SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The UK smashed 13 clean energy records last year in the 'greenest year ever' for electricity production in the country, according to WWF analysis of National Grid data.
The sweep of new records was powered by the rise of green energy on the system, WWF said last week, with highlights including the first full day since the Industrial Revolution with no coal power, record spikes in solar and offshore wind generation, and record low prices for offshore wind.
The year's performance continues a trend of falling power sector emissions in recent years, as wind and solar replace coal power on the grid. Since 2012 Britain has halved carbon emissions in the electricity sector, and now ranks as the seventh cleanest power system in the world.
Also reported at:
- http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-clean-energy-records-green-britain-2017-climate-change-global-warming-a8130151.html
- http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42495883
The "green" mix includes nuclear power.
(Score: 1) by alincler on Monday January 08 2018, @12:48PM (1 child)
Yeah, I think we should do whatever we can even if it only buys us more time.
Ooh, a chance to link to the bit about nuclear [youtube.com] of my favourite video!
...which is why i'm not holding my breath.
Also. [stanford.edu]
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Monday January 08 2018, @02:55PM
1) Note I never touched energy but only touched electricity.
2) 435 nuclear powerstations is _WRONG_ is it 435 reactors (a powerstation is so far between 1 and 8 reactors), but yeah, about 200 stations since lots are single unit (which btw is the least good way to do it)
3) Let's check his math just for fun. He states 105PWh global energy, and then states 25% (~27PWh) will take 3000 power stations (no, see point 2), but even so, he assumes that with 1200MW reactors (I assume he means MWe and not MWt) it will take ~3000 of them. *does a quick back of the envelope* that is for 85% capacity factor (why do non-nuclear people never include this when they present figures?) which is a good estimate today.
4) He seems to worry about building a 100 reactors per year - on a scale that involves 140 countries, I don't know, for me that doesn't really seem that weird. EU alone is 28 countries and probably could do 50 of them per year and US alone should be able to do that as well (two per states on average)
4b) Heck, sweden alone (back when it had only about six million citizens) started up on average one reactor per year from 1980 to 1985. France started up 28 reactors in the same time (all those units where in the size of 900 to 1300MWe, with uprates it should average slightly above 1100MWe in where they are now). So if two countries by themselves built 5.5 reactors per year why would it then be that much of an issue for 140 countries to build 100 reactors per year?
(Japan started 11 in that same time, but their main decades for starting up nuclear plants was the 1970s and 1990s)
4c) Also, if you are going to do a buildout on that scale you'd probably pick in the 1350 to 1550 range (APR-1400, ABWR, N4, Konvoi, or maybe get ESBWR approved) so the number of reactors needed will drop by about 12-25% so 80-90 reactors per year)
(If he has something to say after 20minutes give me timestamps)
I agree with the view that we should take all paths available and after we have reached the goal start selecting technology. For instance Run-of-the-river hydro is often forgotten. However, I want to see them at least pick from the upper half of enery-per-dollar.