trying to modify an infrared beam (unlike lasers they can't destroy things) which can be converted back into energy, it looks promising albeit a way off. Nuclear, aslong as it doesn't give us cancer or blow is up should be fine?
    Offline

    13
    I'm no expert on nuclear power, but I've heard it takes about 10 years for one to actually start providing energy, and we'll be short on energy before 10 years - so we're lagging a bit behind if nuclear is the way we want to go.

    I think I also read that France seems to love nuclear power, they use it a lot more than we do.

    But hopefully the Americans will continue to advance their nuclear fusion technology and that will be available instead.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 22, 2010
The home of Results and Clearing

3,104

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.