Wind. Is it a load of hot air?

[klondike]

Sweden Ditches Renewable Energy Targets in Latest Blow for Unreliable and Inefficient Technology

The Swedish Government has ditched its targets for "100% renewable energy" supply amid a shift back to nuclear power in the latest blow for the unreliable and inefficient technology.

Announcing the new policy in the Swedish Parliament, the Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson said: "This creates the conditions for nuclear power. We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity and we need a stable energy system."

Environmental campaign group Net Zero Watch has welcomed the move, saying the Swedish decision is "an important step in the right direction, implicitly acknowledging the low quality of unstable wind and solar, and is part of a general collapse of confidence in the renewable energy agenda pioneered in the Nordic countries and in Germany".

Sweden remains committed to "100% fossil-free" energy provision, but the change means it now sees nuclear power as critical to achieving it.

Sweden can "afford to reject fossil fuels, relying on nuclear and hydro and biomass", Net Zero Watch suggests. But the U.K. should go further, since in "substantial industrialised economies... only a gas to nuclear pathway is viable to remain industrialised and competitive".

Others have suggested that burning vast amounts of biomass i.e., wood is not really more ecologically friendly and lower-emission than burning the much more energy-dense fuels of gas and coal. Further objections to biomass and other fossil fuel alternatives include that lowering carbon dioxide emissions is not really a worthwhile goal for an individual country or globally as the potential harms of the gas are uncertain and exaggerated and the benefits overlooked.

Full story : https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/23/sweden-ditches-renewable-energy-targets-in-latest-blow-for-unreliable-and-inefficient-technology/

Meanwhile, of course, both our main parties are competing to see who can promise the most wind turbines.

[Diasi]

There are many areas in life where you don't have to have any engineering qualifications to be able to work out that something won't work.

Wind power & solar energy being just two examples.

It's blindingly obvious (hmmm, this is the second time in a couple of days that I've used this phrase) that nuclear power is the only achievable way to achieve net zero, & only then at the point of generation.

[Michael Rolls]

exactly  - but can our idiotic politicians graps the nettle?

[morty]

It was only this last week in the hot weather that I learnt that solar panels stop working at a certain temperature. Typical innit. 
And that wind turbines easily get damaged in storms.

Impressive hey as a solution to renewable energy.

[JBR]

There are many areas in life where you don't have to have any engineering qualifications to be able to work out that something won't work.

Wind power & solar energy being just two examples.

It's blindingly obvious (hmmm, this is the second time in a couple of days that I've used this phrase) that nuclear power is the only achievable way to achieve net zero, & only then at the point of generation.

I fully agree.  I have said many times that nuclear power is what we should be investing in now, in fact should have a long time ago, as it is the only reliable method of generating electricity.
Wind and solar are both unreliable and also fail to supply anything like what we need.

It annoys me that back in the '50s, the UK was one of the front-runners in nuclear power generation but, for reasons best known to themselves, the governments ever since those days have decided not to follow up on our world-leading knowledge.  
We have now arrived at a situation in which we are unable to produce our own nuclear power stations and are obliged to ask the Chinese and (for God's sake) the Frogs to do it for us.

Fortunately, we still have Rolls Royce who are still able to produce small modular reactors (like those we have in our submarines) which could be produced en masse to provide for our needs, and which in many ways are more efficient than traditional large nuclear power stations.
Yet again, though, our hopeless authorities still drag their feet whilst wondering how many more windmills they can erect!  🙄

[klondike]

Those small modular reactors may or may not be able to ramp up to provide power as that available from wind declines either from too little wind or too much and they have to be feathered and braked right back to avoid damage but the big nuclear power stations won't. They are apparently designed to run at high output constantly and provide for the grid baseload. From what I've read they are not designed to be able to ramp up and down over short timescales to compensate for fluctuating demand and variable renewals. That's what gas can do well.

I suspect that in future we'll need stored energy to provide the variable output. Batteries are inefficient, short lived and expensive plus far from green to produce. They won't scale well for trucks and we'll end up with internal combustion engines burning hydrogen for transport. My bet is that that will turn out to be the stored energy supply that will provide the variable demand for the grid too.

[JBR]

Those small modular reactors may or may not be able to ramp up to provide power as that available from wind declines either from too little wind or too much and they have to be feathered and braked right back to avoid damage but the big nuclear power stations won't. They are apparently designed to run at high output constantly and provide for the grid baseload. From what I've read they are not designed to be able to ramp up and down over short timescales to compensate for fluctuating demand and variable renewals. That's what gas can do well.

I suspect that in future we'll need stored energy to provide the variable output. Batteries are inefficient, short lived and expensive plus far from green to produce. They won't scale well for trucks and we'll end up with internal combustion engines burning hydrogen for transport. My bet is that that will turn out to be the stored energy supply that will provide the variable demand for the grid too.

I'm no expert, but I am quite sure that SMRs are able to ramp up or down their power output to what is required for their own locality, as that is exactly what they do in their submarines which require an instant increase (or reduction) in propulsive power at any specific time.

Yes, of course the submarine requires constant electrical power for its instruments and sensors, regardless of varying its speed.  But the electric engines used for propulsion must require far more power at the drop of a hat at any time.

Yes, from what I have heard, SMRs would be the ideal replacement for fossil-fuelled power plants and windmills and solar power when their input drops suddenly and perhaps severely.

Another advantage is that each SMR would be likely to support around one or two million people, or the equivalent of a large city or a similar group of towns, so probably much easier and quicker to make adjustments according to demand locally.

[klondike]

Sounds good. As I said I have no idea just what they can offer. I'm still betting that hydrogen will be a part of the mix though - it will certainly be needed for transport unless they insist we all ride bikes.

[Diasi]

I fully agree.  I have said many times that nuclear power is what we should be investing in now, in fact should have a long time ago, as it is the only reliable method of generating electricity.
Wind and solar are both unreliable and also fail to supply anything like what we need.

I keep a watch on our energy production & I've never seen wind & solar combined produce anywhere near to what we need.

https://grid.iamkate.com

[Ashy]

Certainly my understanding of atomic power is that a reactor creates a lot of heat and it takes time to shut down. If it's capable of delivering more electricity than is demanded then the core still has to be cooled even though the resultant steam is effectively wasted.

That's about the same with wind. If the generators can't be loaded by demand they must be stopped or loaded with ballast resistors.

The only type that can be disconnected safely is the solar panel.

[JBR]

Certainly my understanding of atomic power is that a reactor creates a lot of heat and it takes time to shut down. If it's capable of delivering more electricity than is demanded then the core still has to be cooled even though the resultant steam is effectively wasted.

As I said, I'm no expert, but the SMR-type reactors are virtually the same as those on our nuclear submarines.  They are able to adjust their output according to their needs and, presumably, can do so quite quickly.

Image a submarine which quickly needs to shut down any noise it is creating when in danger of being heard by an enemy's sonar, then rapidly needs to shoot off at the highest speed when under attack.
Those reactors must, therefore, be quickly adjustable in output far more rapidly than a reactor providing domestic electricity.

June 24, 2023, 10:00:33 PM

Sounds good. As I said I have no idea just what they can offer. I'm still betting that hydrogen will be a part of the mix though - it will certainly be needed for transport unless they insist we all ride bikes.

I believe that hydrogen is being considered as a replacement for the gas presently piped to our homes.  On the other hand, hydrogen has a much smaller atomic structure and I have read that it may be necessary to make changes (or additions) to pipework in order to reduce leakage at an atomic level.

Hydrogen has also been mooted as a future fuel for road transport.  Personally, if and when this 'nett zero' nonsense is shown to be exactly that, I'd suggest that we go back to diesel.  Cheaper and more efficient, though it does smell a bit!

[Ashy]

I may be wrong but I expect a submarine in a combat zone would run on batteries.

However I agree that our suppliers can make a small reactor for a submarine so it should work ashore; so I wonder why they don't buy some of those off the shelf as it were. I can only assume that the energy required by a sub is very small in the scheme of things when compared to the gigawatts used by the grid so it would require a large number of them to make a power station.

I think the proposal to use hydrogen involves mixing it with some other gases, considering how dangerous it is even at low pressure (vide the Hindenburg disaster of 1937)

[JBR]

Yes, non-nuclear submarines will certainly continue to use batteries, along with diesel engines to recharge them and to sail on the surface.

I'm pretty sure that nuclear-powered submarines don't use batteries, although it is possible that they might carry some for use in an emergency.

As for what the intention is regarding the use of SMRs for domestic electricity supply, I'm not sure but if a single reactor is unable to provide enough electricity for a city, then an installation might well have two or more such reactors.  They are really quite small, so that is perfectly possible and the main advantage is that they seem to be very reliable.

[Diasi]

Yes, non-nuclear submarines will certainly continue to use batteries, along with diesel engines to recharge them and to sail on the surface.

I'm pretty sure that nuclear-powered submarines don't use batteries, although it is possible that they might carry some for use in an emergency.

As for what the intention is regarding the use of SMRs for domestic electricity supply, I'm not sure but if a single reactor is unable to provide enough electricity for a city, then an installation might well have two or more such reactors.  They are really quite small, so that is perfectly possible and the main advantage is that they seem to be very reliable.

This may be of interest to those who don't know what an SMR is.

https://tinyurl.com/27b8hjz5

[JBR]

This may be of interest to those who don't know what an SMR is.

https://tinyurl.com/27b8hjz5

Thank you.
This is an excellent web site which confirms and certainly expands upon everything I have claimed.
Having read through it, I can see nothing but benefits and definitely no drawbacks.

It is only a weak and backward-looking government (and idiotic objectors) who seem to be preventing us from taking on the construction of SMR sites throughout the country, just as several other exemplary countries have already invested in SMRs.
I just wish we had more sensible voters and a strong pro-British government to bring about what we should have done a long time ago.