'Without Hot Air'

[wookey]

Simon, I've read it too (I even have a paper copy now). You can read the previous threads on the subject here:
http://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4243.0.html and here http://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8814.0.html (and probably should before we repeat _too_ much of them)

Arguing with Martin about nuclear power is a total waste of your and his time - you are not going to change his mind.

The heat-pump issue is that the COP of 4-5 McKay uses is pretty optimistic, whereas most of his other figures are pretty conservative. This annoys a lot of people (like Renewable John). Heat pumps can do 4-5, but only under optimium conditions. UK installations that have been monitored to date get numbers like 2-3 over the year. There is no doubt room for improvement but actually using '5' in calcs really is 'optimisitic' and causes accusations of bias. Having met McKay and heard him speak a couple of times I am quite sure he is genuine, and clearly his main point is fundamental - the numbers (whatever they are) have to add up. But there remains a great deal of dickering to do about exactly what the numbers are and should be.

I do particularly like his suggestion that the way to deal with nimbyism is that every county should be told: choose one: a nuclear power station, 1000 big wind turbines or no electricity.

Hope that helps. I shall refrain from commenting further for now, except to say that whilst I think Martin is a fool on many subjects, his assertion that we need genuine consumption reductions to make ends meet is actually right. There are actually huge efficiency gains waiting to be had in almost all the houses and businesses in the land. Those are probably much cheaper and (more importantly) quicker to make than completely re-engineering our power and transport infrastructure.

[Simon]

Wookey, thanks for the touch of sanity you bring to the debate. I followed a number of your other posts in this forum (particularly on data collection theme) and have always found them informative.

Navitron's sales site do indeed quote a range of CoP for ASHP as 2.5-4 though I can't locate an actual performance graph to see what conditions apply.

What attracts me to MacKay's book ( and yes I have a paper copy as do my son and daughter - poor souls!) is that love him or hate him, you do have the "numbers" to examine and challenge if you feel you better/different "numbers". What many people seem to miss is that he isn't actually proposing any solution just pleading that the numbers must add up. This does seem to be a rational plea to me.

In the mid '90s I chaired a group called the West Wales Technology Forum. Its purpose was to try to get more young people interested in science, engineering and technology. Not too successful in this respect as most meetings attracted an audience of 10-20 middle aged men! However we did fill one lecture theatre to overflowing when we organised a presentation then debate on the proposed use of Orimulsion in Pembroke power station which was then mothballed having been designed for oil. Orimulsion, you may recall, was a pretty grim suspension of a sort of bitumen in water which Venezuela was trying to develop. All in all it was pretty environmentally unfriendly stuff but could be treated and handled such that it behaved much as oil did. You can imagine the public protest that this aroused particularly as Milford Haven is an area of outstanding natural beauty and tankers full of "tar" were not being welcomed with open arms.

However at the same time there was a planning application for several wind turbines on the nearby Preseli hills/mountains. You can also imagine the public outcry at this proposal.

The point of my story is that at this meeting virtually everyone was against everything and each other! While as chairman I had to maintain a neutral stance, in my closing remarks I suggested that when everyone went home that night and reached for a cold beer or milk from their fridge, where did they propose the electricity should come from. I think the view was "...not from here ..."!

As MacKay might have said, it just didn't add up.

As a foot note neither planning applications succeeded. Pembroke power station was demolished though a new gas fired station is under construction to utilised the LNG now being imported via Milford Haven from Qatar.

As a final and I hope amusing anecdote. At the meeting, a lady voiced her objection to the Orimulsion proposal because she said she was against young children being sent down the Venezuelan mines to extract Orimulsion. She had been totally unaware that Orimulsion was actually extracted in much the same was as oil. It was a good example of how people make decisions based on mis-information. Incidentally, I seem to recall she was still against the proposal even when this particular "fact" was corrected.

Oh well, c'est la vie.

Simon

[Ted]

It's possibly not too strange to find that in almost all walks of life people make up their minds about an issue and then find and quote the facts that support their preferred position. If some of those 'facts' turn out to be false then that isn't going to change the person's stance.

[Simon]

It's possibly not too strange to find that in almost all walks of life people make up their minds about an issue and then find and quote the facts that support their preferred position. If some of those 'facts' turn out to be false then that isn't going to change the person's stance.

How true. I guess we are all guilty to a greater or lesser extent. However I hope that at least a proportion of the populace will take on board new/better information. Or perhaps I am being too rational. As a chartered engineer and having worked most of my life in the marine and offshore engineering industry, one could not just ignore or dismiss new ideas/materials/techniques etc. Of course not all new ideas turn out to be superior to the "old" ideas but one had to arrive at this conclusion by some sort of rational analysis.

How I remember the arguments about the most appropriate approach to adopt when determining design wave spectra (heights and frequencies) when designing the towing of large offshore structures around the world. Try Korea to New Zealand or Japan to Brazil and imagine the debate about the risks. Interestingly enough, Lloyds insurance underwriters initiated much of my work because they took a risk-based approach to their insurance offering. I have seen a policy which would have paid out $2.4 billion (yes billion) on a constructive total loss. Rather them than me even though there was no loss or claim, phew!


Simon

[Ancient Brewer]

If the UK commissioned 1 1500MW Nuc every year for the next 20 ............................

But there's the rub.

The UK has no chance of commissioning anywhere near that level.

There isn't enough construction expertise around to build the plants at that rate.

There isn't enough commissioning expertise around to bring plants on-line at that rate.

There isn't enough operating expertise around to run all those plants.

There isn't enough uranium processing capability to produce fuel for all those plants.

There isn't enough uranium mining capacity to produce the raw material for the fuel for those plants.

And....... There isn't enough uranium in the ground to mine to produce the raw material for the fuel for those plants.

Other than that, it's fine.

Ok - fair point in terms of commissioning in the short term but there is no reason why over the next decade this Country could not gear up to a programme commissioning one reactor every 1-3 years.

We have the casting capacity - Forgemasters at Sheffield if given the correct signal could invest in a sufficient sized press to cast the largest reactor vessels.

I accept Construction, commissioning and operational expertise skills need to be expanded / developed and this prohibits any short term expansion of Nuclear. This argument would be the same though whether we are talking 30GW of Nuc, 100GW of Wind, 200GW of solar, or 80GW of wave.....

The lack of fuel argument does not stand up to scrutiny. There has hardly been any uranium prospecting in the last 30 years. 20 years supply of weapons grade material from former USSR stockpiles have surpressed prices. There are numerous sites in Western Australia, Canada, and the USA that could be reactivated. In addition there are huge quantities of tailings that can be processed with new techniques. I am certain the same would be the case for Niger, South Africa, and Kazakstan. They would just account for conventional supplies. There are a number of other potential unconventional sources - power station ash, salt pans and brine for instance. In addition the Japanese have had success extracting uranium from seawater although this is not competitive with current U prices.

There is no obstacle other than the usual regulatory hurdles in any of those Countries if additional uranium milling facilities are needed.

Longer term - breeder reactors increase fuel supply 100 fold. Its only the low price of Uranium that have resulted in limited development

In the meantime the quickest returns are with efficiency and modular renewables - no argument there. But renewables in a small Country with 60 million plus will never scale up to a third of our needs let alone 100%

[desperate]

Just finished reading it, I thought it an excellent well argued review of most of the options available to us, ok a few numbers were I thought a bit suspect, but overall it is spot on.
My main conclusion after reading it was that the main obsticle to the massive task ahead is us, which ever combination of technolgies"someone" chooses will cause the general public to go ballistic, I think we urgently need to educate the masses as to the scale of the task ahead, if the public dont understand this pretty damn quick, we may as well book up that flight to some tropical beach and enjoy it while we can.

Desperate

[Flamethrower_]

Desperate,

To be honest I think that most people are thinking just that!

There is a sense of either denial it wont happen to me !

Or we are all toast! lets just enjoy it while we can (Volcanic dust permitting)

Hey Ho! into the abyss!

[billi]

.... Sure time is scares , and because of that i always wonder , why we "developed countries " are not able to play a "Master" role to develop ideas to push the world into  the right direction .

Surely the globe will have more problems , like they are created already ,by just thinking in Nationalistic brains

I understand each country wants to save his tradition and nature , but please not with blind eyes

We all accept now , we should share a car with our neighbours = share one car for 4 people instead of 4 cars for 4 persons

Same with power ideas , thats why i like Europe



Billi

[desperate]

Hear hear billi, and Mr Flamethrower,

I think it is high time that we have to grow up and start behaving like responsible Earthlings and accept that we are all in this together, and come up with a truly global strategy for dealing with the many problems we face.

Contrary to some of the opinion around, I truly believe it is extremely dangerous to think we, or any other country can go it alone and build an energy infrastructure that satisfies our needs but ignores our neighbours. All this would acheive is a War against us by those desperate to purloin our resources, even if we had enough energy and food to look after our own population, we certainly wouldnt have any kind of security in a "Mel Gibson" type of post apocalyptic world.

Even if we could repel the hungry invaders it aint the kind of world I would want to take part in.

The number one message I take from "Without Hot Air" is that to make a truly sustainable energy source the plants needed are on a Country size  scale in the UK and indeed in Northern Europe. So we face 2 choices, either we could try and make Nuclear work which means in effect Fast Breeder Reactors a pretty untried technology with almost no track record, or a large scale programme of Desert based CSP and HVDC distribution, all of which uses tried and tested technology and could be started without any research needed.

Solar CSP has the advantage that if done on a global scale it would help to avoid setting any single country in a fortress of plenty open to attack by those without enough to cover their needs. We know how destructive inequality is in the UK, lets not make it any worse than it is already.

Desperate

 

[onetoremember]

What always amazes me is the number of people who seem to be labouring under the complete delusion that "nukes" are the "cavalry" needed to save us from all our problems - even it's proponents will admit that the most it could ever give is under 10% of our needs, so far in the future that any real supply problems will have already kicked in, and then only for a very few decades before it "runs out" - chuck in a few realities, like the extreme cost, that the sea will be lapping around many of the proposed sites, that they're perfect targets in an increasingly unstable world by whoever wants to "do terrorism"- "sensible" nuclear generation is a myth, only propounded by those directly funded by, or those hoodwinked by the incredibly strong, powerful, well-connected and funded nuclear industry!
It's SO simple, just cut needs by the 10% that nukes might give us sometime in the future, then spend the savings on REAL renewables!

I think you have a good point but I believe there are some other areas to add. Electricity generation is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gasses because of the burning of coal. Nukes in the UK are more than 20% electricity and were higher in the past. The move to carbon free electricity from nukes makes a huge difference by replacing coal - gas generation will still be in operation with some new plants coming on this year. The next step is to de-carbonise other uses of energy  - cars through EVs and home heating through heat pumps, etc. So looking at today's energy usage may not give us a complete picture of what the future will look like.

But the cost and time to build is a big problem.

[Simon]

....................

I think you have a good point but I believe there are some other areas to add. Electricity generation is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gasses because of the burning of coal. Nukes in the UK are more than 20% electricity and were higher in the past. The move to carbon free electricity from nukes makes a huge difference by replacing coal - gas generation will still be in operation with some new plants coming on this year. The next step is to de-carbonise other uses of energy  - cars through EVs and home heating through heat pumps, etc. So looking at today's energy usage may not give us a complete picture of what the future will look like.

But the cost and time to build is a big problem.

Oops, finger trouble, I might have posted part msg - can't get used to this netbook:(
You have picked up on an old thread so I assume you have read the whole thread. McKay's book is a refreshing look at what each of the technologies mean. Not everyone agrees with his numbers but it is up to you to supply better/more up to date/different numbers if you feel justified. At least you can put things into perspective.
Notwithstanding Fukushima (early '60s design), I am still convinced that we are forced down the nuclear route in the medium term but be prepared to be shouted at if you subscribe to this view:(

Off topic but it is ironic that this government have just stopped the £42million renewables funding which will delay even further its development. There is an exciting tidal energy project here in West Wales that is taking forever to get started, could build a nuclear station in the same time!
See www.tidalenergyltd.com

Simon

[rt29781]

In Japan when reactor 3 exploded most probably due to a "prompt nuclear explosion" in a used fuel rod container, radioactive material was ejected across the world. This was said to be a previously "impossible" reaction, but it managed to go bang with explosive force propelling uranium and plutonium particles into the air and firing fuel rods 2 miles from the site. So much so that the Uranium has reached the east coast of the USA  (http://vimeo.com/22865967).

The point is that nuclear technology is very dangerous and uncontrollable because people are involved in running the power stations. The new nuclear saviour of Thorium salts is just as bad as current nuclear power stations. The Chemistry of Thorium Hexafluoride has so far defeated any attempt to stop it corroding the reactors so no Thorium reactors have been used long term. These reactors came from Russian nuclear submarine technology. Several countries are researching Thorium reactors but no-one has a stable technology. Google "Thorium reactors and corrosion" Quote "According to Dr. Norris, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory prototype LFTR showed some signs of corrosion after four years' operation. Hence this would be a technical challenge that needs to be addressed if LFTRs are to be constructed and have an expected 50-year operational lifetime."

Don't forget that the Fukushima plant was 40 years old, that is when things go wrong.......

Renewable energy is safe and clean and cost effective when compared to the total cost to the planet of oil, nuclear and coal.

[billi]

At least you can put things into perspective.
Notwithstanding Fukushima (early '60s design), I am still convinced that we are forced down the nuclear route in the medium term but be prepared to be shouted at if you subscribe to this view:(

So they seem to let them run as long as they fall apart .... and we pay their profit  the longer they are allowed to run and pay for their risk   and and have to pay in case of an accident  , beside the rubbish collection that we have to sort out as well   

[rt29781]

I have worked on Chemical plants for 30 years.  Accidents happen especially in older plants.  The issues occur when the technical staff move on to other things.  Ageing nuclear reactors are an accident waiting to happen.  Once the techies leave things go pear shaped.  No amount of planning will change this behaviour, it is driven by fiscal expediency and as Billi points out they are run into the ground.  The same issues blew up the fertiliser factory near Toulouse (it wrecked a brand new Ikea store just before it opened).  It is thought the accident was caused by unskilled staff putting the wrong chemical into a hopper and that caused a minor explosion that then detonated a lot of ammonium nitrate fertiliser.  None of the plant was left standing and the surrounding area was flattened.

At Fukishima it seems that a hydrogen explosion detonated and that pused lots of fuel rods together that then caused a "prompt nuclear explosion" and the spectacular explosion shot fuel rods over 2 miles.  As far as I can ascertain no-one had predicted that sequence of events could happen.....

[wookey]

rt can you point to some scientific details on that? Your post is the first I have heard of it being more than a hydrogen explosion blowing the roof off, or of fuel rods being ejected (presumably from the storage ponds, not the reactors,  as they remained essentially intact)