On 17/01/2020 13:24, Andy Burns wrote:
Pancho wrote:

Over capacity of wind generators reduces the periods of under
generation, also the hydrogen stored during periods of over capacity
could be used for alternate power generation in periods of wind under
production.

depends if they produce the H2 centrally, then you have to distribute
it, or have "micro" production e.g. at petrol stations or fleet HQs

https://www.itm-power.com/h2-stations

I think they're building a factory in Sheffield to knock out the
hydroliser/compressors in shipping containers. Obviously you've then got
to beef up the electrical distribution instead of hydrogen tankers.

The idea I was seeing was something like the natural gas distribution
pipe network. Thus production can be central or distributed.

I think beefing up electrical distribution is already a given with a
high proportion wind generation on the grid. You needed it to smooth
local wind variability.

I have no idea of the feasibility of any of this.

On 17/01/2020 11:19, Pancho wrote:
On 16/01/2020 20:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.


How do you know wind cannot be used to make hydrogen. Serious question,
not making a point.

Ar you being deliberate;ly stupid?
It's *impractical* to have a car with square wheels But you can
certainly make one.


I vaguely remember someone claiming that the required number of
windmills would take up too much area in the UK, but I think I have also
seen claims we could produce ten times our requirements from wind.


eco****s are always claing te impossible

Does anyone have a reliable source for a discussion of potential UK wind
capacity, + economics.

David Mackays 'without the hot air'

and
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/R...imitations.pdf


Hydrogen can also be used as a replacement for domestic gas heating. So
if we can economically provide enough wind power overcapacity, the two
technologies would be well suited.


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 17/01/2020 11:24, Pancho wrote:
On 17/01/2020 10:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It not wuite that they couldnt stop making it, it is just that the
cost of keeping it running is so low.

ALL the cost in nuclear is capital, insurance and maintenance. That
happens whether its running or not. Fuel costs are very low.


For current generation nukes this is due to low demand for uranium. It
wouldn't scale to a world wide energy solution.

Of course it would.
the Japanese demonstrated extraction of uranium from seawater at
$200/lb. Its currently $50/lb

going from $50 to $200 puts less than 0.1p on a unit electricity cost

There's 10,000 years of uranium in the sea if we hads an all nuclear
world at western levels of energy consumption


Of course if we had fast nukes it would scale.

Once it gets to over about $70 a lb (or is it kg) then fast reactors
become cost effective, as does recycling

Then of course if the cost of nukes is all capital rather than fuel why
do people keep pushing fusion as a solution. I can't see why fusion
capital costs would be cheaper than fission and the fuel would
effectively cost the same.

Because of paranoia and regulatory ratcheting

People haven't been educated to be scared of fusion.

About 80% of a reactor cost is down to fear of nuclear power, carefully
nurtured by its competitors.

--
Of what good are dead warriors? €¦ Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory €¦ The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On 17/01/2020 11:45, Pancho wrote:
On 17/01/2020 11:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Pancho
wrote:

On 17/01/2020 10:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It not wuite that they couldnt stop making it, it is just that the
cost of keeping it running is so low.

ALL the cost in nuclear is capital, insurance and maintenance. That
happens whether its running or not. Fuel costs are very low.


For current generation nukes this is due to low demand for uranium.
It wouldn't scale to a world wide energy solution.

Of course if we had fast nukes it would scale.

Then of course if the cost of nukes is all capital rather than fuel
why do people keep pushing fusion as a solution. I can't see why
fusion capital costs would be cheaper than fission and the fuel would
effectively cost the same.

Nominally, because of reduced nuclear waste.

Fast reactors eat transuranics, fusion reactor containers will become
slightly radioactive. So I can't see that as particularly significant.


That is because you can Think and probably Do Sums.

The average person cannot, but they can sure emote


Bomb proliferation risk I would give you.


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 17/01/2020 12:06, Pancho wrote:
On 17/01/2020 11:45, Pancho wrote:
On 17/01/2020 11:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Pancho
wrote:

On 17/01/2020 10:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It not wuite that they couldnt stop making it, it is just that the
cost of keeping it running is so low.

ALL the cost in nuclear is capital, insurance and maintenance. That
happens whether its running or not. Fuel costs are very low.


For current generation nukes this is due to low demand for uranium.
It wouldn't scale to a world wide energy solution.

Of course if we had fast nukes it would scale.

Then of course if the cost of nukes is all capital rather than fuel
why do people keep pushing fusion as a solution. I can't see why
fusion capital costs would be cheaper than fission and the fuel
would effectively cost the same.

Nominally, because of reduced nuclear waste.

Fast reactors eat transuranics, fusion reactor containers will become
slightly radioactive. So I can't see that as particularly significant.

Bomb proliferation risk I would give you.

Actually I feel a business scheme coming on. What with being told we
need to ditch our gas boilers in favour of ground based heat pumps. We
could offer people radioactive waste to bury in their back garden to
improve the heat pump efficiency.

sealed for life nuclear Aga.


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

Just like surplus wind power, then?

But I'm sure a good right winger like you would soon find a way of
charging plenty for it. Capitalism can't survive without profit.

--
*If a thing is worth doing, wouldn't it have been done already?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Pancho wrote:
Hydrogen can also be used as a replacement for domestic gas heating. So
if we can economically provide enough wind power overcapacity, the two
technologies would be well suited.

Make far more sense to use electricity produced by wind power to heat our
houses directly. I'd guess upgrading the grid rather cheaper than
installing a high pressure pipe network.

--
*A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kickboxing.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Pancho wrote:
Actually I feel a business scheme coming on. What with being told we
need to ditch our gas boilers in favour of ground based heat pumps. We
could offer people radioactive waste to bury in their back garden to
improve the heat pump efficiency.

Going to work ever so well in the average tower block. ;-)

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 17/01/2020 14:25:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

Just like surplus wind power, then?

But I'm sure a good right winger like you would soon find a way of
charging plenty for it. Capitalism can't survive without profit.

You're right.
A right winger will ensure the customer pays.
A left winger will ensure everyone else pays, usually a tax payer.

Socialism can't exist without money trees. North Korea perhaps being an
obvious state discovering there is no free money tree.

Is it really so difficult to accept there are advantages to a mixed
economic?

On 17/01/2020 14:29:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
Hydrogen can also be used as a replacement for domestic gas heating. So
if we can economically provide enough wind power overcapacity, the two
technologies would be well suited.

Make far more sense to use electricity produced by wind power to heat our
houses directly. I'd guess upgrading the grid rather cheaper than
installing a high pressure pipe network.

It would make sense. There are installations with solar voltaic panels
where excess electrical power is used to heat the hot water rather than
export it for free.

On Friday, 17 January 2020 10:01:43 UTC, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI


Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways

Efficiency is nothing to do with money.

On 17/01/2020 14:50, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:27:59 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:24:02 +0000, Pancho wrote:

On 17/01/2020 10:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It not wuite that they couldnt stop making it, it is just that the cost
of keeping it running is so low.

ALL the cost in nuclear is capital, insurance and maintenance. That
happens whether its running or not. Fuel costs are very low.


For current generation nukes this is due to low demand for uranium. It
wouldn't scale to a world wide energy solution.

Of course if we had fast nukes it would scale.

Then of course if the cost of nukes is all capital rather than fuel why
do people keep pushing fusion as a solution. I can't see why fusion
capital costs would be cheaper than fission and the fuel would
effectively cost the same.

The Thorium cycle keeps getting mentioned ...

and mentioned and mentioned, a bit like fusion.

No. It's different. Thorium is really no different from uranium its just
a slightly different set of waste products.

Currently uranium is so cheap it's not worth recycling it and it's not
worth using breeders. Or thorium.

If uranium upped in porice thougfh it would be. India is keen on thorium
because it has lots..

Fusion is different. It doesnt actually work - yet.

We know how to build a thorium reactor. We dont know how to buld a
fusion reactor yet that is anywhere near viable

--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 17/01/2020 16:22:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 17 January 2020 10:01:43 UTC, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI


Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways

Efficiency is nothing to do with money.
It can be. It would be a waste of money making vast quantities of
hydrogen reliably in virtually any other way, unless you want to burn
fossil fuels.

On 17/01/2020 15:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
I remain to be convinced that the entire domestic solar PV market isn't/
wasn't just a bungs-for-the-boys scheme that was pushed through because
it was "green" ....

Oh I am way ahead of you. It was always precisely that. Or rather that
'green' is simply a way of selling ****e product to gullible millenials

Poor fools


--
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

newshound wrote:

you get a strong incentive for electric commercial as well as private
vehicles

Seems like the screw is about to be turned on cheap EV charging?

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/ionity-launch-new-pricing-structure-ev-charger-rollout-continues

Apparently that makes fast-charging twice the running cost of a diesel,
so expensive cars that are no longer cheap to run ...

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI


Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Once you have the nuke, the marginal cost of producing
more hydrogen is the cheapest way to do it.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI


Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways

It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

It isnt done by electrolysis, nukes can produce hydrogen
directly and the marginal cost is the lowest there is.

On 17/01/2020 16:49, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, FredxxÂ* wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways

It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

It isnt done by electrolysis, nukes can produce hydrogen
directly and the marginal cost is the lowest there is.

How?


--
€œwhen things get difficult you just have to lie€�

€• Jean Claud Jüncker

"Jimk" wrote in message
o.uk...
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:39, charles wrote:
In article ,
Jimk wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we
build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway


Itym "almost given away"....i.e. no demand but can't (practically)
stop making it....

which is why pumped storage schemes were build as partnerships with
Nuclear.

It not wuite that they couldnt stop making it, it is just that the cost
of keeping it running is so low.

ALL the cost in nuclear is capital, insurance and maintenance. That
happens whether its running or not. Fuel costs are very low.




Oh agreed.

What do we do with electricity if no-one wants it
at that moment? Lightning displays? Build more
interconnects ? -must be a viability constraint(s}?

Yeah, not a great idea to be deliberately pumping
spare energy into the environment.

Wasn't there some blurb on here about the
negative effects of trying to "throttle back" nukes?

Yeah, its not great for the nuke.

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 04:13:49 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's latest troll****

04:13??? Yet AGAIN??? So, for HOW long have you been up and trolling this
night in Australia already, you useless clinically insane senile cretin?

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 03:49:14 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH senile asshole's usual senile troll****

03:49 in Australia? Yet AGAIN? So, for HOW long have you actually been up
and trolling already, you abnormal clinically insane senile pest?

--
Bod addressing senile Rot:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
Message-ID:

On Thursday, 16 January 2020 18:35:28 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

Double or triple the cost of coal, oil, and gas and all of a sudden
nuclear and renewables start to make real sense.

I think that would be too much of a shock to the system, put it on a
ramp to double or triple over several decades, maybe workable.

a kind of 'fuel price escalator'?

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

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 03:42:15 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

03:42??? Yet AGAIN? Is your unbearable loneliness not letting you sleep in
again, you cantankerous senile cretin? LOL

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

On 17/01/2020 17:30, wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 18:35:28 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

Double or triple the cost of coal, oil, and gas and all of a sudden
nuclear and renewables start to make real sense.

I think that would be too much of a shock to the system, put it on a
ramp to double or triple over several decades, maybe workable.

a kind of 'fuel price escalator'?

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

renewables never make sense


--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 17:30, wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 18:35:28 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

Double or triple the cost of coal, oil, and gas and all of a sudden
nuclear and renewables start to make real sense.

I think that would be too much of a shock to the system, put it on a
ramp to double or triple over several decades, maybe workable.

a kind of 'fuel price escalator'?

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

renewables never make sense

They do in a few situations like when its costs a hell
of a lot to get a power line to a particular place.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:27:59 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:24:02 +0000, Pancho wrote:

On 17/01/2020 10:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It not wuite that they couldnt stop making it, it is just that the cost
of keeping it running is so low.

ALL the cost in nuclear is capital, insurance and maintenance. That
happens whether its running or not. Fuel costs are very low.


For current generation nukes this is due to low demand for uranium. It
wouldn't scale to a world wide energy solution.

Of course if we had fast nukes it would scale.

Then of course if the cost of nukes is all capital rather than fuel why
do people keep pushing fusion as a solution. I can't see why fusion
capital costs would be cheaper than fission and the fuel would
effectively cost the same.

The Thorium cycle keeps getting mentioned ...

and mentioned and mentioned, a bit like fusion.

Nothing like fusion. The only reason it isnt done currently
is because nukes have gone out of fashion for a while.

That wont continue forever once the cost
of fossil fuels starts to increase significantly.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 14:25:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

Just like surplus wind power, then?

But I'm sure a good right winger like you would soon find a way of
charging plenty for it. Capitalism can't survive without profit.

You're right.
A right winger will ensure the customer pays.
A left winger will ensure everyone else pays, usually a tax payer.

Socialism can't exist without money trees. North Korea perhaps being an
obvious state discovering there is no free money tree.

Is it really so difficult to accept there are advantages to a mixed
economic?

They are ALL mixed economics. The only difference is the mix.

Even HongKong before it was handed back to china
had some socialism, most obviously with the govt
schools and even a minimal amount of welfare too.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 17/01/2020 14:25:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

Just like surplus wind power, then?

But I'm sure a good right winger like you would soon find a way of
charging plenty for it. Capitalism can't survive without profit.

You're right.
A right winger will ensure the customer pays.

Not really, just make sure someone pays. Preferably not themselves.

A left winger will ensure everyone else pays, usually a tax payer.

I take it then you hate any form of insurance? Where the load is spread
more evenly?

Socialism can't exist without money trees.
That must make Boris a socialist.

North Korea perhaps being an
obvious state discovering there is no free money tree.

You'd compare N Korea to the UK?

Is it really so difficult to accept there are advantages to a mixed
economic?

I've always accepted and believed in one. Best of both worlds. But lots on
here despise it. Everything only exists to make a profit from.

--
*Rehab is for quitters

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 04:55:28 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the nym-shifting senile troll's latest troll****

04:55??? LOL So, WHEN will you finally go to bed, you clinically insane
senile asshole? Not THIS night ...like EVERY night? LMAO

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 05:15:20 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

troll****

05:15 already? And you STILL can't go back to bed, you useless senile idiot?
LOL

--
Marland revealing the senile sociopath's pathology:
"You have mentioned Alexa in a couple of threads recently, it is not a real
woman you know even if it is the only thing with a Female name that stays
around around while you talk it to it.
Poor sad git who has to resort to Usenet and electronic devices for any
interaction as all real people run a mile to get away from from you boring
them to death."
MID:

On Friday, 17 January 2020 10:14:27 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, FredxxÂ* wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway


When Calder Hall was switched on in 1956 the electricity was said to be 'too cheap to meter'.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 16:49, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI


Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we
build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways

It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway

It isnt done by electrolysis, nukes can produce hydrogen
directly and the marginal cost is the lowest there is.

How?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...ater-splitting

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 05:21:45 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

05:21? Is the day dawning already in Australia, you clinically insane senile
troll?

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 05:51:50 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH troll****

05:51? LOL No sleep AT ALL for you tonight again, senile Rodent? Serves you
right for being such a cantankerous pest!

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On 17/01/2020 18:49, wrote:
On Friday, 17 January 2020 10:14:27 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, FredxxÂ* wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway


When Calder Hall was switched on in 1956 the electricity was said to be 'too cheap to meter'.

Calder Hall was designed to make Pu 239. The electricity was the cover
story. Just like Chapelcross. They both had 4 small reactors each so
they could be run and reloaded regularly to maximise Plutonium production.

Large electricity generation for public consumption was something that
came along in the sixties.

On 17/01/2020 10:59, Jimk wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:39, charles wrote:
In article ,
Jimk wrote:
The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway


Itym "almost given away"....i.e. no demand but can't (practically)
stop making it....

which is why pumped storage schemes were build as partnerships with Nuclear.

It not wuite that they couldnt stop making it, it is just that the cost
of keeping it running is so low.

ALL the cost in nuclear is capital, insurance and maintenance. That
happens whether its running or not. Fuel costs are very low.




Oh agreed.

What do we do with electricity if no-one wants it at that moment?
Lightning displays? Build more interconnects ? -must be a
viability constraint(s}?

The French have managed it for decades, by heating much of their water
using electricity overnight. Electric car charging at night will do the
same.

SteveW

On 17/01/2020 15:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:50:13 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:27:59 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:24:02 +0000, Pancho wrote:

On 17/01/2020 10:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It not wuite that they couldnt stop making it, it is just that the
cost of keeping it running is so low.

ALL the cost in nuclear is capital, insurance and maintenance. That
happens whether its running or not. Fuel costs are very low.


For current generation nukes this is due to low demand for uranium. It
wouldn't scale to a world wide energy solution.

Of course if we had fast nukes it would scale.

Then of course if the cost of nukes is all capital rather than fuel
why do people keep pushing fusion as a solution. I can't see why
fusion capital costs would be cheaper than fission and the fuel would
effectively cost the same.

The Thorium cycle keeps getting mentioned ...

and mentioned and mentioned, a bit like fusion.

AIUI, the main drawback is everything has been researched and built for
Uranium/Plutonium because bombs weren't far out of mind in the 30s and
40s.

There's also the fact that there are very heavily invested interests
against nuclear. With the entire economy of the developed world so
entwined with the discovery, recovery and distribution of fossil fuels,
it would be naive to think otherwise.

Imagine if the countries of the middle east were to suddenly be able to
stop pulling oil from the ground as they had no need of it anymore ?

Rather, imagine that the countries of the West, Asia and China were to
suddenly be able to do without oil and the countries of the middle East
had to stop pulling oil out of the ground because there were no
customers for it.

SteveW

On 17/01/2020 15:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:04:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 17/01/2020 11:19, Pancho wrote:
[quoted text muted]

Ar you being deliberate;ly stupid?
It's *impractical* to have a car with square wheels But you can
certainly make one.

Mythbusters did. It was ****e.

I've seen a video of a bike with square wheels being ridden on a "road"
with repeated, curved humps to give a smooth ride.

SteveW

On 17/01/2020 17:55, Ray wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2020 17:30, wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 18:35:28 UTC, Andy BurnsÂ* wrote:
newshound wrote:

Double or triple the cost of coal, oil, and gas and all of a sudden
nuclear and renewables start to make real sense.

I think that would be too much of a shock to the system, put it on a
ramp to double or triple over several decades, maybe workable.

a kind of 'fuel price escalator'?

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

renewables never make sense

They do in a few situations like when its costs a hell
of a lot to get a power line to a particular place.
Way easier to take a tanker of diesl


--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 17/01/2020 18:49, wrote:
On Friday, 17 January 2020 10:14:27 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/01/2020 10:01, FMurtz wrote:
harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 20:18:14 UTC, FredxxÂ* wrote:
On 16/01/2020 14:00:49, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6EC...MXl972-smqjpoI



Shame it's so impractical to make hydrogen efficiently unless we build
more nukes.

how do "nukes" make it more efficient?

Because nukes are much cheaper than other ways
It is not that it is more efficient per se,just massively more cost
effectibve. off peak nuclear electricity is almost giveaway


When Calder Hall was switched on in 1956 the electricity was said to be 'too cheap to meter'.

Nope.It wasnt

That was said of fusion power


--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"