If you want all nuclear in the Occam's Razor form, please read this. It not only simplifies diurnal load following but also gives you all forms of transport (including cars affordable to the working class) without the 'Copper/Critical Minerals Crunches'.
It needs someone like you, with much more presence on social media than my 'peeing in the wind' efforts. Please consider picking it up and running with it:
I'm ambivalent, tending towards negative on hydrogen, largely because of the large-scale storage problem. However, if we do end up needing loads of it and it can be made just in time and only limited storage is required, it might be a feasible. I believe JCB are trialling hydrogen powered vehicles. Let's see how it goes.
I totally accept you point about mineral shortages for full electrification.
The large scale storage issue only comes into play when insane penetration of renewables means the ONLY low carbon form of storage for when the wind don't blow (often) and the Sun don't shine (daily) is 'green' hydrogen.
With all nuclear power to decarbonise electricity generation, involving diurnal load following whilst serendipitously manufacture hydrogen, there is little to no need for any form of storage and that includes environmentally problematic pumped and conventional hydropower. Then, as you say, seasonal load following seems readily achievable by carefully planned NPP refuelling and maintenance outages.
The negativity towards hydrogen is a simplistic analogue to the widespread (accident/waste/proliferation) negativity to nuclear power. In the case of hydrogen, it's
With a degree of research, it becomes quite reasonable to conclude that hydrogen may be the safest of all energy carrier for mobility use - far safer than gasoline, assuming industrial hydrogen safety regulations apply in all circumstances of use. That is why hydrogen can never be used for domestic/commercial/etc., heating and hot water, which must all be done electrically (mainly by heat pumps). Hydrogen industry standards can apply at filling stations and other industrial points of use.
The low volumetric density certainly means transporting hydrogen can never be viable except in unavoidable circumstances like the tube trailer use for JCB's on-site plant where gas networked hydrogen is not available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6_qAta3Gk8&t=11s
For transport, the low volumetric density does mean extra space is taken up, but car and other vehicle makers accommodate this with the latest tank technologies and, starting with a clean sheet of paper, the economic feasibility of long hail aircraft, without massive airport reconfiguration, is demonstrable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqMHiyyWlZo&t=1522s
I do hope these links may prove of interest if you are inclined to pursue the economics and feasibility of NEH at some stage.
I made a submission to the Select Committee enquiry on achieving zero carbon electricity by 2035 which drew very similar conclusions to the recommendations you make here (though I did advocate building up a nuclear industry partly through international collaboration to secure a wider market and lower costs, and also to avoid the French syndrome of all your plant needing replacement at much the same time). The contribution was mangled by the Committee clerks to produce an unreadable file that when I try to open it produces dire warnings of computer catastrophe. They do not want to know, and they do not want the public to know.
I shall be trying again in my submission on their consultation for back door CFD subsidies. I shall mention the recent French enquiry, which is a serious piece of work, and about which Kathryn Porter has just written a summary and commentary. It reaches remarkably similar conclusions. Surely we can't all be wrong?
David, this is an outstanding analysis and should be required reading by every government minister, MP, civil servant and anyone interested in the future prosperity of the UK. The way forward is really a 'no-brainer'.
With the introduction of the first UK nuclear reactors at Calder Hall, in 1956 we had an opportunity to lead the world in the development of nuclear power. That we didn't is an indictment of the political class. Of course, there were many reasons, ranging from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament through to the green movement and concerns over the handling and disposal of nuclear waste. There is an in-built fear of nuclear power amongst the public. Events at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, together with docudramas such as 'The Edge of Darkness' has confirmed in the public's eye that nuclear power is inherently dangerous. However, as you have pointed out the safety record of nuclear power in terms of incidents, mortality etc. is of a far higher standard than that of any other generating technology.
To illustrate what we are up against I recently attended a planning application for a 49.9MW solar farm to be sited in the parish where I live. One of the arguments the company proposing the development was that extensive solar power was needed to overcome the threat of nuclear power development. There were many nods of agreement amongst the council members and members of the public. Needless to say the application was approved.
Thus, beyond the political will to deliver on a nuclear future there needs to be a huge education programme concerning nuclear power, different fuel and reactor types, the inherent in-built safety of designs, volumes of waste and ways to handle and safely dispose of. This should go hand-in-hand with the re-engineering of our education system from schools through universities with the training of mathematicians, physicists, materials scientists, geologists, power engineers etc.
The future could and should be very bright, driven by nuclear technology which has by far the highest EROEI and least impact on the natural environment. It is essentially clean and absolutely low-carbon.
David - another excellent essay. A point I think that is worth emphasising under "motivations for sensible energy policy" is the recollection that the economy and, specifically, its financial system, is inherently an energy structure. When available energy expands, it can expand. When it contracts, it must contract. "Contraction" in this context entails "collapse", in the same way that "stopping a bike" entails "falling over".
I think it is important to emphasise this with two groups in mind: those who do not realise that deliberately contracting our energy supply through the various "unreliables" technolgies will necessarily collapse our economic and financial systems; and those who believe this is merely a political problem.
Looking forward to your next essay. Have you read Fleming's "Lean Logic"? I agree with you about nuclear, but his chapter on it is a little bracing.
If you want all nuclear in the Occam's Razor form, please read this. It not only simplifies diurnal load following but also gives you all forms of transport (including cars affordable to the working class) without the 'Copper/Critical Minerals Crunches'.
It needs someone like you, with much more presence on social media than my 'peeing in the wind' efforts. Please consider picking it up and running with it:
https://colinmegson.substack.com/p/how-nuclear-enabled-hydrogen-neh
I'm ambivalent, tending towards negative on hydrogen, largely because of the large-scale storage problem. However, if we do end up needing loads of it and it can be made just in time and only limited storage is required, it might be a feasible. I believe JCB are trialling hydrogen powered vehicles. Let's see how it goes.
I totally accept you point about mineral shortages for full electrification.
Many thanks for taking the time to reply.
The large scale storage issue only comes into play when insane penetration of renewables means the ONLY low carbon form of storage for when the wind don't blow (often) and the Sun don't shine (daily) is 'green' hydrogen.
With all nuclear power to decarbonise electricity generation, involving diurnal load following whilst serendipitously manufacture hydrogen, there is little to no need for any form of storage and that includes environmentally problematic pumped and conventional hydropower. Then, as you say, seasonal load following seems readily achievable by carefully planned NPP refuelling and maintenance outages.
The negativity towards hydrogen is a simplistic analogue to the widespread (accident/waste/proliferation) negativity to nuclear power. In the case of hydrogen, it's
explosivity/low volumetric density/permeability/cost.
With a degree of research, it becomes quite reasonable to conclude that hydrogen may be the safest of all energy carrier for mobility use - far safer than gasoline, assuming industrial hydrogen safety regulations apply in all circumstances of use. That is why hydrogen can never be used for domestic/commercial/etc., heating and hot water, which must all be done electrically (mainly by heat pumps). Hydrogen industry standards can apply at filling stations and other industrial points of use.
The low volumetric density certainly means transporting hydrogen can never be viable except in unavoidable circumstances like the tube trailer use for JCB's on-site plant where gas networked hydrogen is not available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6_qAta3Gk8&t=11s
It means hydrogen can only be viably distributed via a piped network, as planned for the 53,000 km European Hydrogen backbone (EHB) which adapts 60% of existing pipework and requires 40% new. At the same pressures applicable in a gas network, hydrogen delivers 80% of the energy of natural gas (NG): (Para 2:4) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319913006800#:~:text=The%20energy%20carrying%20capacity%20of,a%20much%20higher%20flow%20rate.
For transport, the low volumetric density does mean extra space is taken up, but car and other vehicle makers accommodate this with the latest tank technologies and, starting with a clean sheet of paper, the economic feasibility of long hail aircraft, without massive airport reconfiguration, is demonstrable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqMHiyyWlZo&t=1522s
I do hope these links may prove of interest if you are inclined to pursue the economics and feasibility of NEH at some stage.
I made a submission to the Select Committee enquiry on achieving zero carbon electricity by 2035 which drew very similar conclusions to the recommendations you make here (though I did advocate building up a nuclear industry partly through international collaboration to secure a wider market and lower costs, and also to avoid the French syndrome of all your plant needing replacement at much the same time). The contribution was mangled by the Committee clerks to produce an unreadable file that when I try to open it produces dire warnings of computer catastrophe. They do not want to know, and they do not want the public to know.
I shall be trying again in my submission on their consultation for back door CFD subsidies. I shall mention the recent French enquiry, which is a serious piece of work, and about which Kathryn Porter has just written a summary and commentary. It reaches remarkably similar conclusions. Surely we can't all be wrong?
https://watt-logic.com/2023/05/16/french-energy-sovereignty/
Well done on trying to get to Government. I am trying too.
David: Thank you for your sensible commentaries on our energy options. Please send me an email so we can be better connected <aaprjohn@northnet.org>.
Excellent work! And Drax should be sent to oblivion post-haste
David, this is an outstanding analysis and should be required reading by every government minister, MP, civil servant and anyone interested in the future prosperity of the UK. The way forward is really a 'no-brainer'.
With the introduction of the first UK nuclear reactors at Calder Hall, in 1956 we had an opportunity to lead the world in the development of nuclear power. That we didn't is an indictment of the political class. Of course, there were many reasons, ranging from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament through to the green movement and concerns over the handling and disposal of nuclear waste. There is an in-built fear of nuclear power amongst the public. Events at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, together with docudramas such as 'The Edge of Darkness' has confirmed in the public's eye that nuclear power is inherently dangerous. However, as you have pointed out the safety record of nuclear power in terms of incidents, mortality etc. is of a far higher standard than that of any other generating technology.
To illustrate what we are up against I recently attended a planning application for a 49.9MW solar farm to be sited in the parish where I live. One of the arguments the company proposing the development was that extensive solar power was needed to overcome the threat of nuclear power development. There were many nods of agreement amongst the council members and members of the public. Needless to say the application was approved.
Thus, beyond the political will to deliver on a nuclear future there needs to be a huge education programme concerning nuclear power, different fuel and reactor types, the inherent in-built safety of designs, volumes of waste and ways to handle and safely dispose of. This should go hand-in-hand with the re-engineering of our education system from schools through universities with the training of mathematicians, physicists, materials scientists, geologists, power engineers etc.
The future could and should be very bright, driven by nuclear technology which has by far the highest EROEI and least impact on the natural environment. It is essentially clean and absolutely low-carbon.
David - another excellent essay. A point I think that is worth emphasising under "motivations for sensible energy policy" is the recollection that the economy and, specifically, its financial system, is inherently an energy structure. When available energy expands, it can expand. When it contracts, it must contract. "Contraction" in this context entails "collapse", in the same way that "stopping a bike" entails "falling over".
I think it is important to emphasise this with two groups in mind: those who do not realise that deliberately contracting our energy supply through the various "unreliables" technolgies will necessarily collapse our economic and financial systems; and those who believe this is merely a political problem.
Looking forward to your next essay. Have you read Fleming's "Lean Logic"? I agree with you about nuclear, but his chapter on it is a little bracing.