Even nuclear can’t save us now…
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2024
- When the Irish defenders of Aughrim Castle cracked open their ammunition boxes, they discovered that English musket balls were too big for their French flintlocks.
Oops…
So they fired their uniform buttons instead. Which didn’t have quite the desired impact…
No doubt half the soldiers blamed the English musket balls for being too big. The other half blamed the French flintlocks for being too small.
Both were missing the point. The musket balls and the flintlocks were just fine in their own right. It’s the fatal combination that was problematic. Fatal for the Irish, that is.
Today, we are making the same mistake with our energy policy. Nick Hubble and Sam Volkering are here to explain more...
pro.southbankr...
No! I'm Australian and we are further down the renewable path than the UK.
Nuclear is paid for ONCE and lasts 80-100 years.
Wind and solar are intermittent. Therefore, it is necessary to build TWO electricity generation systems and pay for them TWICE. That is before taking into account the following facts:
- wind and solar last only FIFTEEN years on average , and as little as NINE YEARS. Thus, it will be necessary to replace it multiple times during the life of a nuclear reactor.
- batteries are short-lived and prohibitively expensive.
- cost of additional transmission lines.
Over the lifespan of a nuclear reactor, Nuclear is FAR CHEAPER over the same period.
As to the nonsense of only running nuclear part-time, when the FIRST replacement of wind and solar has to occur, DO NOT replace it. Just use the nuclear power that you already have.
Problem is you are talking about UK politicians so literally the only thing they care or worry about is money and power - everything else is a means to those ends - joined up thinking or a sustainable strategy just doesn’t exist no matter how sensible it is
Look at the long term. Once the nuclear is in place, the ongoing cost are low. With wind and solar, there is a new capital cost as they degrade and have to be replaced, over an over.
the most foolish time in human history ...
I apologize for not watching until after you'd posted this to CZcams!
I think you should do the numbers on renewables storage as I have. It's hard to find the right forecast data for energy storage because most of the data are expressed as GW ,i.e., a power rating as opposed to GWh, i.e., total energy stored. The most optimistic 2030 forecast I can find, including such fanciful things as V2G (vehicles to grid**) would amount to enough energy to keep us going for 1.4 hours assuming an average demand of 44.9GW. So on a windless winter's evening you'd barely have time to eat dinner and wash up before the lights went out. This makes renewables a TOTAL NONSENSE.
You refer to all the renewables infrastructure that has already been built and suggest that this blocks the readily despatchable power advantages that nuclear has. Well, yes, it would if you let it but it needn't.
The expenditure on renewables infrastructure will prove to have been a huge mistake and a wasted investment and SHOULD BE WRITTEN OFF / SCRAPPED. To double down on even more renewables infrastructure investment would be to fall for the SUNKEN COSTS FALLACY. I think that you should put your professional investing hat back on and recognize a dud for what it is, take your loss and move on.
** Who in his right mind would allow the grid to suck power out of his EV overnight?
With renewables you have outsourced control of your energy supply to the weather/climate. With nuclear you retain control. So in terms of energy security, rather than cost , renewables leaves us vulnerable to falling from a “First world” society to one held hostage by anyone who can supply us with some power or taken to its ultimate extent, one that falls back into a wrecked economy, anarchy and starvation.
I have rather a deep voice for a MUM
Which country are you moving to next Sam? 🤣
Can we not use neuclear to produce the green hydrogen when not required due to enough wind and solar available.?
Hi gents!
Where are you storing the waste that has a half life of hundreds of thousands of years and how much does it cost to decommission a nuclear station?
I consider waste has been demonised for political and competitive reasons. Waste is a significant asset not a liability. It can fuel breeder reactors, as is done in France, China and Russia, containing enough residual energy to power the world for centuries to come. Finally waste volumes are tiny by many industrial processes and far less threatening to the environment. Bopal anyone ?
@@bobdeverell Great, Let's build a storage location near your house
@@rowlandsp Near ?? do you want me to sit on it. I prefer it out of site.
I would have absolutely no problem. There is absolutely no risk whatsoever even with today's high level waste.
Calling this "EVEN nuclear can't save us now" seems to imply that nothing can save us. Are we doomed? I'm a big fan of Nuclear but it won't save us now because it takes too long to build and get a nuclear station on line. Having said that I think we should still build nuclear power stations and also gas powered and get back into the north sea big time.