OneGuyFromBarlick

Eventually I think it would help. The big problem is going to be inequalities embedded in any new system. It is going to have to be available to everyone but how long will that take?

A different perspective on the safety of nuclear energy from Justin Rowlatt, Chief Environment Correspondent at the BBC...
`Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?' LINK

A particularly interesting comment lies at the end of the article. I've added in the links...
`But here's the thing: if we were a bit less concerned about the risks of low levels of radiation then maybe we could make a more balanced assessment of nuclear power. Especially given that coal-fired power stations routinely release more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear power stations Science Focus thanks to the traces of uranium and thorium found in coal Scientific American And, since we are talking about worrying about the right things, let's not forget the environment. Taking a more balanced view on the risks of radiation might help all those anxious climate scientists I mentioned at the start of this piece sleep a bit easier in their beds at night.'

Nuclear power is the safest form of energy bar none includiing the deaths caused by nuclear accidents, the big ones and the hundredd of minor ones.. Renewables fare quite well including developed word hydro. A couple of major dam collapses in China and Africa which have killed hundreds of thousands makes the world wide picture look less sanitary. Coal is the worst by far.

Source : https://www.statista.com/statistics/494 ... gy-source/

Pluggy wrote: ↑28 Sep 2020, 12:04 Coal is the worst by far.

Yes, and Cumbria Council are wanting to open a coal mine for coking coal for the steel industry! I know we have to have a way of making steel but the Swedes are using hydrogen, probably made with hydro-electric power for electrolysis of the water. Maybe we need such a plant in Scotland?

" Coal is the worst by far."
I've always argued that Stephen, from mining through to pollution it has killed tens of thousands.

Pity nukes are about the most expensive power available.So much for the early assertions that nuclear power will be "too cheap to meter".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter

Well done Stephen, I remember that being said. Ah well......
And what do we do? Press bravely on with outdated and unproven technology. Astounding.

I got September's combined energy bill yesterday, £62 for the month. It rises slowly but isn't a problem.

`Superconductors: Material raises hope of energy revolution' LINK
[After the introductory blurb...] `The scientists observed the superconducting behaviour in a carbonaceous sulphur hydride compound at a temperature of 15C. However, the property only appeared at extremely high pressures of 267 billion pascals - about a million times higher than typical tyre pressure. This obviously limits its practical usefulness. So Dr Dias says the next goal will be to find ways to create room temperature superconductors at lower pressures, so they will be economical to produce in greater volume. These materials could have many other applications. These include a new way to propel levitated trains - like the Maglev trains that "float" above the track in Japan and Shanghai, China. Magnetic levitation is a feature of some superconducting materials.

Another application would be faster, more efficient electronics. "With this kind of technology, you can take society into a superconducting society where you'll never need things like batteries again," said co-author Ashkan Salamat of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Forgive me for being slightly cynical Peter but how often have we seen 'news' items like this. "Electricity too cheap to meter" etc. All power to their elbow but I'll believe it when I see it!

Things have have certainly moved on at Culham Science Park since I worked there back in the 1980s. I wasn't involved in the original JET fusion project but I remember they were very excited about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54741375

Thanks for posting that, Kev. It's one step closer to towards energy from nuclear fusion. What did you do at the Culham Science Park? Sorry if you've already told us somewhere else in the past and I missed it!

Tizer wrote: ↑30 Oct 2020, 10:10 Thanks for posting that, Kev. It's one step closer to towards energy from nuclear fusion. What did you do at the Culham Science Park? Sorry if you've already told us somewhere else in the past and I missed it!

First time I went was as contractor and put a new roof on their canteen
I went back in the 90s, when I worked for National Grid, to maintain some of their HV transformers.

Good Link Kev. I have always said that the ultimate answer to clean energy is fusion. Lovely to see progress being made.

Tizer wrote: ↑28 Sep 2020, 15:21
Cumbria Council are wanting to open a coal mine for coking coal for the steel industry! I know we have to have a way of making steel but the Swedes are using hydrogen, probably made with hydro-electric power for electrolysis of the water. Maybe we need such a plant in Scotland?

It would give an independent scotland a resource to sell to England !

Our solar panels made 892 kWh in the last quarter, less than the same quarter last year but we had all the rain and overcast for much of the time. Can't complain though, we make enough money from the tariff to pay our power bills!

Good! That's the only type of evidence that counts.

Winter marches up on us. Total energy usage in October was up 50% on £93.

Ammonia...
`The foul-smelling fuel that could power big ships' LINK

Never thought of ammonia as fuel.... you learn something new every day!

`UK energy plant to use liquid air' LINK
`Work is beginning on what is thought to be the world's first major plant to store energy in the form of liquid air. It will use surplus electricity from wind farms at night to compress air so hard that it becomes a liquid at -196 Celsius. Then when there is a peak in demand in a day or a month, the liquid air will be warmed so it expands. The resulting rush of air will drive a turbine to make electricity, which can be sold back to the grid. The 50MW facility near Manchester will store enough power for roughly 50,000 homes. The system was devised by Peter Dearman, a self-taught backyard inventor from Hertfordshire, and it has been taken to commercial scale with a £10 million grant from the UK government.

`Mr Dearman said his invention was 60-70% efficient, depending how it is used. That is less efficient than batteries, but he said the advantage of liquid air is the low cost of the storage tanks - so it can easily be scaled up. Also, unlike batteries, liquid air storage does not create a demand for rare earth minerals which may become increasingly scarce as the world moves towards power systems based on variable renewable electricity..'.

More information here: Wired

It sounds cheaper than an EDF nuclear power station even if you include the wind farm.

Rolls Royce plans 16 mini-nuclear plants for UK

A consortium led by Rolls Royce has announced plans to build up to 16 mini-nuclear plants in the UK.
It says the project will create 6,000 new jobs in the Midlands and the North of England over the next five years.

BBC News

I heard that report. I'd like to see them succeed as it might put a nail in the coffin of Hinkley Point which I am convinced is a money pit.

It would be good it it saved some of the jobs at RR in Barlick...