The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

[ElwoodBlues1]

How long to build their first ?

Built in 1984, connected to grid in 1991...

[dodge]

No idea about the worthiness of sources, but a couple of things that a reportedly happening in China:

- China intends to build 150 new nuclear reactors between 2020 and 2035, with 27 currently under construction and the average construction timeline for each reactor about seven years, far faster than for most other nations
- China is building ‘300 wind and solar’ sites for every nuclear power plant
- China installed a record 293 gigawatts (GW) of wind and solar in 2023 – pushing its total capacity to 1,050GW, according to a new report
- In 2022, China installed roughly as much solar capacity as the rest of the world combined, then doubled additional solar in 2023.
- 2022 Electricity generation was 63% coal, 14% Hydro, 9% Wind, 5% nuclear, 5% Solar, 4%Gas & Bio

Yet is still about 70% coal - partly due to not using all the renewable energy generated.

I stress that I have not tried verifying this info - it seems interesting, don't really know its significance!

[DJC]

Built in 1984, connected to grid in 1991...

Construction of the first 330 MW Qinshan reactor, known as the "Glory of China", commenced in 1983, the foundations were poured in 1985, it was connected to the grid in 1991 and commercial operation began in 1994.

The other reactors built at Qinshan have taken four to seven years from foundations poured to commercial operation.

Of course, the Chinese focused all of their energy and resources on one reactor.  How are we going to build seven simultaneously?

[DJC]

The Trawsfynydd Nuclear Power Station was commissioned in 1965 and decommissioned in 1991.  It can’t be demolished because of the radioactivity. It has been inactive but maintained for the last 33 years after operating for just 26 years.

Yes, Trawsfynydd is old technology but, despite the nuclear boosters’ claims, not much has changed.  Modular reactors are still a concept that hasn’t been put into practice … and that includes the two Russian reactors using repurposed ship power plants.

[LP]

The Trawsfynydd Nuclear Power Station was commissioned in 1965 and decommissioned in 1991.

Isn't that the Welsh site they are now planning to recommission with twin SMRs, a project considered critical to the UK meeting it's carbon emission reduction targets?

Don't mention the war!

[DJC]

Isn't that the Welsh site they are now planning to recommission with twin SMRs, a project considered critical to the UK meeting it's carbon emission reduction targets?

Don't mention the war!

Like many announcements made by Boris Johnson, his statement that his Government was looking to build a single SMR at Trawsfynydd was kyboshed by the Sunak Government because the site is too small.

The 100 year decommissioning process is continuing … and that’s one of the reasons power companies like AGL will not invest in new nuclear power plants.

[LP]

Like many announcements made by Boris Johnson, his statement that his Government was looking to build a single SMR at Trawsfynydd was kyboshed by the Sunak Government because the site is too small.

The 100 year decommissioning process is continuing … and that’s one of the reasons power companies like AGL will not invest in new nuclear power plants.

Not sure where you get that info, very odd claims, one group claiming the site is too contaminated to work on, while the other says it can be rebuilt within 5 - 7 years. Despite what you've read, the UK, Germany, and several other major players now see nuclear as the only hope of approaching anywhere near the carbon reduction targets in time and in a sustainable fashion.

I hope you're not putting too much stock in reports from the likes of AGL, you do know the "G" in AGL stands for "Gas"?

Big Coal and Gas have placed a bet, they are betting SolarPV and other renewable alternatives are going to fail to meet demand and reductions targets in the short to medium term. It'll get even worse if subsidies are removed due to economic pressures. The media report closures and decommissioning of traditional generation like coal and gas, when in reality it's actually being mothballed. It won't take much of an energy crisis over winter or summer for the politicians to beg those suppliers for energy at any price. Good news for your superannuation fund, bad news for the planet.

[DJC]

Not sure where you get that info, very odd claims, one group claiming the site is too contaminated to work on, while the other says it can be rebuilt within 5 - 7 years. Despite what you've read, the UK, Germany, and several other major players now see nuclear as the only hope of approaching anywhere near the carbon reduction targets in time and in a sustainable fashion.

I hope you're not putting too much stock in reports from the likes of AGL, you do know the "G" in AGL stands for "Gas"?

Big Coal and Gas have placed a bet, they are betting SolarPV and other renewable alternatives are going to fail to meet demand and reductions targets in the short to medium term. It'll get even worse if subsidies are removed due to economic pressures. The media report closures and decommissioning of traditional generation like coal and gas, when in reality it's actually being mothballed. It won't take much of an energy crisis over winter or summer for the politicians to beg those suppliers for energy at any price. Good news for your superannuation fund, bad news for the planet.

You need to keep up LP.  The Sunak Government's decision to back away from Boris's announcement caused consternation among Welsh politicians who were hoping that Trawsfynydd could be revived.  Sunak still intends to build SMRs, but not at that location, and that means that Magnox will continue the decommissioning works at Trawsfynydd. They are hoping to have the site returned to its pre-nuclear state in the 2080s with the major obstacle being the reactor cores that are too radioactive and will continue to be so for many decades to come.

UK Labour is committed to nuclear power (and nuclear weapons) and supports the construction of SMRs.

Germany shut down its last three nuclear power plants in April 2023.  While it's possible that those reactors could be re-started, the government has made it clear that is not an option.  Of course, some of the opposition parties hold different views, but they are unlikely to win government in the foreseeable future.

Nuclear power is certainly part of the future energy mix for those countries where it is an established industry.  It's simply too late and too expensive to be a viable option for our future energy needs unless fusion becomes a realistic proposition.

[LP]

Nuclear power is certainly part of the future energy mix for those countries where it is an established industry.  It's simply too late and too expensive to be a viable option for our future energy needs unless fusion becomes a realistic proposition.

So writing "unless fusion becomes a realistic proposition" suggests you're happy with a technology that will cost at least an order of magnitude more than fission, because you wrote "too expensive" for fission and "too late", so did you mean "too dangerous"?

Fusion will be more expensive and much much later but it's OK as a realistic proposition, the logic seems inconsistent?

[Thryleon]

Not sure the cost benefit analysis is right here either.  Nuclear power may be expensive to build, but once built, it only requires maintenance (and fuel).  The renewables are not a similar level of one and done by contrast.  They all degrade over time, and with their degradation their ability to produce power does too but in Nuclears case, the power generation component is only impacted when the site needs to be closed for maintenance.

I have a few issues with Nuclear.  Effectively it fails the would I want one near me test and does have problems I would like to see overcome from a waste perspective.  Solar, and turbines are less of an issue in that regard although I really dislike seeing a bunch of windmills everywhere littered across the landscape and I do get concerned about the disposal and replacement timelines.  I would prefer to get the worst case scenario out of these and how they are going to perform rather than the best.

All that being said, not really sure why we are hell bent in turning off stuff we have been using to generate power for a long time.  There seems to be this big bang to make everyone move off the dirty old power generation (early) because of the climate emergency and whilst I agree we need to do things to rectify it, there has been action taken for quite some time already to improve these things and whilst we shouldnt be complacent, I wonder how we measure our ability to put the breaks on things and question how you quantify what the last 20 to 30 years of technological advancement has achieved to right some historic wrongs and how we can quantify whether or not it has made a big enough difference.  The old tech that was way more terrible for the environment producing lots of CFC's etc, than the current appliances and stuff we use.  I sometimes wonder why we dont focus more on the cheap one time use throw away items that are filling our land fill quicker than ever before rather than the old mantra of buying something and using it for a longer period of time too.  we pollute differently but just as badly in some ways in that regard.