Fracking

Limechase said:
They can build nuclear reactors that fit in ships/submarines that are safe, why cant we build small nuclear power stations for each urbanisations?

Of course!!! 10yrs in the planning system, & objections from Green peace....
Click to expand...
Rolls Royce are planning to bring in 16 SMR s on line by 2025 ,each one can power 1million homes.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Why you say that? Have several friends and rellies who have either, they are very happy with how much they have cut their consumption.
Click to expand...
Briefly... You need bigger rads bigger pipework, as the water is only 50c, rather than 75c with gas, & just at a time when electricity has quadrupled in price,
 
Limechase said:
Briefly... You need bigger rads bigger pipework, as the water is only 50c, rather than 75c with gas, & just at a time when electricity has quadrupled in price,
Click to expand...
Correct, and also Cost fortune to get going when it’s cold.
 
Limechase said:
Briefly... You need bigger rads bigger pipework, as the water is only 50c, rather than 75c with gas, & just at a time when electricity has quadrupled in price,
Click to expand...
Which is why the ideal solution is under floor heating. The temperature isn't important, it is well above cold background so runs longer and puts in the same KW. My FiL's house is as warm now as in the days of his oil fired CH, with the air source heat pump connected in the existing pipework.

1Kw input produces 4Kw heat, sounds pretty competitive to me, particularly for the many, many areas of the UK who don't have mains gas.

And yes, I do know quite a lot about this stuff, spent 5 years of my life helping run a Green Business Forum, learnt a lot from the professionals, academics and energy charities. I know there is no single ideal solution, with the possible exception of insulation.
 
poolseasider said:
My 90 year old house is insulated with triple glazed windows it makes little difference the heating will be going on in the next week or two it will have to.

These projects are all well and good to try and make houses better but we still need energy for every day life and we need Gas NOW so if that's fracking so be it.
Click to expand...
Commercial levels of fracking will take a decade.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Which is why the ideal solution is under floor heating. The temperature isn't important, it is well above cold background so runs longer and puts in the same KW. My FiL's house is as warm now as in the days of his oil fired CH, with the air source heat pump connected in the existing pipework.

1Kw input produces 4Kw heat, sounds pretty competitive to me, particularly for the many, many areas of the UK who don't have mains gas.

And yes, I do know quite a lot about this stuff, spent 5 years of my life helping run a Green Business Forum, learnt a lot from the professionals, academics and energy charities. I know there is no single ideal solution, with the possible exception of insulation.
Click to expand...
That's spot on TM... Gas has also quadrupled in price, so to my mind that makes the cost benefit larger rather than smaller.

I'm looking to install ground source heat pumps at some point and more than confident in the technology and cost benefit. 👍
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
That's spot on TM... Gas has also quadrupled in price, so to my mind that makes the cost benefit larger rather than smaller.

I'm looking to install ground source heat pumps at some point and more than confident in the technology and cost benefit. 👍
Click to expand...
That's would be my ideal choice, more stable than air source and less vulnerable to extreme cold, and simpler moving parts, although bigger capital cost for the borehole. Having said which, the FiL's system works well, even below zero air temperature.

On holiday, on the house we rented, came across a new ( to me ) system, basically fridge in reverse with very cold refrigerant on the side of the house which got most sun. (Can't remember what it was called) The input/output heat difference was big enough to be weather proof. They used it for hot water.
 
After Canada we have the 2nd strongest tidal systems in the world, this could be generated into power if the will was there. The problem is a lack of infra structure spending, we could always let the Chinese install it at mega cost to us...
 
seasideone said:
Is that the mini reactors that currently have major technical problems?
Click to expand...
I work in the energy transition and so try to keep abreast of all the many ongoing developments in low carbon. From what I understand, these SMRs have only just been on government funded trials. So, even if these issues could be resolved quickly, I very much doubt the timeframe. I would expect somewhere nearer 2030.
 

Rolls-Royce hopes for UK SMR online by 2029​

19 April 2022

The chairman of Rolls-Royce SMR, Paul Stein, has told the Reuters news agency he hopes to get regulatory approval for its small modular reactor (SMR) design by mid-2024, with grid power able to be produced by 2029.

Rolls-Royce-SMR-plant-rendering-(Rolls-Royce).jpg
How the UK SMR will look (Image: Rolls-Royce)
Reuters quoted Stein as saying that the regulatory part of the process had begun and “will likely complete in the middle of 2024 … we are trying to work with the UK Government, and others to get going now placing orders, so we can get power on grid by 2029".
The Rolls-Royce SMR design was accepted for Generic Design Assessment (GDA) review last month with the UK’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy asking the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) along with the environment regulators for England and Wales to begin the process.
The Rolls-Royce SMR is a 470 MWe design based on a small pressurised water reactor.

So an aim of up and running by 2029.
 
Why don't all the people around the Mythop site find out where Truss lives, get some drills, and start drilling her front drive etc?
 
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
I see Truss has given the go ahead for Fracking ,gas and oil exploration . That will help global warming , the floods and the wild fires . Why not come up with all new houses will have solar panels and at least 1 tree if their garden if it is big enough or even have miniature wind turbines for new houses . I know it won't solve the problem completely ,but its got to be better then going back to what is causing the end of our planet just to allow these energy firms to get richer.
Click to expand...
How about sort China out and we go back to traditional power sources.
 
rease4 said:

Rolls-Royce hopes for UK SMR online by 2029​

19 April 2022

The chairman of Rolls-Royce SMR, Paul Stein, has told the Reuters news agency he hopes to get regulatory approval for its small modular reactor (SMR) design by mid-2024, with grid power able to be produced by 2029.

Rolls-Royce-SMR-plant-rendering-(Rolls-Royce).jpg
How the UK SMR will look (Image: Rolls-Royce)
Reuters quoted Stein as saying that the regulatory part of the process had begun and “will likely complete in the middle of 2024 … we are trying to work with the UK Government, and others to get going now placing orders, so we can get power on grid by 2029".
The Rolls-Royce SMR design was accepted for Generic Design Assessment (GDA) review last month with the UK’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy asking the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) along with the environment regulators for England and Wales to begin the process.
The Rolls-Royce SMR is a 470 MWe design based on a small pressurised water reactor.

So an aim of up and running by 2029.
Click to expand...
Sadly too little too late.
 
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
I see Truss has given the go ahead for Fracking ,gas and oil exploration . That will help global warming , the floods and the wild fires . Why not come up with all new houses will have solar panels and at least 1 tree if their garden if it is big enough or even have miniature wind turbines for new houses . I know it won't solve the problem completely ,but its got to be better then going back to what is causing the end of our planet just to allow these energy firms to get richer.
Click to expand...
Typical of this bunch of bungling charlatans as they sit in the pockets of the energy companies using the current prices to lever in some very very dodgy business which we will all pay for
 
Limechase said:
Briefly... You need bigger rads bigger pipework, as the water is only 50c, rather than 75c with gas, & just at a time when electricity has quadrupled in price,
Click to expand...
Dont understand why electricity has gone up in price at the same rate as gas. I know some gas is burned to produce electricity which seems like a ridiculous use of resources to me, but electricity is generated in many different ways and Putin doesn't control it.
To some extent the government is a victim of circumstances with gas but is there anything they could do about the price of electricity?
 
1966_and_all_that said:
All of the above is good stuff. My gripe is that there has not been the investment in wave technology that there should have been already. There is no commercial traffic down the Ribble anymore so why not get on with erecting a barrage? Not a rhetorical question btw. I'd really like to know why this hasn't been done.
Click to expand...
The main problems with wave technology are a) sea water is highly corrosive so it's costly to maintain, b) it harms vast amounts of marine life and c) it's generally in a fixed position but tide shapes can alter so isn't always in the optimal position (think of wind turbines which rotate to face the wind to get maximum effect).

Unfortunately all sources of energy have their pros and cons.
 
gjr69 said:
Dont understand why electricity has gone up in price at the same rate as gas. I know some gas is burned to produce electricity which seems like a ridiculous use of resources to me, but electricity is generated in many different ways and Putin doesn't control it.
To some extent the government is a victim of circumstances with gas but is there anything they could do about the price of electricity?
Click to expand...
Global cartel.
 
Wizaard said:
Global cartel.
Click to expand...
Impossible to change or just don't want to?
Is this a case of political dogma and/or looking after their own stopping them from doing something to help the majority?
I don't know much about it but I'm guessing it is.
 
gjr69 said:
Dont understand why electricity has gone up in price at the same rate as gas. I know some gas is burned to produce electricity which seems like a ridiculous use of resources to me, but electricity is generated in many different ways and Putin doesn't control it.
To some extent the government is a victim of circumstances with gas but is there anything they could do about the price of electricity?
Click to expand...

About 8:45 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0cysfdh
 
bill40 said:
Indeed one favours and enriches land owners and the other doesn't. I can't think why she chose wind farms.
Click to expand...
It's a fair point but that's not her reasoning, it's typical NIMBY stuff. We're trying to decarbonise the entire farming industry, there's about to be huge changes which we really need as many people on board as possible for. Of course this should save them money anyway, but farmers putting up solar panels and making some extra cash is fine by me
 
The UK is too small for fracking.

I thought I read somewhere that by 2030, we'd produce so much renewable energy, we'll be exporting it? But I'm not sure

Just one other thought; given all the effort to move to stuff like LED why is demand for every still increasing. I would have thought my domestic energy usage must be much less than it used to be - I suppose the advent of the electric car will be the primary increase for most households??
 
foggy said:
It's a fair point but that's not her reasoning, it's typical NIMBY stuff. We're trying to decarbonise the entire farming industry, there's about to be huge changes which we really need as many people on board as possible for. Of course this should save them money anyway, but farmers putting up solar panels and making some extra cash is fine by me
Click to expand...
I don't think you get it, land owners lobbied for windmills and builders lobbied against solar panels. Farmers won't be putting slar panels in fields any time soon. So lots of lovely wonga for land owners and no extra costs for builders. Nice work if you can get it.
 
bill40 said:
I don't think you get it, land owners lobbied for windmills and builders lobbied against solar panels. Farmers won't be putting slar panels in fields any time soon. So lots of lovely wonga for land owners and no extra costs for builders. Nice work if you can get it.
Click to expand...
70% of solar panels in the UK are owned by farmers
 
gjr69 said:
Problem with logging in for this, briefly what are they saying? Thanks.
Click to expand...

The cost for the marginal producer, in this case gas, sets the electricity price for the entire market, those that can produce for less (wind, solar, nuclear) make bigger profits as a result.

In fact it's a bit more complicated, the more recent renewable projects (offshore wind and perhaps some solar) are on "contracts for difference", where the government buys everything they produce at a price fixed at the start of the contract, so the government is getting a significant share of the excess profits from that sector already, there might be a case for compelling other renewables producers onto similar contracts.
 
TSSeasider said:
The UK is too small for fracking.

I thought I read somewhere that by 2030, we'd produce so much renewable energy, we'll be exporting it? But I'm not sure

Just one other thought; given all the effort to move to stuff like LED why is demand for every still increasing. I would have thought my domestic energy usage must be much less than it used to be - I suppose the advent of the electric car will be the primary increase for most households??
Click to expand...
UK electricity demand has decreased massively from its peak, it was 406 tw hours in 2005 and has fallen to 334 last year, despite the population growing by about 7 million people. This has been achieved, frankly, by smart governance in the UK and EU regarding efficiency regulations.

For us to reach net zero however, gas boilers will be replaced by heat pumps by 2035 and every new car will be electric by the end of the decade. Swapping gas for electricity will probably double our electricity demands.
 
foggy said:
UK electricity demand has decreased massively from its peak, it was 406 tw hours in 2005 and has fallen to 334 last year, despite the population growing by about 7 million people. This has been achieved, frankly, by smart governance in the UK and EU regarding efficiency regulations.

For us to reach net zero however, gas boilers will be replaced by heat pumps by 2035 and every new car will be electric by the end of the decade. Swapping gas for electricity will probably double our electricity demands.
Click to expand...
So about 20% less, with a 15% larger population is really impressive.

I suppose it begs the question, would net zero by 2045, be a better easy to go?

No idea whether 10 years would make that big a difference, of the trajectory of fossil fuels v renewables is downward?
 
TSSeasider said:
So about 20% less, with a 15% larger population is really impressive.

I suppose it begs the question, would net zero by 2045, be a better easy to go?

No idea whether 10 years would make that big a difference, of the trajectory of fossil fuels v renewables is downward?
Click to expand...
Yeah, its a massive win for the role of governments in our society, and what they can achieve, imo.

Our net zero goal is for 2050, what I mentioned in my post is current UK planning that sales of any new gas boilers will be banned by 2035 and sales of any new non-electric cars banned by 2030, in attempt to reach that 2050 goal.
 
BigHandsOliverKahn said:
The main problems with wave technology are a) sea water is highly corrosive so it's costly to maintain, b) it harms vast amounts of marine life and c) it's generally in a fixed position but tide shapes can alter so isn't always in the optimal position (think of wind turbines which rotate to face the wind to get maximum effect).

Unfortunately all sources of energy have their pros and cons.
Click to expand...
Thanks, worth knowing.
 
TSSeasider said:
The UK is too small for fracking.
Click to expand...

How does fracking differ from mining for coal? Was the UK too small for coal mining as well?


TSSeasider said:
I thought I read somewhere that by 2030, we'd produce so much renewable energy, we'll be exporting it? But I'm not sure
Click to expand...

The problem is when the wind doesn't blow, the electricity has to come from somewhere else, and gas/coal is the only viable alternative.


TSSeasider said:
Just one other thought; given all the effort to move to stuff like LED why is demand for every still increasing. I would have thought my domestic energy usage must be much less than it used to be - I suppose the advent of the electric car will be the primary increase for most households??
Click to expand...

Our annual consumption is actually down about 15% from 2005, the problem is we've shut down about 20GW of coal generation capacity since then, so we're now totally reliant on gas when the wind isn't blowing (guess what, it's not blowing today).
 
Lost Seasider said:
How does fracking differ from mining for coal? Was the UK too small for coal mining as well?
Click to expand...

Is this a serious question? They are different resources. The UK has a 10 times lower amount of shale gas than what was previously estimated, according to the British Geological Survey. Nobody seriously expects a rise in fracking, which was stopped in 2019 after causing seismic activity 1000x the agreed legal limit, will give us more then a piddly few percent of our energy needs anytime in the next decade.
 
Lost Seasider said:
How does fracking differ from mining for coal? Was the UK too small for coal mining as well?




The problem is when the wind doesn't blow, the electricity has to come from somewhere else, and gas/coal is the only viable alternative.




Our annual consumption is actually down about 15% from 2005, the problem is we've shut down about 20GW of coal generation capacity since then, so we're now totally reliant on gas when the wind isn't blowing (guess what, it's not blowing today).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure digging coal out is the same fracking but I don't know enough to be sure.

Of course we need alternative to wind, and the more diversified the generation the better.

Can we do coal without causing more global warming?
 
TSSeasider said:
I'm not sure digging coal out is the same fracking but I don't know enough to be sure.

Of course we need alternative to wind, and the more diversified the generation the better.

Can we do coal without causing more global warming?
Click to expand...

No, but we can't do renewables without fossil backup, and gas or coal are the only games in town.
 
1
Lost Seasider said:
The cost for the marginal producer, in this case gas, sets the electricity price for the entire market, those that can produce for less (wind, solar, nuclear) make bigger profits as a result.

In fact it's a bit more complicated, the more recent renewable projects (offshore wind and perhaps some solar) are on "contracts for difference", where the government buys everything they produce at a price fixed at the start of the contract, so the government is getting a significant share of the excess profits from that sector already, there might be a case for compelling other renewables producers onto similar contracts.
Click to expand...
So sounds to my uneducated mind that it is far from a free market whereby you produce or provide something and sell it at a price that's possibly undercutting your rivals.
As power and energy are so essential and it doesn't appear to be a truly competitive market maybe it should be State owned same could be said for water.
 
BigHandsOliverKahn said:
The main problems with wave technology are a) sea water is highly corrosive so it's costly to maintain, b) it harms vast amounts of marine life and c) it's generally in a fixed position but tide shapes can alter so isn't always in the optimal position (think of wind turbines which rotate to face the wind to get maximum effect).

Unfortunately all sources of energy have their pros and cons.
Click to expand...
b only applies to barrage systems. Wave power is fixed in place in channels. There is more than enough accessible tidal energy in the straits between Northern Scotland and Orkney to power the UK. Corrosion is not an issue if you use plastics. Tidal and wave energy research has never been properly supported, and yet it has the capability to provide power 24/7/52
 
gjr69 said:
1
So sounds to my uneducated mind that it is far from a free market whereby you produce or provide something and sell it at a price that's possibly undercutting your rivals.
As power and energy are so essential and it doesn't appear to be a truly competitive market maybe it should be State owned same could be said for water.
Click to expand...

Wrong I'm afraid.

The supply of renewable energy (and nuclear) is fixed, there is no scope to increase output (in the short to medium term), thus they sell it at whatever price the market sets, there is no benefit to selling any lower. The gas-electricity market is similar in that there is no scope to increase the size of the plant in any kind of realistic timeframe.

In terms of "undercutting rivals", that's what happens in the gas-electricity market, the most efficient operator fires up first, and takes the market share from its less efficient rivals who can't afford to sell at the price, as demand and thus price rises the less efficient operators start to generate until the least efficient operator is the one that's now setting the market price.

The key point being, if an operator (wind, solar, gas) can sell 100% of their output at £400/MWh, there's no logic in them selling it for a lower price.


On the subject of water, there's an interesting article explaining how the water industry works here: https://capx.co/knee-jerk-nationalisers-have-no-idea-how-the-water-industry-actually-works/, the TDLR version of it is that to all intents and purposes it's state owned anyway.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Wrong I'm afraid.

The supply of renewable energy (and nuclear) is fixed, there is no scope to increase output (in the short to medium term), thus they sell it at whatever price the market sets, there is no benefit to selling any lower. The gas-electricity market is similar in that there is no scope to increase the size of the plant in any kind of realistic timeframe.

In terms of "undercutting rivals", that's what happens in the gas-electricity market, the most efficient operator fires up first, and takes the market share from its less efficient rivals who can't afford to sell at the price, as demand and thus price rises the less efficient operators start to generate until the least efficient operator is the one that's now setting the market price.

The key point being, if an operator (wind, solar, gas) can sell 100% of their output at £400/MWh, there's no logic in them selling it for a lower price.


On the subject of water, there's an interesting article explaining how the water industry works here: https://capx.co/knee-jerk-nationalisers-have-no-idea-how-the-water-industry-actually-works/, the TDLR version of it is that to all intents and purposes it's state owned anyway.
Click to expand...
That’s what used to happen, before the market was reformed a decade or so ago.

Not anymore!
 
Last edited:
Lost Seasider said:
Wrong I'm afraid.

The supply of renewable energy (and nuclear) is fixed, there is no scope to increase output (in the short to medium term), thus they sell it at whatever price the market sets, there is no benefit to selling any lower. The gas-electricity market is similar in that there is no scope to increase the size of the plant in any kind of realistic timeframe.

In terms of "undercutting rivals", that's what happens in the gas-electricity market, the most efficient operator fires up first, and takes the market share from its less efficient rivals who can't afford to sell at the price, as demand and thus price rises the less efficient operators start to generate until the least efficient operator is the one that's now setting the market price.

The key point being, if an operator (wind, solar, gas) can sell 100% of their output at £400/MWh, there's no logic in them selling it for a lower price.


On the subject of water, there's an interesting article explaining how the water industry works here: https://capx.co/knee-jerk-nationalisers-have-no-idea-how-the-water-industry-actually-works/, the TDLR version of it is that to all intents and purposes it's state owned anyway.
Click to expand...
Don't be afraid about it pal it's either good for most people or good for a few. Hopefully good for the majority👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top