CND - Nuclear Power

[eFestivals]

Possible but I still think both Hinkley Point (EDF) and Wylfa will go ahead. Hitachi and General Electric are still mad keen even if rivals have got cold feet.

given what EDF have already spent on the new Hinkley site, I think it's guaranteed it'll go ahead. I really wouldn't be surprised to find that there's already a contractual agreement with the govt over price support, even tho both sides claims there isn't.

Hinkley will cost at least £100Bn in price support. A bargain if ever there was one.

[philipsteak]

In the real world as things stand there's little alternative.

What you've missed from your thinking tho is wave power, that's where the big future's at - for the UK, at least.

But there's also so many wasted opportunities. For example, our rivers are barely used (and re-used, and re-used, almost ad-infinitum) at all. There's too much focus on large-scale when a lot of small scale can be as effective.

[kaosmark2]

lol ... nukes were getting over £5M a day in the early eighties, and had been govt supported since the very start, are still govt supported today at a far higher rate ... and have you seen what EDF are wanting in guarantees from the govt to go ahead with the new Hinkley point?

Nuke power would never ever have existed without these subsidies. The govt managed to get the taxpayer to go along with them via a promise of almost-free electricity for all in the future, because nuke power would be so cheap (one of the biggest porkies ever told).

Meanwhile, during those eighties when nukes were getting over £5M of subsidy each and every day at the lowest amount, the govt very kindly gave a grant - just one grant - of just £250,000 to fund a five year research project into tidal generation. That was the govt's total investment in natural power during the 80s.

They didn't even follow thru on that. After just one year the grant was revoked ... on the suggestion of the Atomic Energy Authority.

You couldn't make it up!

If natural powers had had just a tenth of the investment in nuke power over all those decades, we'd be self sufficient in genuinely nearly-free energy today.

I wonder why they did that?

[kaosmark2]

Is it though?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/jul/02/hs2-fusion-power

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

I woke up in the night and thought to myself what is there EVERYWHERE in the world?

- Gravity

- the rotation of the earth.

If only we could use this to prodce power. Sorted.

[kaosmark2]

I woke up in the night and thought to myself what is there EVERYWHERE in the world?

- Gravity

- the rotation of the earth.

If only we could use this to prodce power. Sorted.

[TheGayTent]

given what EDF have already spent on the new Hinkley site, I think it's guaranteed it'll go ahead. I really wouldn't be surprised to find that there's already a contractual agreement with the govt over price support, even tho both sides claims there isn't.

Hinkley will cost at least £100Bn in price support. A bargain if ever there was one.

[eFestivals]

New Zealand uses mostly hydro power (about 75% I think, might be higher), but that has it's own problems. There's the environmental impact on the river, and during the 5 years I was there, there were 2 summers when there were genuine worries that power might have to be restricted. One year got very close. And NZ can get a hell of a lot of rain. One place I lived got about 5 metres a year. I didn't live there very long

There's plenty of hydro-power generated in the UK, but nowhere near that much.

I'm not suggesting that it's anything like a whole solution, and i'm not suggesting that we should be damming more rivers than those that are already dammed.

I'm saying that there's plenty of scope for small generation from our rivers, in (as an easy way of putting it) the old water-wheel style. The output would be low and the installation cost comparatively high, but there is economically-viable 'free' power there to be tapped.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

There's plenty of hydro-power generated in the UK, but nowhere near that much.

I'm not suggesting that it's anything like a whole solution, and i'm not suggesting that we should be damming more rivers than those that are already dammed.

I'm saying that there's plenty of scope for small generation from our rivers, in (as an easy way of putting it) the old water-wheel style. The output would be low and the installation cost comparatively high, but there is economically-viable 'free' power there to be tapped.

[eFestivals]

There is a scheme near me http://www.stockport-hydro.co.uk/ At the end of the day the total cost will be nearly 3/4 million quid for powering 60 or so houses. Mind you that's around 12k per household and given that the lifespan of the project is 40+ years that is not a bad investment (if you have it). However how many small scale projects can our waterways sustain?

As that gets to prove, it's financially viable.

I've no idea how many would work, but just as an example, I'm aware of three weirs nearby to me which could easily support some generation kit.

[kaosmark2]

The cost vs efficiency argument is said a lot and I always find it a strange one because "cost" is largely a fictional concept. I couldn't think of a more growing national emergency than energy security and surely "cost" is the worse reason not to do something. Suppose thats the world we live in now though.

Its simple really, no energy no nothing...

[eFestivals]

We would have to go on an incredibly expensive (both finance and energy consumption) drilling mission in order to access underground heat that could be used for power.

underground heat for directly heating homes/businesses is a viable proposition in many places in the UK tho.

[kaosmark2]

underground heat for directly heating homes/businesses is a viable proposition in many places in the UK tho.