nuclear........currently provides only 4% of the UK energy

[ywindythesecond]

Reggy, you have said this before. How is it calculated?

Global Temperatures/Global Carbon Emissions in 2010 (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?145966-Global-Temperatures-Global-Carbon-Emissions-in-2010) Post #12 (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?145966-Global-Temperatures-Global-Carbon-Emissions-in-2010&p=855571#post855571)

[Rheghead]

It is calculated fairly simply using publically held info in Energy in Brief 2010 which is published by DECC.

You find out the total inland consumption of energy by the UK (2009) in million t.o.e., then you find out how much nuclear energy in TWh was produced in the same document, convert that by the factor to get million toe which is also in the same document and then do a simple division then x100 to get percent. It works out to be 3.7% of the total from nuclear.

[theone]

I think it's worth highlighting that a significant amount (Roughly a 3rd) of the UK's energy is used for transportation.

Apart from maybe some railways and the odd electric car, nuclear obviously doesn't figure highly in this respect.

In terms of electricity the same document says nuclear supplied 17% in 2009, up 4% from the previous year.

It's easy to see how people could become confused with these different figures.

I was surprised to see that roughly a quarter of all the energy we produce is lost in conversion/distribution. Surely a good argument for siting major energy sources/power stations etc closer to the end consumer?

[ducati]

I was surprised to see that roughly a quarter of all the energy we produce is lost in conversion/distribution. Surely a good argument for siting major energy sources/power stations etc closer to the end consumer?

No, No, further away, in Caithness! What's the matter with you?

[Rheghead]

I think it's worth highlighting that a significant amount (Roughly a 3rd) of the UK's energy is used for transportation.

Apart from maybe some railways and the odd electric car, nuclear obviously doesn't figure highly in this respect.

In terms of electricity the same document says nuclear supplied 17% in 2009, up 4% from the previous year.

It's easy to see how people could become confused with these different figures.

I was surprised to see that roughly a quarter of all the energy we produce is lost in conversion/distribution. Surely a good argument for siting major energy sources/power stations etc closer to the end consumer?

I think because it is fair to say that decarbonising transport and space heating is a major problem, one of the consequences of a low carbon economy would be to strengthen the existing grid and electrify the energy for those sectors from renewable sources. So thinking about energy requirements for those sectors in terms of absolute total energy values is more appropriate rather than oil for transport, gas for space heating etc.

For instance, I read that the UK government aims to have 2 million electric cars on British roads by 2020. It is only the beginning I feel and long overdue.

If the UK government and other nuclear powers were committed to maintaining that 17% share of electrical energy and apply it to transport and space heating then we would need four times as many nuclear power stations and we would reduce the life expectancy of the uranium sources that is available to us on the global market by 75% so uranium would run out in 25 years.

As for the proximity argument for large generators, if I owned an aluminium smelter and it was situated 1000 miles from a nuclear power station, most of the energy losses would be incurred by the stepping up and stepping down transformers required to transport the energy. Some will be lost from the power cables which is a function of the voltage and length. If on the otherhand I moved my smelter next door to the power station, the same major losses would be incurred by the transformers and there would be no saving either from the losses from the power cables by closer proximity unless the cable was made redundant but in reality, the cable would stay as it would be needed for other users and still be a source of transmission loss.

[ywindythesecond]

As for the proximity argument for large generators, if I owned an aluminium smelter and it was situated 1000 miles from a nuclear power station, most of the energy losses would be incurred by the stepping up and stepping down transformers required to transport the energy. Some will be lost from the power cables which is a function of the voltage and length. If on the otherhand I moved my smelter next door to the power station, the same major losses would be incurred by the transformers and there would be no saving either from the losses from the power cables by closer proximity unless the cable was made redundant but in reality, the cable would stay as it would be needed for other users and still be a source of transmission loss.
That is an interesting point, but the aluminium smelters at Fort William, Kinlochleven an Foyers were built close to the hydro power that fuelled them. It was obviously cheaper to take the ore to and the aluminium from these factories which are very remote from their markets, than transport the power.

[ywindythesecond]

[QUOTE=Rheghead;857037]For instance, I read that the UK government aims to have 2 million electric cars on British roads by 2020. It is only the beginning I feel and long overdue.

Reggy, you talk about the limitations of uranium etc. What goes into making batteries for electric cars, and assuming the western world goes hell for leather for electric cars to find a use for wind power, when do we run out of raw materials?

[Rheghead]

Reggy, you talk about the limitations of uranium etc. What goes into making batteries for electric cars, and assuming the western world goes hell for leather for electric cars to find a use for wind power, when do we run out of raw materials?

I've not heard that material shortages for batteries will be a bottle neck, but a google search seems to show that lithium is more abundant than first thought. There was a concern for some 'rare earth' metals used for the magnets but despite the generic chemistry term, the particular rare earths that are used are not particularly rare either and recycling older magnets will ease problems as well.

[theone]

As for the proximity argument for large generators, if I owned an aluminium smelter and it was situated 1000 miles from a nuclear power station, most of the energy losses would be incurred by the stepping up and stepping down transformers required to transport the energy. Some will be lost from the power cables which is a function of the voltage and length. If on the otherhand I moved my smelter next door to the power station, the same major losses would be incurred by the transformers and there would be no saving either from the losses from the power cables by closer proximity unless the cable was made redundant but in reality, the cable would stay as it would be needed for other users and still be a source of transmission loss.

Yes and no.

Major losses do come from the use of transformers, but the reason these transformers are needed is down to the costs that would otherwise be incurred transporting energy over long distances.

If you were to build your new smelter close to a power station, you could take a relatively low voltage (11kV) feed direct from that power station, eliminating the transformer losses. Stepping up/down to 132kV or 275kV etc is only required for long distances.

Hence, as pointed out by another poster, the proximity of the Kinlochleven to the blackwater dam.

[Rheghead]

Yes and no.

Major losses do come from the use of transformers, but the reason these transformers are needed is down to the costs that would otherwise be incurred transporting energy over long distances.

If you were to build your new smelter close to a power station, you could take a relatively low voltage (11kV) feed direct from that power station, eliminating the transformer losses. Stepping up/down to 132kV or 275kV etc is only required for long distances.

Hence, as pointed out by another poster, the proximity of the Kinlochleven to the blackwater dam.

OK but you said major energy sources supplying end consumer, I took from that you meant something above 500MW to supply multiple end consumers not small generators like hydro, OK I stated a hypothetical case with one high energy user but that nuclear power station would far exceed the needs of even a high energy user like a smelter and would require cables in excess of 11kW and would incur the larger transformer losses.
The crux is that transmission losses are really nominal compared to transformation losses so the proximity argument doesn't often stand up to scrutiny. Electricity transmission isn't like the flow of water, it doesn't mostly flow down the nearest drain.

[theone]

OK but you said major energy sources supplying end consumer, I took from that you meant something above 500MW to supply multiple end consumers not small generators like hydro, OK I stated a hypothetical case with one high energy user but that nuclear power station would far exceed the needs of even a high energy user like a smelter and would require cables in excess of 11kW and would incur the larger transformer losses.

Yes, but if you were to site your nuclear plant and smelter on the outskirts of Glasgow you wouldn't need to transform your voltages so high, as all the energy produced could be used "locally".


a high energy user like a smelter and would require cables in excess of 11kW.

Careful - I said kV, not kW. You wouldn't get much smelting done with 11kW!


The crux is that transmission losses are really nominal compared to transformation losses so the proximity argument doesn't often stand up to scrutiny.

The two go hand in hand.

You can have a low voltage system with high transmission losses or a high voltage system with low transmission losses but high transformer losses.

High voltage systems are more economical, hence why we have them.

[Rheghead]

Yes, but if you were to site your nuclear plant and smelter on the outskirts of Glasgow you wouldn't need to transform your voltages so high, as all the energy produced could be used "locally".


It wouldn't work on the basis that the system needs balancing when demand from the local user drops and to facilitate that the energy needs to be stepped up to the higher voltage to supply other parts of the country on a centralised grid because it would be uneconomical to load follow with a nuclear power station and visa versa when the power station suffers an outage.

The proximity argument works in theory but not in practice I suppose.

[theone]

It wouldn't work on the basis that the system needs balancing when demand from the local user drops and to facilitate that the energy needs to be stepped up to the higher voltage to supply other parts of the country on a centralised grid because it would be uneconomical to load follow with a nuclear power station and visa versa when the power station suffers an outage.

The proximity argument works in theory but not in practice I suppose.

Maybe, maybe not. Although you would still need the HV distribution for outages etc, during "normal" times they would not be utilised.

I think one of the big advantages of using nuclear is that it is easy to load follow.

I do believe that when the nuclear new builds were being considered in the 90's Dounreay was considered unfeasible due to its distance from major consumers.

[Rheghead]

The Beauly-Dounreay line is being upgraded to higher voltage, similar with the Beauly-Denny, less transformer losses might make Dounreay an attractive place for nuclear, politics notwithstanding.

[ywindythesecond]

Can I get back to electric cars please. Reggy, your earlier answer suggests that you have not considered the logistics of 2 million electric cars with batteries. Don't take this wrong. I have not considered the logistics, nor I suspect have our Governments. What are the logistics of 2 million electric cars?
Does anyone know?

[ywindythesecond]

More logistical questions about electrical cars.
What are the batteries made of?
Where does it come from?
Is the material ready to be delivered to the UK factories which will make the batteries for the electric cars?
Where are these UK factories?
Who will make the electric cars?
In time for 2020?

[Rheghead]

Not got a scooby but you could derail the entire green movement in its present form if you could successfully demonstrate that the logistics of building electric cars for all is impossible since having the cars is essential to balancing the grid according to our friend David J C Mackay.

[Better Out Than In]

There is a few things here.

Building a large consumer next door to a power station is generally to do with establishing long term sales agreements rather than efficiency; although the station could generate a special voltage for that consumer they generally don't as they still need to grid connect.

The Beauly-Denny line looks to already be fully allocated with wind farm applications and so may not provide any extra capacity for Caithness, even if the Beauly-Dounreay line is upgraded. Also a new nuclear station can be anything from 1000MW to 1800MW and the Beauly-Denny line could not take this if a new station was built at Dounreay. Either a major grid expansion programme is needed or the switch to HVDC. Both require many £hundreds of millions and have massive lead times (it could take 5 to 8 years just to make the HVDC cable). If Scotland does go independent will it have sufficient resources to pay for such a massive upgrade?

There are serious concerns about rare materials such as used in medical devices and batteries globally. Although there is not yet considered to be a shortage the current mining source is controlled by very few countries - mainly China. China has openely stated that it will see to its own state needs as a higher priority than export.

There have been many studies on HV and medium voltage transmission and conversion and generally yes, HV wins due to lower transmission losses (as heat) - but also one needs to take into account the stability of the national grid and its inertia, reserves and response time to fluctuating demand.

[weezer 316]

I think on the issue of energy loss the only real solution will be room temperature super-conductors, as I cant see them stationing nuclear plants right outside major cities, for obvious reasons.

Still waiting on the superconductors though

[oldmarine]

I have found this an interesting thread to read. In the states an old WW2 Navy buddy of mine bought a Toyota with a large battery that is a low gas guzzler and he is quite happy with it. I have seen a lot of windmill power in desert areas where not many people live thus not too many complaining. As for nuclear power the Japanese have demonstrated how that can get out of control so I won't comment on that. My experience while in England & Scotland showed me that you have many sources of energy. It's a matter of how you people can live with and use all those sources.

[Tubthumper]

Oldmarine, once again the voice of reason!

When I was at school over 30 years ago the general ecological concern was that fossil fuel was going to run out and we'd be left in the dark. Lately the push for 'clean coal' and 'carbon capture' has popped up, which makes me wonder whether (a) the eco-concerns of the 1980s were wrong/ misguided/ politically motivated and/ or (b) the current eco-concerns are wrong/ misguided/ politically motivated.

[John Little]

Tubs - I think you have put your finger right on it. Historically coal was trouble to our politicos. Way way back it was the single biggest employer in the country yet with a history of industrial trouble that was a pain to our leaders. It's difficult to draw lines in history but the UK was overtaken by the USA and Germany in coal production in 1888. The reason was over-manning and outdated practices. With 1.1 million miners producing 180 000 000 tons of coal a year of which 100,000 000 were consumed by the domestic market it does not take a genius at maths to work out that per capita production was never the most competitive on a global market.

So wages never kept pace with costs of production - 1910, 1912, 1921, 1926, 1931 etc all the way up to 1984 the coal miners and the syndicalists had the power to bring the country to a halt. The infrastructure of the industry was rotted and the probelems were structural. It could have been reformed but the syndicalism of Scargill co-incided with a burgeoning green movement saying things that seemed apparent at the time and made it politically convenient to can the industry.

In Brassed off the statement was made 'Coal is History'

Yet we sit on vast amounts of it.

Can one imagine the Saudis saying 'Oil is History'?

Coal was ditched for social and political/ideological reasons and because oil was plentiful and cheap. The same applied to nuclear.

That is no longer so.

We will never have 1.1 million miners again so the social aspect of coal is indeed history.

Politics and ideology often follow technology. Carbon capture is becoming possible. Techniques for burning fossil fuels are cleaner and getting more so. Need I comment on the price of oil?

I think the future may be coal.

[ducati]

I think the future may be coal.

Read all about it http://www.ukcoal.com/ :D

[bekisman]

This morning went down the A99 from Wick towards Latheron - noticed a sign saying "Caithness Oil" with an arrow pointing to the coast - could see a land-based rig - are they still drilling here? I thought they had packed up in 2008? - I understand they were trying to reach the deposits out at sea by a sloped drill from land?

[John Little]

Read all about it http://www.ukcoal.com/ :D

That's interesting but I note they use conventional methods. Underground coal gasification is being used in other parts of the world already - it's not theory. I wonder why British Coal do not do it?

Actually... speaking of Scotland...

http://www.britishcoalgasification.co.uk/NewsItem-FuelCellJV.html

[secrets in symmetry]

I think on the issue of energy loss the only real solution will be room temperature super-conductors, as I cant see them stationing nuclear plants right outside major cities, for obvious reasons.

Still waiting on the superconductors thoughHunterston is about 35 miles from the centre of Glasgow.

Torness is about 35 miles from the centre of Edinburgh.

Those are driving distances, it's shorter as the crow flies.

[secrets in symmetry]

It was cheap gas that killed coal in the UK, not cheap oil. We don't produce (much) electricity by burning oil in this country, although Inverkip did help the eventual victor in Margaret Thatcher vs Arthur Scargill in the mid 80s.

Burning coal in the old fashioned way to produce electricity is very dirty. Coal fired power stations emit far more pollution than the gas fired ones that replaced them. Clean coal technology is being developed in several places - I don't know of any commercial scale clean coal/low CO2 generation, but I haven't been following the technological developments very closely.