<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/14/21 15:04, Mike Hammett wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1898396019.1339.1618405496299.JavaMail.mhammett@Thunderfuck2">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css">p { margin: 0; }</style>
<div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:
10pt; color: #000000"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">---</span></font>
<div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span
style="font-size: 13.3333px;">Even as I support
renewable plants, I am not yet fully convinced that a </span></font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span
style="font-size: 13.3333px;">quick and massive
decommissioning of fossil fuels for base load </span></font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span
style="font-size: 13.3333px;">generation is feasible.</span></font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span
style="font-size: 13.3333px;">---</span></font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span
style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span
style="font-size: 13.3333px;">Nuclear is the only way to
have a reliable base load generation that doesn't
release greenhouse gasses. Thankfully the US drought on
new nuclear construction was over a few years ago.
Hopefully it continues.</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">And the good news is that
spent nuclear fuel can be recycled (over 90% of it). I know the
French are doing it, seeing as they have one of the world's
largest nuclear power plant fleet. <br>
<br>
The only problem with nuclear power plants is the cost and time
required to build them, as a function of the amount of electricity
they can generate. Take the UK's Hinkley Point C nuclear power
plant build, which will cost about £23 billion, will only start
operating in 2025 (if all goes to plan), but will only generate
3,260MW.<br>
<br>
This is compared to just under 40,000MW of daily demand from UK
citizens, more than half of which is delivered by fossil fuels
(mainly CCGT and to a much smaller degree, coal). <br>
<br>
One would need to dot quite a few nuclear power plants around the
country to make up the difference. And many places don't have
enough water to make hydro a base load provider.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><font face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif">Noting, of course, that the UK have some
85,000MW of installed capacity, which is interesting when you
consider that over the past decade, demand for electricity on
the island has been dropping, even though the population has
grown quite substantially in the same time. <br>
<br>
Lockdown didn't help (any country, for that matter), but I'd
expect demand to rise over next decade, putting even more
pressure on a balanced energy source compliment.<br>
<br>
</font>Mark.</font><br>
</body>
</html>