Excellent article! One small point which enhances the case for nuclear: modern plants can already load-follow with ramp rates of up to 5% of capacity per minute.
What a delicious analogy - "Arguing for wind and solar in place of nuclear power is akin to arguing in favour of chocolate teapots because you cannot wait for a ceramic one. No matter how many chocolate teapots you buy, you can never make tea; just like no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels you install you can never run a modern economy on intermittent electricity."
"if your primary concern is the environment, then you should be an advocate of nuclear power because it has the smallest overall environmental footprint of all energy sources because it doesn’t take up much land and has very low mineral intensity." Yes! And if your primary concern is emissions, nuclear is at least as emission-free as any known source of power - nuclear is a dream come true for bi-partisan-ship.
She knows her stuff having started with a physics degree, worked in a bank on major project financing, and worked in EdF. She has a very good understanding of nuclear technology, present and future.
She starts by demolishing renewables in ways that will be familiar to readers of this blog, and goes on to discuss the obstacles nuclear faces alongside its clear advantages.
Great article. We can only hope that during this parliament that more and more people realise nett zero is a ridiculous policy and is destroying our industrial base through expensive electricity. It will then take a major political party to have courage to adopt a different strategy and put this to the electorate at the next election. Democracy can then maybe just save he day 👍👍
One of the areas of research in radioisotope thermal generators for space applications has been in miniturised Strontium RTGs. The idea is you can get some meaningful thermal effect per gram at a size that doesn't require extensive shielding. Sr is beta decay and unlike alpha from plutonium requires thick metallic shielding over a certain size of source material.
The upshot of this work which appears to be going well (though in the early stages) is that it solves the nuclear waste problem somewhat. And the source material is dirt cheap compared to other nuclear sources. Sr is practically given away.
So not only would large scale nuclear be good for Earth applications. It would also be handy for space ones too.
But again time, money and feasibility are what counts.
If we must spend £22bn on innovative energy “solutions” then investigating this sounds like a more sensible application of some of the money than carbon capture & storage. Memo to Mr Millipede. The majority should of course go to the immediate building of new nuclear power installations.
Excellent David. The Commonsense is strong in this one. We may yet win The Battle of Ideas against the retrogressive Dark Forces of anti-engineering, anti-science and anti-economics irrationality.
I was at the Battle of Ideas too - sorry I missed you! My wife and I got a good spot in the main hall and the place was so busy we decided to stay put there all day both days (and all the sessions in there but one were interesting and food for thought). I would have liked to see Lord Frost again, I have seen Ali speak on green issues and was not impressed though the Net Zero argument shrivels anyway when held up to the light. Your contribution sounds to have been well-judged - and it's amazing that so few of the arguments on either side consider £/MwH which you would have thought is critical. I like the chocolate teapot analogy - I'll try to remember it. I think the Tories are moving now on this issue - not just Jenrick. I was quite surprised that Gove printed my letter this week pointing out that spaffing £22 bn on CCUS was an idea that can be traced to Boris and "Levelling Up".
Good for you to argue and debate with these half wits. Must be painful. Co2 causes climate? Good Christ. Maybe the Rona virus was real? 95% of Co2 is emitted by Gaia and 90% of all Co2 is recycle.d. It is a trace chemical, 400 parts per million. We want more not less. If it falls below 150 ppm we are finished.
The ~3.000 tonne steel/concrete bird choppers are anti-ecology by the definitions used by the green fascists. Besides needing hydrocarbons and oil to be built, emplaced, run, and maintained, they are useless most of the time. Solar farms are just as ludricous and primitive, full of chemical leaching and they destroy ecology and wildife.
Hydrocarbon energy is abiotic - natural, renewable. Algae and dead animals don't produce oil. The Russians have known this since the 1930s and this is why they went from energy zero to hero. Use hydrocarbons - another miracle of nature or shall I say God? Cheers
Another problem with wind turbines and solar panels is that they are largely manufactured abroad and just installed here, creating very few jobs. Presumably building a nuclear power station creates many jobs on site. Am I right in thinking the SMRs can be built in a factory. Presumably, these factories could be sited anywhere in the country, including areas of high unemployment, and would also create significant numbers of jobs?
CANDU's are 95% Canadian supply chain. Don't stop the government from mostly promoting imported wind & solar scams however. A lot of corruption going on, particularly the Liberal party is inundated with wind/solar company cronies. And they really don't care about coal or gas. They just despise Nuclear.
Let's hope. If other countries provide RR with more favourable conditions such as supply of labour, energy and favourable planning environment, they'll be off. Money moves.
Excellent article! One small point which enhances the case for nuclear: modern plants can already load-follow with ramp rates of up to 5% of capacity per minute.
What a delicious analogy - "Arguing for wind and solar in place of nuclear power is akin to arguing in favour of chocolate teapots because you cannot wait for a ceramic one. No matter how many chocolate teapots you buy, you can never make tea; just like no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels you install you can never run a modern economy on intermittent electricity."
"if your primary concern is the environment, then you should be an advocate of nuclear power because it has the smallest overall environmental footprint of all energy sources because it doesn’t take up much land and has very low mineral intensity." Yes! And if your primary concern is emissions, nuclear is at least as emission-free as any known source of power - nuclear is a dream come true for bi-partisan-ship.
Here's Kathryn Porter on the case for nuclear.
https://watt-logic.com/2024/09/18/making-the-case-for-nuclear-power/
She knows her stuff having started with a physics degree, worked in a bank on major project financing, and worked in EdF. She has a very good understanding of nuclear technology, present and future.
She starts by demolishing renewables in ways that will be familiar to readers of this blog, and goes on to discuss the obstacles nuclear faces alongside its clear advantages.
Excellent article from Kathryn
She's also a good speaker. She would have made an excellent panellist at the event.
Great article. We can only hope that during this parliament that more and more people realise nett zero is a ridiculous policy and is destroying our industrial base through expensive electricity. It will then take a major political party to have courage to adopt a different strategy and put this to the electorate at the next election. Democracy can then maybe just save he day 👍👍
One of the areas of research in radioisotope thermal generators for space applications has been in miniturised Strontium RTGs. The idea is you can get some meaningful thermal effect per gram at a size that doesn't require extensive shielding. Sr is beta decay and unlike alpha from plutonium requires thick metallic shielding over a certain size of source material.
The upshot of this work which appears to be going well (though in the early stages) is that it solves the nuclear waste problem somewhat. And the source material is dirt cheap compared to other nuclear sources. Sr is practically given away.
So not only would large scale nuclear be good for Earth applications. It would also be handy for space ones too.
But again time, money and feasibility are what counts.
Very interesting - thanks for sharing.
If we must spend £22bn on innovative energy “solutions” then investigating this sounds like a more sensible application of some of the money than carbon capture & storage. Memo to Mr Millipede. The majority should of course go to the immediate building of new nuclear power installations.
Thank you David, excellent contributions! Brilliant that you are taking them on.
Excellent David. The Commonsense is strong in this one. We may yet win The Battle of Ideas against the retrogressive Dark Forces of anti-engineering, anti-science and anti-economics irrationality.
I was at the Battle of Ideas too - sorry I missed you! My wife and I got a good spot in the main hall and the place was so busy we decided to stay put there all day both days (and all the sessions in there but one were interesting and food for thought). I would have liked to see Lord Frost again, I have seen Ali speak on green issues and was not impressed though the Net Zero argument shrivels anyway when held up to the light. Your contribution sounds to have been well-judged - and it's amazing that so few of the arguments on either side consider £/MwH which you would have thought is critical. I like the chocolate teapot analogy - I'll try to remember it. I think the Tories are moving now on this issue - not just Jenrick. I was quite surprised that Gove printed my letter this week pointing out that spaffing £22 bn on CCUS was an idea that can be traced to Boris and "Levelling Up".
Excellent report - thank you!
Good for you to argue and debate with these half wits. Must be painful. Co2 causes climate? Good Christ. Maybe the Rona virus was real? 95% of Co2 is emitted by Gaia and 90% of all Co2 is recycle.d. It is a trace chemical, 400 parts per million. We want more not less. If it falls below 150 ppm we are finished.
The ~3.000 tonne steel/concrete bird choppers are anti-ecology by the definitions used by the green fascists. Besides needing hydrocarbons and oil to be built, emplaced, run, and maintained, they are useless most of the time. Solar farms are just as ludricous and primitive, full of chemical leaching and they destroy ecology and wildife.
Hydrocarbon energy is abiotic - natural, renewable. Algae and dead animals don't produce oil. The Russians have known this since the 1930s and this is why they went from energy zero to hero. Use hydrocarbons - another miracle of nature or shall I say God? Cheers
Another great article, thank you.
Another problem with wind turbines and solar panels is that they are largely manufactured abroad and just installed here, creating very few jobs. Presumably building a nuclear power station creates many jobs on site. Am I right in thinking the SMRs can be built in a factory. Presumably, these factories could be sited anywhere in the country, including areas of high unemployment, and would also create significant numbers of jobs?
CANDU's are 95% Canadian supply chain. Don't stop the government from mostly promoting imported wind & solar scams however. A lot of corruption going on, particularly the Liberal party is inundated with wind/solar company cronies. And they really don't care about coal or gas. They just despise Nuclear.
What is CANDU?
Let's hope. If other countries provide RR with more favourable conditions such as supply of labour, energy and favourable planning environment, they'll be off. Money moves.
Rolls Royce’s proposal is described in this video
https://youtu.be/IM0FxgDyPfU?si=csM-ir7IAlctiugH
High-value jobs and exports on offer.
Thanks for the link. Will they be developing some type of molten salt reactor for their SMR?