Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • Replies 21 replies
  • Subscribers 18 subscribers
  • Views 1588 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

What is a sensible energy policy?

Roger B

Many different views are appearing.

 The IET proposes the following:

Critical Target: ‘By 2050, no energy must come from fossil fuels’

Champion: James Bamborough, sustainability and net zero policy manager, IET.

https://eandt.theiet.org/2024/09/09/et-critical-targets-technology-sector-target

This is an extremely ambitious target, transferring not just electricity but all energy away from fossil fuels.

 Is there any engineering behind this?

Are there sufficient resources available?

How much more fossil fuel will be consumed producing these alternative energy sources before they become in some way self-sustaining'?

 

In a different direction the Big Tech companies are looking to nuclear power for the future. Microsoft is refurbishing the closed Three Mile Island plant, Google has signed a deal with California’s Kairos Power to build six or seven reactors:

https://eandt.theiet.org/2024/10/15/google-signs-deal-small-nuclear-reactors-power-ai

Amazon is moving in the same way:

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/talen-sells-carbon-free-data-centre-to-amazon-clou

These companies all employ top grade engineers, scientists and accountants. Evidently they can do the modelling of how renewables will develop and if they will be capable of supplying the needs of data centers and AI systems. The answer is either no they can’t or they will be more expensive than nuclear.

 

The big oil companies are also moving away from renewables and staying with their core businesses. For example:

BP’s CEO Murray Auchincloss has reportedly initiated a hiring freeze and suspended offshore wind projects, according to sources at the company, as he places focus on oil and gas to boost revenues. He is looking to halt large, fixed capital investments in offshore wind as they are not expected to deliver returns for years.

https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/bps-ceo-says-the-company-will-move-away-from-renewables/

Once again the oil companies employ high grade engineers, scientists and accountants who can do the modelling to see how long it will take renewables to remove the market for fossil fuels. Their response can be taken two ways:

1) They are entirely shareholder driven, it is their fiduciary duty to maximise profits by staying with oil and gas and they don’t see a risk of ending up with ‘frozen assets’.

2) They don’t want to see the world run out of energy when renewables can’t deliver.

I suspect a mixture of both.

 

So I ask the panel: where do we get a realistic energy policy, from groups of high grade engineers and scientists or from groups of arts graduates in government or other policy making institutes?

Parents

  • The biggest issue is always surrounding baseload generation and how we maintain it. Unless we are suddenly comfortable with installing entire container ships worth of BESS (batteries) to support the load of small towns and villages, which are then bolstered by hydro, wind, and solar, then we will never be completely carbon-free.

    The most sensible option currently is to look at small modular reactors (SMRs). These are deployed in stacks of approximately 80MW, are the size of two or three shipping containers, have a shelf-life of 60 years before they need refueling, and are able to extract a substantial portion of the 95% or so of remaining energy capability that is contained within the spent fuel rods we stick underground after they’ve been used by the current large reactors.

    This would provide us with modular, small-scale and easily deployable baseload, while giving plenty of room for as many renewables as the economics and policy majors want. The byproduct of so many renewables is the requirement for a number of static vars compensator facilities, which are massive, and contain a combination of capacitors and reactors to assist with dynamic voltage regulation.

  • in reply to Christopher Sperduto

    Yes, nuclear is a must and save the hydrocarbons for transportation fuels.

    Wiki has an article on it    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor so we are lucky in the UK; that we already have nuclear stations where the SMRs can be placed and these are security fenced areas mostly, with armed guards and already have planning permission so no problem there.

    Connection to grid already there as well.  What are we waiting for???

  • in reply to CliveS

    I get the impression that SMRs are vapourware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware.  They have been widely touted as a great new thing, but you can't actually get one.

    We could do with some at Dungeness.  The grid connection is there, but all the Dungeness power stations have shut down.

Reply Children
  • in reply to Simon Barker

    Up until recently I would have agreed about the vapourware but now the big tech firms are wanting them I think there will be progress.

    Small reactors have been built for icebreakers and remote power by the Russians. Nuclear submarine reactors are unsuitable as they are designed to use HEU (highly enriched uranium also highly expensive uranium) with it's attended proliferation problems.

    Russia connects floating plant to grid - World Nuclear News

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines