UK:  “More Nuclear, More Oil, More Gas”

News Brief by Kip Hansen – 8 April 2022

“Britain bets on nuclear power in its plan to boost energy independence.  The government said it aimed to fulfill a quarter of the estimated electricity demand in Britain with nuclear power by 2050.” [source NY Times ]

In a sudden burst of rationality:

“The British government revealed on Thursday its plan to increase the country’s energy independence as European nations try to quickly reduce energy imports from Russia over the war in Ukraine.

The cornerstone of Britain’s plan is an increase to nuclear capacity, with goals to deliver up to eight reactors this decade. Under the energy security plan, the country will aim to increase its capacity to 24 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2050, or a quarter of estimated electricity demand. There will also be more oil and gas projects in the North Sea and an expansion of offshore wind and solar power. The government said it wanted to wean Britain off expensive fossil fuels.“

As can be expected, there has been reported pushback from various interest groups.  Some decried lack of stronger measures to insulate homes.

“Others denounced the plan to expand oil and gas projects in the North Sea, even as Britain has ambitious climate-change goals enshrined into law. The government said it would support domestic oil and gas in the “nearer term,” as it hopes to make 95 percent of electricity “low carbon” by 2030.”

The plan calls for more off-shore wind power, but does not encourage on-shore wind which has drawn strong resistance  from citizens.

And then there is this odd statement:  “Replacing gas power with more nuclear power is lower carbon, but nuclear isn’t renewable and it isn’t cheap,” Darren Jones, an opposition Labour Party lawmaker”.  

Both Rolls-Royce and NuScale Power have submitted plans to the government to supply SMRs (small modular reactors) that will supplement the eight large scale reactors called for in the new plan.

Finally, some sensible energy thinking.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

Just when we thought that the UK would commit energy suicide by virtue signaling, they have seemingly been forced by the situation in Eastern Europe to come closer to their senses.

Let’s hear from readers in the UK what the public  there is saying about this plan .

Thanks for reading.

# # # # #

5 24 votes
Article Rating
248 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
April 8, 2022 2:11 pm

What the hell does “renewable” actually mean?

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 8, 2022 2:31 pm

renewable = weather dependent

Truthteller
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 8, 2022 2:47 pm

Renewable means politicians can receive both campaign donations and personnel wealth by providing subsidies to special interests in perpetuity. If they make sense economically, they do not need subsidies. Thus, crooked politicians prefer energy sources that rely on their efforts to be feasible and get their bank accounts renewed every budget cycle.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Truthteller
April 9, 2022 4:35 am

Renewable is spelled ruinable.

Disputin
Reply to  Truthteller
April 9, 2022 11:29 am

“…and personnel wealth…”

That’s slaves, right?

StephenP
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 8, 2022 4:45 pm
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  StephenP
April 8, 2022 8:45 pm

Sweet Baby Jesus!
A rare and welcome glimmer of sanity rears it pretty head.

Well, this is not gonna sit well with the rioter class amongst us.
Cue the protests.
Break out the road glue.
And someone figure out where the dang window smashing hammers are stashed.

StephenP
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 8, 2022 11:06 pm

My feeling is that they only made the statement about nuclear and natural gas because someone has done their sums and they now realise that their dream of nothing but solar and wind wouldn’t come up with the goods.
But of course they would hate to admit it.

Last edited 1 month ago by StephenP
Nick Graves
Reply to  StephenP
April 9, 2022 1:47 am

Bit like otters are fish, according to the Catholic church. But only on Fridays.

Disputin
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 9, 2022 11:33 am

No problem. Pull them out of the road. If their skin gets torn off by their own actions, who cares.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 13, 2022 7:58 am

Yes, I am aware of that Kip.
Regular old nail polish remover does the trick nicely.
Acetone is the main ingredient.
There are some other common solvents that will work, but acetone is the one most people will have handy.
It is also relatively safe, for a VOC that is.

Steve4192
Reply to  StephenP
April 9, 2022 4:14 am

LOL at natural gas as ‘renewable’.

If natural gas is ‘renewable’, then so is coal and oil (and diamonds), given enough time and geologic pressure.

Reply to  StephenP
April 9, 2022 7:08 am

Germany hated it but got overruled.

Why are all the Germanic nations antinuclear?

Why is Germany anti-nuclear? | Odyssey (wordpress.com)

Joao Martins
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 9, 2022 4:07 am

Yes.

By the way: in the EU, the meaning of a word is established by enumerating the things that it encompasses. There is no rationality in this.

I mean: usually, you state that the word “xxxx” corresponds to an abstract concept; then you go and look for the things that fit that deffinition. Normal people do it since at least the Renaissance, many do it since Greco-Roman times if not from earlier.

But not in the UE. In here (I am an European citizen) first they choose the collection of things that THEY think are or should be similar and then they apply to them a word. Depending on the circumstances (a procedure that the best dictionaries that I know call “opportunism”), the collection of things that go under a given word changes, they take out some and include some others…

n.n
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 8, 2022 3:16 pm

Drivers. Sunny. Not sunny. Winds that blow within range. A Green blight and gauntlet.

Bryan A
Reply to  n.n
April 9, 2022 12:03 am

And a whole lotta open pit mining for copper, coal & rare earth minerals … and drilling for gas and oil for petrochemical stocks otherwise you won’t have silicon for Solar Cells, Steel for strong turbine towers or the necessary light weight materials for turbine blades. Nor would you have the lithium, cobalt, nickel, cadmium or manganese needed for batteries that EVs require without unsustainable mining

Allen Stoner
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 8, 2022 3:26 pm

nature provided low density energy that is whimsical but can be useable and beneficial in certain specific situations and locations.

Hydro energy is renewed by natural rains and is highly reliable.

Solar power is renewed every day and is terribly unreliable.

Wind power is renewed by complicated weather and is somewhat reliable, particularly in certain areas.

Biomass…

Solar and wind might make sense in a place far away from any infrastructure that has low enough power needs that they can have back up battery for the periods it does not work.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Allen Stoner
April 8, 2022 5:30 pm

Hydro isn’t always that reliable over a long enough time span. If rain patterns change and runoff is decreased, you end up with an empty reservoir.

Man-made lakes are terribly destructive to the local environment and likely will become useless over a period of time as they trap silt. I know the Oklahoma lakes destroyed countless ancient Native American sites including some belonging to the
Mississippian period cultures (similar to the Spiro Mounds) and others as much (or more) as 8,000 years old.

I love lakes, but they are NOT without impact. I hate wind Turbines and they are not without impact either. Same with Solar. There is no such thing as clean energy no matter what the other side claims.

Dan B
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 8, 2022 9:34 pm

Kip,
Here in NW Montana they just deep sixed the research groups that were studying how to best destroy six dams between Kalispell and Missoula. Perhaps sanity is making a come back!

Derg
Reply to  Dan B
April 9, 2022 2:34 am

Oh good.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 8, 2022 9:01 pm

Solar power is not the same as sunshine.
PV solar power requires rare raw materials and requires processes that are very energy intensive to manufacture.
Fossil fuels fortify a CO2 starved atmosphere and hence invigorate and rejuvenate the entire biosphere.
Methane clathrates in sea floor sediments are likely to renew faster than we will be able to suck them up and burn them.
By the time we get through all the oil and coal and nat gas and shale gas and shale oil, and oil sands, we will still have 10s of thousands of years worth of oil shale.
By then, our original oil wells may have recharged.
In the meantime, we will be getting better at doing and making everything we need to do and make.
Renewable/sustainable…bullcrappable.

The Earth is a big and old place, and there is a lot of stuff under the ground and under the sea.
The planet, the solar system, and entire galaxy and the Universe itself is awash in titanic energies.
We are barely dipping a tin cup into an infinite rushing river.

Derg
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 9, 2022 2:35 am

This ^

Captain Chris
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 9, 2022 3:51 am

Tides are free, twice per day and contain immense energy,

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Captain Chris
April 9, 2022 11:45 am

Please point to an economic analysis detailing installation costs, maintenance costs, expected project life, and actual kilowatt hours produced per year.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 8, 2022 9:11 pm

You know what is really oddly funny?
The same people who rant on about sustainability and too many people on a fragile and resource poor planet, are the same one’s who are frantic about making sure not a single soul should die in the first of many inevitable pandemics.
Meanwhile, they want to bring tens of millions of people who reproduce like rabbits on crack away from the places where they are resource limited, to where they have comparatively unlimited resources handed to them while they expand their numbers exponentially.

Next time anyone finds themselves wondering if the left are too smart or too stupid, work that into the calculus.

Captain Chris
Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 9, 2022 3:50 am

But there are two tides each day!

Duane
Reply to  Allen Stoner
April 8, 2022 7:01 pm

Solar energy is completely reliable… when in the history did the sun ever stop or significantly reduce its solar irradiance? As in never.

Solar is intermittent, of course but that has nothing to do with reliability. The intensity of solar irradiance varies day to day due to length of daytime and sun angle, as well as cloud cover, but the former is 100% predictable and reliable, and the latter is mostly predictable and reliable on a seasonally adjusted basis.

No energy production system or technology is completely reliable and predictable. All systems experience outages or demand that exceeds supply from time to time. The point of a stable system is to have redundancy and excess capacity sufficient to deal with those circumstances when they inevitably arise.

Richard Page
Reply to  Duane
April 9, 2022 3:52 am

Solar energy is, as you rightly point out, completely reliable. However the means of harvesting that power and converting it into electricity is not – it is unreliable, subject to all manner of problems trying to keep it clean; high maintenance, intermittent and inefficient. Solar, on balance, gives an extremely poor return on the initial build cost that utilises non-renewable and mostly non-recyclable materials.

Captain Chris
Reply to  Duane
April 9, 2022 3:52 am

Tides are reliable twice every day!

ATheoK
Reply to  Duane
April 9, 2022 4:26 am

Solar energy is completely reliable…”

Nonsense.
You apparently never actually looked into the mining, smelting, refining processes.
Or tried to identify exactly the steps and costs necessary to ‘recycle’ solar cells.

Solar cells? Solar cells start degrading right after manufacture.
Without specialist recyclers economically disassembling solar cells into their components and smelting and refining them again.

Only, that is not economical. Not as long as large deposits of nearly pure feldspar and silicon dioxide.

Every step of mining, recycling, smelting, refining and manufacture of wind turbines and solar cells are massively reliant upon fossil fuels.

Alleged renewable energy generators are unable to produce consistent high quality utterly reliable energy necessary for all of these industrial processes.

Neither wind or solar energy energy generating technologies generate for long periods of time without maintenance and complete refurbishment. Something that costs more than the original turbines at installation.

None of the solar cell, fiberglass, Kevlar or graphite laminates are recyclable or renewable. They fill physical landfill dumps.

This is before the sheer acreage necessary for the unreliable inconsistent wind or solar facilities are included in the costs.

Alleged environmentalists apparently love destroying thousands upon thousands of square miles of oxygen generating of life supporting ecosystems.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Duane
April 9, 2022 5:49 am

Why does Solar need subsidies if it is so good?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Allen Stoner
April 8, 2022 8:48 pm

If the raw materials for solar panels and wind turbines are renewable, how can uranium and thorium not be as well?
Best dust off the plans for some breeder reactors.
Better’n renewable…the more you use, the more you have.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 8, 2022 11:03 pm

I beleive that breeder reactors are not legal in the US. Some President issued an Executive Order to that effect.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
April 9, 2022 4:17 am

I was not aware.
But the thing about executive orders is, they can be instantly cancelled by one guy at any moment.

Ron Long
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 8, 2022 4:04 pm

“renewable” means it doesn’t work so you have to renew it, ad nauseum.

James
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 8, 2022 4:08 pm

“renewable” means you need to renew the battery every 5 years, which requires more rare earth mining, and more high density (fossil or nuclear) energy to manufacture the new battery.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 8, 2022 4:08 pm

Didn’t Alice ask a similar question in Wonderland. Nowadays, you have to go down the rabbit hole to get away from Wonderland.

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 8, 2022 4:19 pm

nuclear isn’t renewable and it isn’t cheap,”
 …however it is reliable.

Derg
Reply to  Rocketscientist
April 8, 2022 4:23 pm

Cheap is a function of how much government interference we allow.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Derg
April 8, 2022 9:18 pm

Exactly.
The cost of nuclear power plants is mostly due to things that have nothing to do with the materials and the land and construction of the actual devices.
Evidence of the above: France.

Amounts to hard proof.

Davidf
Reply to  Rocketscientist
April 8, 2022 6:34 pm

Not renewable – but effectively inexhaustable

Captain Chris
Reply to  Davidf
April 9, 2022 3:53 am

So are Tides?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Captain Chris
April 9, 2022 11:51 am

At most locations, twice a day. And the volumetric flow rate isn’t constant. You get peak flow 4 times per day. What do you do the rest of the day? By the way, have you calculated how much area a 500 MW (peak) plant might cover? Please get back to us on that.

dk_
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 8, 2022 5:19 pm

Tom H.
“Renewable” is an anti-scientific myth with cultist overtones. “Net Zero” is likewise.

Last edited 1 month ago by dk_
Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  dk_
April 9, 2022 4:39 am

Net zero is a very stupid idea.

Felix
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 8, 2022 6:00 pm

Dob Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek likes to say there are no natural resources, only raw materials which man must turn into usable resources (paraphrased!).

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Felix
April 8, 2022 9:23 pm

I like to say that with the exception of the stuff we have sent on one way trips off the planet into space, every single atom we had on Earth when we learned how to make a wheel, stand up, talk, and control fire…is still right here on the Earth.

If we added up the mass of every tiny bit of material we have ever extracted from the Earth, it is proportionally about the same as a bacteria on a billiard ball.
One of the larger bacteria’s, yes.

I kid you not.
I did the math.

meab
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 8, 2022 10:38 pm

When an atom fissions, the atom is destroyed and typically two atoms of smaller mass takes its place. When two atoms are combined by fusion an atom goes away. We routinely destroy and create atoms of differing mass.

Hydrogen and helium can escape the atmosphere, it has been estimated that enough hydrogen to fill a 1-meter balloon escapes the atmosphere every second.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  meab
April 9, 2022 4:56 am

But in all of the fission and fusion events ever to occur, not one nucleon has ever been lost
But yes, I spoke incorrectly…of course fission and fusion changes the number of atoms…but not the number of nucleons.

As for hydrogen lost, we also have those losses balanced out by a gain of some 40,000 metric tons of dust and meteoric debris every year.
Over 100 tons a day outweighs the balloon full of protons we lose.
Not sure how much solar wind makes it into the atmosphere, but it would not surprise me if far more than a balloon full of hydrogen from the sun rides down the magnetic field lines towards the poles.

After some brief searches, several sources point out that indeed particles including electrons and atomic nuclei from the Sun rain down on the poles. Sometimes they are visible as auroras of course.

Found one source that claims mass loss is 50,000 tons per year from leaking atmosphere. The 40,000 ton yearly gain makes for a net loss of 10k tons per year, but I am skeptical anyone can possibly known either of these numbers better than the roughest of wild ass guesses.
I am also sure the amounts of each vary hugely, with the solar cycle in the case of leaking air, and with occasional large chunks of stuff incoming.

Did not see an estimate of total mass of incoming solar particles at the poles, so who knows.
But light energy captured by photosynthesis will add mass in the form of covalent bonds in glucose and everything the biosphere makes from that. I leave it for an extra credit homework exercise for someone to do the math on the mass of all that captured energy.
Might as well toss in the mass of the energy we are accumulating from the fake ocean heating too I suppose. The Science© dontchaknow.
But I was not talking about any of that…I was pointing out we still have all the crap we have dug up or pumped out of the ground sitting around somewhere.
Admittedly some will be a serious hassle to pick out of the dirt atom by atom, but once we make the right nanobots, that should be a literal mouseclick to accomplish.
Once we build that space elevator, we can bring down all the good stuff we want from the rich hunting grounds of space.
There are asteroids that contain more metal in one chunk than we will ever need.
Although it may be easier or more likely we will have the elevator through to the core first. My plan calls for a Fort Myers to Perth route.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 9, 2022 4:40 am

Quite a few tons of atmosphere are lost every day. Quite a lot, dunno, anyone know?, of solar wind and cosmic dust are added.

Duane
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 8, 2022 6:51 pm

It is of course a nebulous term. For warmunists it means “renewable energy” is continuously supplied in real time from the sun. Stored energy that comes from the sun, in the form of fossil hydrocarbons, and stored energy in the form of the remnants of exploded stars that produced earth’s heavy metals, are supposedly not renewable.

Theoretically, however, all existing energy and matter in the universe are collectively a constant, and are being recycled continuously. Old burned out stars produce super novas that in turn provide the mass and energy contained in the next generation of stars and their planets. Our own sun and solar system are at least a third generation star system.

Practically speaking humans are probably burning hydrocarbon fuels at a rate well exceeding the natural production of such fuels. Which is true, but probably won’t matter, as nuclear fusion and fission are perfectly capable of eventually replacing most of today’s consumption of hydrocarbons.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 8, 2022 7:48 pm

Drill hole
Extract gas
Burn to make electricity
Drill another hole
Repeat
Renewable

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 9, 2022 4:42 am

And hydrocarbon gas continues to form in the Earth. Rates? Dunno.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 9, 2022 3:56 am

Hamlet would exclaim, “That is the question!”

Dozen of times I have argueded, with no success, that burning wood for electricity is not using a renewable source. Simple arithmetics: one burns a tree to produce power. “Renewable” would mean that the same “amount of tree” would be produced in the same time period that amount ou power lasts. Roughly, because there are always some losses (several energy conversions, second law of thermodynamics, you know bwtter about that than I do). If I did the calculations right,

1 tree 40cm diameter and 10 m long = 1.26 m3 wood
Say, oak: aprx. 750 kg/ m3 wood, that tree would weigh 942 kg
Burning wood, 70% efficiency, that yields aprx. 13.122 MJ/kg
On average, each German citizen uses 168.14 GJ/year
This amounts to 12814 trees per German per year.
With a forest density of ca. 500 trees/hectare,
that gives roughly 25 ha of forest consumed per German per year.

Is it possible to grow 25 ha of trees 40 cm in diameter in ONE YEAR for EACH person? NO, that growth would take DECADES to be reached.

That would be how many times the TOTAL (including oceans) area of the Earth? Sorry, I did not extend the calculation thus far…

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 9, 2022 4:35 am

Oil. Being formed in the Earth as we post. 😇

2hotel9
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 9, 2022 6:01 am

“renewable” means coal, gas, oil, hydro and nuclear. It always has to actual, thinking human beings.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 9, 2022 6:50 am

Renewable means never having to say you’re sorry.
They hope.

Slowroll
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 9, 2022 11:05 am

It’s really spelled “random”.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 11, 2022 12:39 am

Inexhaustible.

Mr.
April 8, 2022 2:17 pm

In 15 – 20 years time, I can see Scotland being a location for shooting movies with themes like “Planet Of The Apes”.

Abandoned, disintegrating wind turbines everywhere.

Bob Tisdale(@bobtisdale)
Editor
Reply to  Mr.
April 8, 2022 2:59 pm

Thanks Mr., for the mental image of wind turbines disintegrating and the last few humans on Earth dodging monstrously large airborne blades…some not making it (gory stuff excluded from my mental image). The mutants are those who chose to hide in shacks built from electric vehicles with toxic-chemical-laden solar cells as their roofs.

Regards,
Bob

PS: Hmmm, that would be a fun novel to write, or maybe it would be bette as a short story.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
April 8, 2022 9:27 pm

Don’t forget about the C.H.U.D.s
They eat shack dwellers with their afternoon tea.

Bob Tisdale(@bobtisdale)
Editor
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 9, 2022 9:59 am

Thanks, Nicholas. How could I have overlooked Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers? Thanks again.

Regards,
Bob

Mr.
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 8, 2022 4:21 pm

They’ll need an army of William Wallace reincarnations to clean up the windmills mess, that’s for sure.

Hope there’ll be enough blue face-paint to go around.

Richard Page
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 9, 2022 3:56 am

Denmark might give them a run for their money. Turbine blades have been falling off, prompting calls for a far larger ‘exclusion zone’ around the farms for public safety.

Captain Chris
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 9, 2022 3:59 am

Scotland has one of the largest supplies of free energy in the world? They need to harness the daily tidal power flowing through the Pentland Firth.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Captain Chris
April 9, 2022 11:59 am

You keep banging this drum, I keep asking for details. Here, I’ll take the negative side in this debate. “Nope, totally infeasible. Never going to work.” There, that’s as much of a reply as I need to make. As the affirmative, it’s your responsibility to present your case. No credit if you don’t show your calculations.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 11, 2022 3:38 pm

I suppose it’s one potential saving grace is that it’s predictable. Easily dispatchable is another story.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Mr.
April 8, 2022 9:39 pm

We are gonna need to figure out what to do with the warmistas once this is all over and done with.
Twenty years at hard labor sounds more than fair, even generous, under the circumstances.
We can send them to take apart the turbines using wooden spoons and old cell phone parts.
Then they can take whatever they can carry of the scrap to their wooden rowboats, and paddle down to permanent exile on Antarctica, which of course they assured us will be the only place fit for habitation by then.
We can rename it Irony Eden for them.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 9, 2022 4:44 am

You are too soft. Burn them for heat.

Captain Chris
Reply to  Mr.
April 9, 2022 3:56 am

Why? Go and harness, at scale, the tides passing through the Pentland Firth twicw every day. One of the most powerful forms of free energy on the planet.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Captain Chris
April 9, 2022 12:05 pm

One of the most powerful forms of free energy on the planet.

Free.png
DMacKenzie
April 8, 2022 2:26 pm

Does a nuclear reactor on an offshore platform need a containment dome and years of permitting hassles ?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 8, 2022 2:56 pm

A. Yes. B No.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 8, 2022 6:00 pm

A. Why ? the dome is designed to hold a steam rupture. An underwater bag that inflates could do that if the reactor is offshore.

Speaking of steam explosions, a bit OT but why a containment dome is used ( but have they ever worked?)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonianmag/civil-war-boat-explosion-killed-more-people-titanic-180963008/

Old Man Winter
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 8, 2022 3:11 pm

It would eliminate property taxes but you are still within
territorial boundaries that may require zoning & other permits.
Wouldn’t putting them offshore make them more vulnerable to tsunamis & rogue waves formed in far away places?

Last edited 1 month ago by Old Man Winter
Old Man Winter
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 8, 2022 5:21 pm

I guess I was assuming shallow water where they would be
a problem. If they were in deep water, would they be outside
of territorial waters & possibly avoid some of the red tape?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 8, 2022 9:45 pm

Maybe best if everyone has their own personal Mr. Fusion.
We can make them in any color anyone wants, as long as it is black.
And no one needs to worry…we will make it perfectly legal to transition them to any pronoun one might have a dysphoria for.

davidgmillsatty
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 8, 2022 4:21 pm

Molten Salt Cooled Reactors do not require containment domes since molten salt does not require high pressure to stay liquid like water does. Molten salt can stay liquid till about 1400C without pressurization depending upon the type of salt used.

Nick Graves
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 9, 2022 1:54 am

That is precisely why I am so “whatever” about this latest Politburo announcement – not only do Gov’t have to get out of the way, they have to stay out of the bloody way.

They are incapable of resisting meddling and rotate like a weather vane on a weather front.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 8, 2022 5:35 pm

That depends on what the “dome” is for. If you are trying to protect the reactor from external damage, you still want a hardened structure around it. One thing you do not want is radiative material to be spread over miles of land.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 8, 2022 6:16 pm

Yes, I used to routinely design exchangers for use with Thermo Quench 290 molten salt, no blanket pressure. You can have serious mechanical problems going from a frozen shutdown back up to operating temp, due to liquid expansion against solid salt plugs.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 9, 2022 5:09 am

So someone came up with a solution to the minor problem of molten salt tending to a be wee tad corrosive?

Kit P
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 9, 2022 4:43 pm

No and no. The US Navy has been doing it since 1955.

I did notice something when I was out to sea operating nuclear reactors. There were not many people out there to hurt or customers for the electricity.

Making electricity off shore in a hostile environment is a really stupid idea.

I did notice something on land operating commercial LWR. Shield and containment are a good idea. I have experienced close calls with tornadoes. While I know of no actual design basis pipe failures, calculations are based are verified by scale model testing.

So what goverment hassles? Do you want to live in a house not built to code?

In California, you can not build a new nuclear power plant but your new house requires a solar power plant (smoke emitting diodes).

John Andrews
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 9, 2022 9:01 pm

Except for the ones that sank.

Kit P
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 10, 2022 3:33 pm

A perfect safety record. No one has even been hurt by US designed naval reactors or commercial power plants.

Two US nuke subs have been lost at sea.

I have a sailboat and enjoy sailing. I do not recommend using wind for commercial shipping because wind kills.

Rud Istvan
April 8, 2022 2:35 pm

There are three immediate problems with this plan.

  1. Conventional nucs take about 10 years to build, while the energy problem is now.
  2. Nucs do NOT cycle well (unlike CCGT), so are ill suited to the renewable mess existing now in the UK.
  3. No SMR design has been approved, let alone built and tested.

BoJo knows he has an energy problem. Nucs are ‘green’. But they do not timely solve the grid problems ‘green’ renewables and a natural gas shortfall (since UK banned fracking) have already created.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 8, 2022 5:37 pm

I’m not sure if they can dig their way out of the mess they’ve made of their energy system or not.”

Sure they can, just bulldoze down the wind turbines as reliable sources of energy are made available.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 9, 2022 4:52 am

I prefer explosives, quicker and more satisfying.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 8, 2022 9:51 pm

I think we will all be pleasantly surprised we will be able to get things done in the 2020s just as fast as we used to in the 1930s and 1940s, once we tell the crybabies to shut the hell up, get your blue blanky and go sit in the corner for a few decades.

James
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 8, 2022 4:15 pm

Re: 3), NuScale Power is the first small modular reactor (SMR) to receive U.S. NRC design approval.

See https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/licensing

Kit P
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 9, 2022 5:03 pm

There is no market for small market reactors in the US just as there is not market for wind turbines or solar panels.

Maybe government will create a market with ineffective incentives.

Kit P
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 10, 2022 3:50 pm

Duh! Because there is no market. You may be confusing marketing BS which there is a lot of and is trying to create a market.

There is a huge market for small portable generators for RVs and boats. If you bought a Honda you are a sucker for marketing BS.

Kit P
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 11, 2022 8:08 pm

Scam unless you got it for $300.

My problem is with deceptive marketing.

For example, many years ago I bought a Harbor Freight generator for $88. Gets the job done for charging batteries and a small electric chain saw.

I saw the same generator under a different brand name rated at 400 watts higher. I put a bigger fuse in and was able to get 200 more watts measure but not 400 because the engine did not have the horsepower.

I buy tools based on the job I need to do. I own a rake not a solar powered leaf blower.

Say the job you want to get done is producing 400 MWe. The 3 most important things is citing a power plant is location, location, location.

For than amount of power I would start with waste biomass. It has been around a long time.

One reason not to bet on SMR. A second is what I saw in China. What was next to the 1600 MWe EPR in China. A second EPR. The civil work was done for 6 more 1600 MWe reactors of what ever design is the best when needed.

The reactor vessels used in China were forged for the same standard design US plants.

My point is you are betting on cool sounding paper reactors while ignoring what the industry is doing.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 8, 2022 4:27 pm

Rud: Unless it’s a Candu, which is 3 years (and no cost overruns). They are modular so you can double, triple …up for large plants.

See my posting below — 2-3 cents CDN/kWh for recent upgrades. No shutdowns for refuelling! No enrichment for fuel…. world’s largest nuclear plant in Ontario (6550MW). Candu is one of the best kept secrets it seems!

Kit P
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 9, 2022 5:05 pm

Nobody is building CANDU anymore.

davidgmillsatty
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 8, 2022 5:22 pm

China has just tested its first Molten Salt Thorium Reactor based upon the MSRE at Oak Ridge in the 60’s

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20210912-why-china-is-developing-a-game-changing-thorium-fuelled-nuclear-reactor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o&t=170s

And there are many SMR reactors that have been built. The US Navy probably has hundred of them in operation (wild ass guess). It will not take much for Rolls Royce to make them and get them approved.

As for integration with renewables, once we go to molten salt reactors there will be no need for renewables and they will be fazed out.

Graeme#4
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 9, 2022 9:51 pm

The links you have provided are old and don’t appear to support your assertion that China HAS tested its SMR -the tests were due in September 2022. Do you have other information that confirms that China has indeed tested the SMR?

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 9, 2022 4:47 am

Banned fracking. Morons. There’s the problem. And Carrie Antoinette, Princess Nut Nut.

Kit P
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 9, 2022 4:56 pm

LWR load follow just fine. Places where nukes are under 25% of the demand use nukes for base load because of economics.

Yes CCGT plants can be built quickly but you need a pipeline and lots of gas. I do not about the UK but permitting a pipeline can take a long time.

Rod Evans
April 8, 2022 2:38 pm

Pushing ahead with nuclear power generation for electricity is at last being sensible, The lack of fracking for gas in the UK is a legacy of global warming activists demanding the abandonment of all fossil fuels. They have been shown to be wrong in their basic calculations of how CO2 impacts climate via atmospheric concentrations yet still the government panders to these climate alarmists.
I am encouraged the call for nuclear has been accepted and is being promoted. Now we have to get the government to realise true facts about global warming, i.e. it’s a hoax.
The expansion of wind turbines is also a major set back, if we are intending to go for energy independence.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 8, 2022 9:59 pm

Maybe we can sue to make them do environmental impact studies to determine how many of the migratory seabirds and birds of prey will be slaughtered?

Arctic tern migration route, anyone?

Heavens to Betsy…looks like potential genocide of the entire genus:
arctic-tern-migration.gif (386×367) (climate.org)

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 8, 2022 10:01 pm

Dutch Arctic Tern Migration route:

369cb24b2a.jpg
Captain Chris
Reply to  Rod Evans
April 9, 2022 4:03 am

Add Tidal Energy to the mix!

Eugene Conlin
Reply to  Rod Evans
April 9, 2022 4:05 am

The problem is convincing PM Carrie Johnson (rabid green activist) and whether she will take off her stranglehold on Boris’ reproductive bits.

Tom Gasloli
April 8, 2022 2:44 pm

I guess BoJo found another girl friend.😄

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Tom Gasloli
April 8, 2022 5:17 pm

I think Britain and Germany are energy-short debacles in the near term due to over-investment in Green Energy. It takes time to fix decades of sabotage of energy systems by green traitors.

More global warming… 
 
Told you so, 20 years ago.
SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT
https://correctpredictions.ca/
“The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.”

BIG SNOWSTORM BARRELING INTO THE ALPS; CENTRAL/EASTERN EUROPE’S EXCEPTIONALLY COLD MARCH; + VANCOUVER TO SEE RARE APRIL SNOW
April 8, 2022 Cap Allon
Also, Solar Cycle 25 is progressing similarly to the historically weak SC24: Grand Solar Minimum expected by SC26 (so the early 2030s).

TURKEY’S SECOND-COLDEST MARCH ON RECORD; TEMPS IN THE 50S HEADED FOR FLORIDA AS U.S. SEES SPRING SHIVERS; + IPCC DEMANDS FOOD SYSTEMS GO LOW-CARBON, OR ELSE…
April 7, 2022 Cap Allon
The IPCC is pushing ‘the agenda’ harder than I’ve seen before: “The planet is on course for a 3.2C rise … an increase that would render much of the world uninhabitable … [and there must be] rapid, deep and immediate cuts [in GHG emissions].”

I wrote that I am concerned about grain shortages – and now the genocidal IPCC says food systems have to go “low-carbon”. That should solve their alleged overpopulation problem – especially in the developing world. Nuremberg 2.0

Last edited 1 month ago by Allan MacRae
Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Gasloli
April 9, 2022 4:05 am

Not quite but he is managing to slowly get rid of Carries friends that he had to hire as advisors. Slowly replacing them with ones that aren’t quite so rabidly green.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Tom Gasloli
April 9, 2022 4:54 am

Pity he didn’t marry one with a physics or engineering degree rather than history of art…

griff
Reply to  Tom Gasloli
April 9, 2022 8:58 am

big surprise there if he did!

commieBob
April 8, 2022 2:50 pm

Replacing gas power with more nuclear power is lower carbon, but nuclear isn’t renewable and it isn’t cheap …

Given the resources necessary to create a buffered wind power system, nuclear is waaay more renewable than wind (in the same way the oceans are said to be more acidic if they’re less basic). 🙂

Captain Chris
Reply to  commieBob
April 9, 2022 4:05 am

Add twice daily reliable Tidal energy to the mix and forget wind, offshore or on.

[This poster seems fixated on tide,and is spamming the thread. Mod]

griff
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 9, 2022 8:58 am
Graeme#4
Reply to  griff
April 9, 2022 9:55 pm

Wow! 252 MW!! That’s really going to help the UK resolve their energy crisis…

Ian
April 8, 2022 2:51 pm

Events, dear boy, events have indeed forced the UK Government to confront a future it thought it could kick into the green grass and finally go for as much energy independence it dare as fast as it can (there are, of course, still hundreds of years of coal reserves under our feet but that’s still beyond their thoughts).

24 Feb 2022 will be a day in history for many reasons.

Ian
Reply to  Ian
April 8, 2022 2:54 pm

“In a crisis, don’t hide behind anything or anybody. They’re going to find you anyway.”

Allen Stoner
April 8, 2022 3:23 pm

Promises made, promises to be determined over time.

The US really needs to get back on the nuclear path for energy. Even if we have plenty of coal, in the future, when oil become harder to extract, coal can be converted to strategic fuels with 10 year shelf lives if not longer using nuclear power for the conversion.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Allen Stoner
April 8, 2022 3:57 pm

As resources get harder to extract, usually a new technology, like fracking, is
found to make even more resources available. At present, I haven’t heard of
any projects that tap into the large hydrate deposits. If there are any, that may
be an additional source of energy, adding a lot to the energy reserves.

The reality’s that these fuels will eventually run out & we’ll need something to
replace it- hopefully, more efficient ways to use uranium or even fusion.

davidgmillsatty
Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 8, 2022 5:27 pm

We have enough thorium to last thousands of years. No need for fusion technology with molten salt thorium reactors.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 8, 2022 6:01 pm

Thanks for the heads up on thorium. I’ll have to look into it.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Allen Stoner
April 8, 2022 5:40 pm

Before the U.S. can do anything productive, it has to shed the brainless liberals they have currently elected. These political hacks are incapable of understanding the problems, let alone the solutions.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 9, 2022 4:55 am

Let’s go, Brandon!

Rib_Dawg
April 8, 2022 3:34 pm

I will believe it when I see subsidies and preferential treatment halted.

MarkW2
April 8, 2022 3:43 pm

Nuclear is and always was the only way forward. Still too much emphasis on wind but at least this is likely to be offshore, which isn’t ideal but far better than on land. Also suspect a lot more support for North Sea gas, which though diminishing is still viable given current prices, but I suspect this will be kept “below the radar”.

Far from perfect but far more pragmatic and realistic than we’ve had for a while in the UK. Could have been a lot worse.

Captain Chris
Reply to  MarkW2
April 9, 2022 4:09 am

Forget wind and go tidal! It’s reliable twice per day everyday. A Severn Barrage and similar in the Pentland Firth and other locations would provide UK with eons of reliable renewable energy for much of its needs.

griff
Reply to  Captain Chris
April 9, 2022 8:57 am

We already have a tidal turbine site in the Pentland Firth: Meygen

MeyGen – Tidal Projects – SIMEC Atlantis Energy

Phase 1A is operational – do note the details for 4 further phases.

John Bell
April 8, 2022 3:43 pm

This new war in Europe (another!) is the beginning of the end for green stupidity. IMHO

Mac
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 9, 2022 3:34 am

The EU idiots could have looked at Spain’s failure with “renewables”, but Nooooo!

griff
Reply to  Mac
April 9, 2022 8:55 am

Spain is doing just fine: they reformed the solar tariff system and now get 43% of their electricity from renewables

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  griff
April 9, 2022 12:18 pm

Yes, and bankrupted about 60,000 people in the process. Nice going.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  John Bell
April 8, 2022 5:05 pm

The power of corporate media (MSM) is quite huge. Climategate happened in
2009 & nothing ever came of it. Mark Levin exposed that Trump had been
spied on in Mar 2017 & they still put Trump through the Mueller fiasco & two
impeachments. I’m a big skeptic of greens ever “learning” anything because
what they believe- Their Truth- is what they have brainwashed themselves
into believing is The Truth- regardless of how disparate they are. This allows
them to deflect anything outside of Their Truth as being false so they can
avoid reality for whatever utilitarian reason they have. This is often times
the biggest obstacle to helping people as they will usually do anything to stay
in their fantasy world.

griff
Reply to  John Bell
April 9, 2022 8:54 am

On the contrary, it will accelerate renewables roll out. Every EU govt and the UK have clearly stated that…

Gary Pearse
April 8, 2022 4:03 pm

UK had a joint venture with the Atomic Energy Canada Limited – Candu reactor in the 1990s (?). The Brits got out of the JV and went on their own, which created more than a decade of delays, astronomical cost overruns and finally a abandonment of the project.

Canada’s program has gone smooth as silk. Their nuclear is modular, construction takes 3 years and they never go over time or budget. They run for 40yrs, with planned upgrades after 27yrs and recent upgrades made power costs of 2 to 3 cents CDN.

There is no enrichment of U²³⁵. Apparently the U²³⁸ makes for excellent neutron capture. This and the fact that Candu is refueled without having to shutdown(!) makes for the cheapness of its power. Although if a worker spills his coffee it probably gets reported as a nuclear accident, the technology is the safest in the world.

Ontario’s Bruce plant for many years was the world’s largest at 6550MW until surpassed just recently by Korea (who happens to have a fleet of Candus). If you google world’s largest you get France with a few 5000MW ones. To get the largest you have to Google ‘the largest in Ontario’!

UK, don’t do this at home! We turn them out like breakfast sausages.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 8, 2022 7:13 pm

Kip: Canada’s Chalk River facility had built a thorium breeder reactor in 1947 – they actually shut it down in 1993! So (I believe) they were the first to research this source of energy. Chalk River collaborated with US France and UK, back in those days and before that with just the US.

http://www.iccf11.org/thorium-reactor/

“Thorium reactors
Several different reactor types have been built to use thorium as fuel. The assortment includes ligh water reactors, heavy water reactors, sodium-cooled fast reactors, molten salt reactors, and high temperature gas reactors.

Here are examples of thorium fueled reactors from around the world, both experimental and for power plants:

NRX
The NRX (National Research Experiment) reactor was a nuclear research reactor came into operation in 1947 and was shut down in 1993. Located in Canada, at the Chalk River Laboratories (a national research facility).

NRU
Just like NRX, the NRU (National Research Universal) reactor was built at the Chalk River Laboratories in Canda. The reactor had three main jobs: it was a test bed for developing fuels and materials for the CANDU reactor, it produced neutrons for researchers, and it generated isotopes for medical use in 80 differnet countries.”

Chalk R also supplied some a few hundred lbs of plutonium from their research reactor for the Manhattan project and participated in the research.

While we are enjoying some mutual nuclear history here, you may or may not know, we had a serious nuclear accident at Chalk R in the early 1950s and the US Navy sent an expert to help with the cleanup, none other than a young Lieutenant Jimmy Carter!

Cheers Gary P

Kit P
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 9, 2022 6:03 pm

JC was never a nuclear expert. JC was a qualified diesel submariner selected for nuke school. Clearly something to be proud of.

I voted for that idiot once. At the time I was a officer attending nuke school. I was not proud to serve under POTUS Carter. He all but surrendered to the USSR. I talked to officers who said things changed under Reagan.

Four more years of JC and we would have torn down the Lincoln Memorial in instead of the Berlin Wall.

Kit P
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 9, 2022 5:41 pm

kip did you read your link?

I am not saying anything bad about Canada’s nuclear program. They had there reasons but not in today’s world.

All commercial new commercial nuclear power plants being built today look like scaled up copies of US LWR designs from the late 60s.

The reason is simple. LWR scale up very well.

When it comes to interesting reading a 400 MWe SMR is no more interesting than than a 1600 MWe plant.

It is about making electricity,

Kit P
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 10, 2022 4:50 pm

Tell me about it! I have lost three good jobs in the nuclear industry because of politics outside of my control.

For a short period, I was developing business plans for renewable energy projects. There is no line item for ‘interesting’. I also learned there are groups that are against everything.

In 2006, I had a job offer in the newly formed new reactors division of my company. I did a lot of research before accepting. By 2008, there were 37 reactors application on the NRC docket. Talk about interest!

Then the price of natural gas crashed in the US. I was lucky to be asked to go to our plant in China before retiring. Started in new reactor and finished in new reactors.

Just for the record, all reactors are small. Some need a lot bigger steam turbine.

davidgmillsatty
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 8, 2022 5:38 pm

It is interesting that you say that U 238 is excellent neutron capture. I had heard the opposite. What I learned was that in the fast spectrum it was failing to capture enough neutrons and that was why most successful U 238 breeding programs were not working. The thorium advocates point out that it breeds very well in the thermal spectrum and that is why is is a much better element for breeding. It is also not likely to produce nuclear waste because it is highly unlikely to take seven neutrons without fissioning. That is why thorium can be used as nuclear waste burners.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 8, 2022 7:17 pm

Yet, the Candu uses unenriched Uranium, which is largely U²³⁸ !

Iain Russell
April 8, 2022 4:14 pm

Given the Global Warming destroying us, why do British houses need insulation?

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Iain Russell
April 9, 2022 4:57 am

It’s climate crisis now, nothing to do with warming that hasn’t happened for the last 71/2 years. DKUATBT! 😇

Stevo
April 8, 2022 4:45 pm

Quote: “The government said it wanted to wean Britain off expensive fossil fuels.“
face/palm

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Stevo
April 9, 2022 4:58 am

I agree, let’s have cheap fossil fuels.

griff
Reply to  Stevo
April 9, 2022 8:53 am

Well the current crisis is in part because gas is very expensive…

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  griff
April 9, 2022 12:21 pm

Look a little deeper; it’s scarce supply driving up price. Frack more (or in the case of Britain, at all) and get more supply and lower price.

Peta of Newark
April 8, 2022 4:46 pm

The word ‘deliver‘ is a sweetie…

What they actually mean by that is that ‘planning permission‘ or ‘approval‘ will be granted by time year 2030 comes round.
With the intention that the stated 24GW will be operating by 2050

No concrete will have been poured, no steel erected, no nothing tangible. by 2030
Just the approval to go ahead

Coz when you’ve got 100’s of millions of £££ to scrape together and many 1,000’s of cronies, to lap up all that dosh, to get organised – no-one can expect this to happen overnight.
Certainly all the new ‘required’ Gov’t agencies will pop up like mushrooms overnight, don’t worry about that.
sigh
If only containment domes could appear so quickly this’d all be over before Easter

auto
Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 9, 2022 10:42 am

Peta,
They actually say that one [1] reactor will get a Final Investment Decision ‘this parliament’ – so by ~2024; Another is expected to get a Final Investment Decision by the end of the next Parliament, which could be December 2029.
The other six – ummmmmm . . . breath-holding not recommended.

Auto

kzb
April 8, 2022 5:08 pm

A stupid plan that will not work. Wind and nuclear are a very poor fit, not unless they build nuclear stations that can ramp up and down as the weather changes. Which they won’t.

24GW of nuclear is nowhere. How is that supposed to replace 300GW of gas heating? Or charge up the 32 million EV’s?

Nothing for insulation and energy efficiency? When we are expected to spend £30k-£50k on property retrofitting, £10k on a heat pump and install charging facilities for our EV’s, when 40% of households have no on-property parking?

kzb
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 9, 2022 4:26 am

Kip, nearly all UK fossil fuel generation is from gas turbines. The output of these can be turned up and down to fit in with the amount of wind generation being produced at any given time. The gas turbines are not baseline.

So a combination of wind and gas turbine is actually a good fit (technically, not economically). If you substitute the gas turbines with a form of generation that cannot be varied easily, the wind energy becomes superfluous. The system has to supply power on demand, not just when the wind is blowing. That leads to the whole system needing enough “baseline” to cater for maximum demand, so what use then are the wind turbines?

This situation can be mitigated with enough electricity storage, but they have not taken on board the huge amount needed and the huge cost of it.

griff
Reply to  kzb
April 9, 2022 8:52 am

A good summary.

Though the govt is working on long term energy storage -and on frequency response and inertia in the grid

Robert of Texas
April 8, 2022 5:18 pm

nuclear isn’t renewable”

Well, neither is Wind if you track it back to the fusion reaction in the Sun that ultimately drives it…it will eventually run out.

I wonder if these people have ever heard of a Breeder Reactor – they are about as renewable as Wind is for all practical purposes. And I wonder if these people know what Thorium is? We have plenty of nuclear fuel available for thousands of years.

Since the world is ending in 2031, we have an endless supply of fossil fuels as well. Even if we somehow live past this Climate Prediction of Doom, we have enough fossil fuels for another 50 to 100 years – although, not if we regulate the extraction and use of them into extinction.

The main problem with energy is we have a wild over-abundance of the natural resource called Stupidity. Why stupid people are allowed to set government policy is a mystery, but it seems to be some human requirement for government.

eck
April 8, 2022 7:06 pm

Finally, some sanity? Let’s hope. Boris in on this?

Tom Abbott
April 8, 2022 7:32 pm

When will the German government announce they are restarting all their nuclear power plants?

Doug
April 8, 2022 7:51 pm

BoJo has had the most amazing conversion since Saint Paul on the road to Damascus.

Richard Page
Reply to  Doug
April 9, 2022 4:15 am

You mean he’s flip-flopped like a landed fish over this for years don’t you? First he’s pro green, then against wind turbines, then all for everything green, now pro nuclear and wavering over fracking. Every time the wind blows, BoJo switches direction – he’s completely making this stuff up as he goes along; what happened to having a workable energy plan and sticking to it?

griff
Reply to  Richard Page
April 9, 2022 8:51 am

And that doesn’t just apply to his views and actions on renewables…

auto
Reply to  griff
April 9, 2022 10:46 am

griff,
Not often I agree with you.
But you’re spot on with that.

Auto

kzb
Reply to  Doug
April 9, 2022 4:29 am

I wish that were true. Net Zero is still set in law. Bojo is simply trying to bluster his way out of the latest hole he has dug for himself. It’s worked all his life.

Eric Vieira
April 9, 2022 12:13 am

Nuclear isn’t renewable, but with breeder technology it could last us several thousand years taking increases in demand in count. The green energy is renewable, but the technology isn’t and will result in vast amounts of non-recyclable waste, and on top it isn’t reliable or economically viable.

Last edited 1 month ago by Eric Vieira
Reply to  Eric Vieira
April 9, 2022 4:49 am

Fast-breeders are renewable.
Russia leads the world in this technology so one could get fast breeder reactors like the Beloyarsk type from them – O wait …

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Eric Vieira
April 9, 2022 12:24 pm

Several thousand? Ehhh, add a couple zeroes and you’ll be more accurate.

decnine
April 9, 2022 12:51 am

As our Government demonstrates (repeatedly), Planning is easy. Any idiot with a spreadsheet can do it. Sadly, many of them do. Implementation is hard. It requires people who know what they are doing. And who know what it is futile to try to do.

Geoff Sherrington
April 9, 2022 12:58 am

It continues to disappoint when the modern day planners fail to admit what was well known.
In the mid-1970s we, as staffers on a public mining/exploration company in Australia, did (IIRC) about a couple of models a year about the energy and economic potential of wind and solar. We were starting to supply large amounts of low-priced uranium to global markets, so of course we needed to assess the economics of competitors like wind and solar, then and for a few decades into the future.
Wind and solar never made it past the first cut. The problems of intermittency that we modelled were accurate enough then to forecast the planning disaster that we have today.
Question: Why do we have the disaster of wind and solar lingering on? Answer: Because of an abundance of know-all bureaucrats willing to kowtow to know-all politicians driven by stupid ideologies from know-all dreamers.
The myth of the tooth fairy was stronger than the reality of the dental drill. (There was a refusal to “drill, baby, drill”).
That was back then in the 1970s. Today, I have no idea what we the community can do to rid out lives of the pestilence of stupid politicians. USA in particular, I suggest, has some deep, revolutionary thinking to do. Geoff S

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 9, 2022 12:00 pm

In a way, we needed to go through this energy idiocy and have massive expensive failures that is causing deep impoverishment, starvation, hypothermic deaths by the millions, drug, alcohol and suicide, mass psychosis of hundreds of millions, mainly young people, third world deaths from lack of help from resources squandered ….

Those who are responsible for all this: pseudo scientists, corrupted academia néomarxiste political leaders/UN/Mass Media
, billionaire reset beneficiaries of this planned human disaster … realize now that they better change their minds about nuclear.

Tens of millions of deaths from renewables and fewer than 100 in global nuclear power in 70years. Yeah, that would change even demented minds.

LdB
April 9, 2022 1:34 am

Has Griffs power been cut off?
Where is the great optimist to tell us that there is some dastardly renewables plan from some obscure think tank.

Richard Page
Reply to  LdB
April 9, 2022 4:17 am

I think his parents make him get off the internet and do something else at weekends!

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Richard Page
April 9, 2022 4:59 am

Chores, to pay the rent on his basement?

griff
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
April 9, 2022 8:50 am

Seriously, would any communist agitator stoop to chores?

griff
Reply to  Richard Page
April 9, 2022 8:49 am

Exactly.

DiggerUK
April 9, 2022 1:35 am

In the UK we have the Global Warming Policy Foundation who publish very good articles on their site, NetZeroWatch. https://www.netzerowatch.com/

Their arguments to the government on how to formulate a viable energy policy, consider both the practical and political hoops the government must negotiate.

In the here and now they propose an expansion of gas to keep the lights on. They also urge for the fracking ban to be lifted and to energise further exploration of North Sea oil and gas reserves.

The GWPF also support the retention of existing coal fired power stations, including the conversion of BioFuel power stations back to coal.

For the future they urge expansion of nuclear.

Their position on renewables is one I find acceptable, demanding they compete in the market on a level playing field, i.e., pay their own way without subsidies.
What’s not to like…_

https://www.netzerowatch.com/content/uploads/2022/03/Taking-Back-Control-Energy-Plan-.pdf

griff
Reply to  DiggerUK
April 9, 2022 8:49 am

a mysteriously funded bunch who trot out the same old stuff.

If we knew who was paying for it, we’d know why.

JohnC
April 9, 2022 1:37 am

Nuclear should never have been taken off the table, it was very shortsighted.

The irony is that people who are anti nuclear don’t realise that at times we import electricity from France, which is 80%(?) nuclear generated.
Renewable is a myth, you can never extract more energy than you put in.

griff
Reply to  JohnC
April 9, 2022 8:48 am

It has been ‘on the table’ as a firm proposal since 2008.

But it just could not be funded.

michel
April 9, 2022 2:09 am

I am not sure that Kip’s optimism is justified. The UK plans still include large amounts of offshore wind, and they are also moving to increased onshore and onshore solar, which they still seem to think is part of the solution and will help with energy independence.

I see no signs they have considered intermittency seriously in project management terms. That is, no quantified account of how much storage you need given the scale of their intermittent generation, and no account of how the management of this storage requires you to scale your intermittency higher. And no properly justified costings for any of this.

What has happened is increasing awareness of the implications of doubling the electricity demand by mandating EVs and heat pumps. Kwarteng for instance, and others, are now talking seriously about peak hour premium rate power charging via heat pumps.

From the UK Telegraph today:

Under the new billing system, households would be charged less when not many people are using energy, such as in the middle of the night. They would pay more at times – like Friday evenings – when lots of people are cooking, watching television or making a cup of tea.

The plans have already won support from energy companies but are likely to prove controversial with customers.

Speaking on a podcast published by Aurora Energy Research on Friday, Mr Kwarteng said: “If we’re serious about net zero and energy efficiency and having a more nimble system, then we have to probably examine what is called price discrimination.

“So that, if you charge your phone on a Wednesday morning at 2am, it’s going to cost you less than if you were to do the same thing let’s say on a Friday night where people use a lot more electricity.

“At the moment, it’s just the same blanket price. So I think there is a lot of work we can do to make a more nimble system that reflects actual economic activity in the moment.

“In order to make it more efficient, we probably have to have more continuous pricing, and more variation, in terms of you know, how we pay for charging electricity, or even putting a kettle on.”

You see what is happening? The costs of intermittency in terms of a fluctuating spot rate are being transferred to the user. And those costs will not simply be financial, they will be social. Living with continuously varying electricity prices, with perhaps a huge fee for making a cup of tea, charging a car, or cooking dinner or washing clothes at the wrong time, will force large scale social changes.

And to people who doubt this, I hear on good authority that some people in the UK are now refusing to take potatoes from food banks, because they feel they can’t afford the electricity it will take to cook them from raw.

This is a recipe for millions of the old sitting motionless in the cold January and February evenings, wrapped in fleeces to try to keep warm, afraid to even boil water for a hot water bottle, and no way turning on the heating.

griff
Reply to  michel
April 9, 2022 8:48 am

The figure quoted by govt is 24GW of storage – they have not spelt out the important detail of ‘how long for’.

Bear in mind using HVDC links to mainland European grid remains and important part of their strategy

michel
Reply to  griff
April 9, 2022 10:42 am

Yes. But calm spells are rarely confined to the UK, they extend over a lot of northern Europe too. Don’t think too much reliance can be placed on interconnects.

At a guess it would be prudent to provide enough storage to supply 30% of wind faceplate for two weeks.

And enough wind generating capacity to be able to recharge it in about two weeks, at the same time as meeting normal demand.

Whether this is right or wrong, until the government produces a plan with real numbers and a justification of the amount of capacity (both storage, and additional to recharge it), and an account of the technology and costs, there isn’t any plan. Its pure fantasy. Like the bridge from Scotland to Ireland, or the Estuary airport.

I don’t believe its either doable or affordable. But we need to see the numbers and the assumptions. Its truly weird that they are actively planning Net Zero without even seeming to realize that they need proper plans, cases.

Any staff planning department in a Fortune 500 company that presided over planning like this would be fired in short order.

AndyHce
April 9, 2022 2:26 am

Nothing any politician says can be taken as meaningful for any length of time. No matter the cost, no matter the need, what is set down today can, and frequently is, set off sometime soon thereafter — unless it really helps cement political power in place.

April 9, 2022 3:15 am

In the U.K. Luddite antinuclear sentiment is so pernicious and widespread, that Rolls Royce and others seeking licensing could be sabotaged by apparatchiks in the system with Luddite sympathies. Rolls Royce are already being frustrated by Britain’s uniquely turgid, complacent and dysfunctional bureaucracy.

griff
Reply to  Phil Salmon
April 9, 2022 8:46 am

Well RR has got the funding and currently plan one new SMR by 2030 and 4 more by 2035.

but that’s only 2.5GW by 2035…

Captain Chris
April 9, 2022 3:48 am

Hurrah for the nucleur proposals, but what happened to the Severn Tidal Barrage which it was estimated could privde 25 % of UK’s energy needs for eons to come? Almost a no-brainer and it was not included in the PMs announcements.

griff
Reply to  Captain Chris
April 9, 2022 8:45 am

The Severn Barrage would have flooded mudflats which are a site of world importance for wintering birds… 20% of the whole population of some species rely on them and they have nowhere else to go.

The barrage was cancelled on those grounds: it would have broken UK obligations under the RAMSAR treaty.

Though a tidal turbine ‘barrage’ would work and have no such side effects.

Alba
April 9, 2022 4:28 am

The British Government might be seeing some sense at last but the SNP-Green Government in Scotland haven’t yet reached that point. So the British Government’s decision might be good news for people living in England but not for those of use who are living in Scotland. Unless, of course, the anti-nuclear SNP and Greens plan to import nuclear-generated electricity from England when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. (Yes, I know, it’s very confusing but on some matters the British Government only makes decisions for England.)

griff
Reply to  Alba
April 9, 2022 8:43 am

Yes: the Scottish govt remains opposed to new nuclear and what’s more has the independent planning powers to stop it, no matter what Westminster wants.

Reply to  Alba
April 10, 2022 8:55 am

It will be fun indeed in 20 years time to witness from a safe distance the consequences for Scotland of having indulged in the antinuclear fantasy. Their internet will fall silent when the wind stops blowing. Bloggers and YouTubers will have to check weather forecasts when planning when to post content. If they want there to be anyone at the other end.

michael hart
April 9, 2022 5:10 am

They promised something similar over a decade ago. I see no progress.

griff
Reply to  michael hart
April 9, 2022 8:42 am

yes, in 2008 and 2010…

griff
April 9, 2022 8:42 am

The nuclear element of this is pure fantasy…

If you look you can find the Labour govt announcing 8 new nuclear plants in 2008 and the new Tory govt announcing 8 nuclear plants in 2010.

In 14 years just one has started – Hinkley – and they are about to announce another delay to finishing that.

The Chinese were involved in Sizewell and were going to be entirely building Bradwell – now China isn’t allowed to participate, those plans are out the window.

Hitachi and other firms withdrew from Wylfa and Moorside because no funding could be arranged.

It remains to be seen whether new funding model with increased UK govt stake gets Sizewell off the ground – if it does it will be a decade building it even after the funding and planning are worked out.

auto
Reply to  griff
April 9, 2022 11:14 am

griff,
Looking through the online bumph from the UK Government –
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-energy-security-strategy – there seems to be a lot of talk.
Not very much hard actions, with timelines, costs and constraints.
And it’s plain that the costs will, as ever, be lumped onto the population.

Auto

Reply to  griff
April 10, 2022 3:27 am

No mention of Rolls Royce or Nuscale in your antinuclear trip down memory lane.

Reply to  griff
April 10, 2022 5:52 am

What’s different this time is that the comfort blanket of endless cheap natural gas is gone. The gas on which wind and solar depend more cravenly than anything else. Plus net zero commitments and mandated electric cars mean that the space to hide from reality gets harder to find. Remaining choices are nuclear, coal or nothing.

Graeme#4
Reply to  griff
April 10, 2022 3:51 pm

Good ole Hinkley C being dragged up again. As an example of what? Certainly not modern nuclear plant construction. Hinkley C is an outlier and should be treated as such. Barakah in the UAE has Units 1 and 2 finished in 8 years each, on schedule, and is delivering reliable 24/7 power for the same domestic cost as previous.

Bruce Cobb
April 9, 2022 9:55 am

More coal! They forgot coal. Sheesh. Coal is the Rodney Dangerfield of the energy industry.

Kit P
April 9, 2022 6:47 pm

Read something interesting about nuclear in an annual report of my largest stock holding.

For those who do not know, at a certain age in the US we are required to take a distribution from our untaxed retirement saving so the goverment can tax it. So I have been more active in managing stocks in recent years.

I am heavily invested in power companies that have nuclear power plants outside of California. My logic is that nuclear power requires good management. Two of the companies are also leaders in harvesting renewable energy incentives.

The annual reports starts with all the BS about commitment to the environment and zero by unicorn date. Then comes the serious discussions. All 11 of the nuke plants will apply for extensions to run for 80 years.

That is leadership! The reason the US makes more electricity with nuclear power than any other country is we do such a good job running our plants. We learn form each other and other countries. We share information.

Matthew Sykes
April 11, 2022 12:39 am

hey have seemingly been forced by the situation in Eastern Europe” It wasnt that at all, it was the lack iof wind last September, and the 700% spike in electricity prices. They ordered 12 SMRs off Rolls Royce way way, long before the war started. I know, I bought RR stock and yellow cake last year knowing the govt would have to go nuclear.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 12, 2022 12:21 am

I thought this was well known, Slovakia bought 8 last year, thats when I first heard about them and decided to buy stock. But yes, Boris ordered 12 last year about late september.

I was surprised how quickly the UK got in the shit with its energy policy, I was expecting it to be a few years down the road. Clearly it was worse than I thought.