Cycling UK Forum

Jdsk wrote: ↑10 Apr 2022, 10:31pm

Carlton green wrote: ↑10 Apr 2022, 10:18pmEnergy storage is the issue and I see no solution to it in either the the near or the mid future. Yes, there are ways of storing electricity and potential energy but nothing has really scaled up and various schemes have come and gone over the years.

There are many available and working storage technologies. We haven't seen most of them at massive scale because we haven't faced up to switching off fossil fuels so that there hasn't been the economic incentive. Yet. The relevant question is whether they can scale up when we finally do. I don't see the technological barriers.

Jonathan

We’ll have to see what the future holds, what’s possible in volume and what future technology emerges. Wind turbines have been a long time in coming to where they are now and they are are still developing. I would agree that there are many available and working storage technologies however the relevant question really is whether they can scale up. Just because you or I don’t see technological barriers doesn’t mean that they don’t exist and just because something is technically possible doesn’t mean that it will be widely available within our lifetimes - there was a man on the moon a long time ago but space travel is extremely expensive and will remain so until some breakthrough in propulsion.

I think that it was you who elsewhere posted a graphic about power density, it’s quite startling.

Change will happen and advances will be made, but in terms of energy storage the ‘new thing’ that will revolutionise it has not yet been discovered and hence all we’re doing is adapting and refining what limited solutions we already have. Within a relatively short space of time the microwave changed how we cook, oil changed how we powered vehicles - including haulage - and the transistor changed how we communicate. I wonder what yet to be discovered thing will radically change how we store energy,

Carlton green wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 7:00am

Jdsk wrote: ↑10 Apr 2022, 10:31pm

Carlton green wrote: ↑10 Apr 2022, 10:18pmEnergy storage is the issue and I see no solution to it in either the the near or the mid future. Yes, there are ways of storing electricity and potential energy but nothing has really scaled up and various schemes have come and gone over the years.

There are many available and working storage technologies. We haven't seen most of them at massive scale because we haven't faced up to switching off fossil fuels so that there hasn't been the economic incentive. Yet. The relevant question is whether they can scale up when we finally do. I don't see the technological barriers.

We’ll have to see what the future holds, what’s possible in volume and what future technology emerges. Wind turbines have been a long time in coming to where they are now and are still developing. Just because you or I don’t see technological barriers doesn’t mean that they don’t exist and just because something is technically possible doesn’t mean that it will be widely available within our lifetimes - there was a man on the moon a long time ago but space travel is extremely expensive and will remain so until some breakthrough in propulsion.

The point I was making about energy storage technology is that we can see it out there and working. Scaling up for many of the existing technologies is now a political and economic problem, not technological.

Carlton green wrote: ↑10 Apr 2022, 10:18pmMy preference is small scale nuclear ( small modular reactors) built in large numbers across the country, but it ain’t going to happen ‘cause that would require investment, public support and long term planning, etc.

In contrast there are massive technological barriers to the implementation of SMRs. There are precisely zero production SMRs in existence. And the leading prototypes don't use the same technology that is being proposed for the UK.

And even if the technology works for a single SMR the major potential benefits of SMRs lie in faster production, standardisation, smaller footprints, easier funding etc which are totally untested in practice.

Putting a man on the moon and bringing him back would be a much more appropriate analogy for SMRs.

The technological barriers of energy storage are tiny compared to those of SMRs.

Jonathan

OECD: "Small Modular Reactors: Challenges and Opportunities":
https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/ap ... report.pdf

Wikipedia: "Small modular reactor":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

Jdsk wrote: ↑20 Jan 2022, 2:17pm

roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑19 Jan 2022, 10:41am

al_yrpal wrote: ↑19 Jan 2022, 9:42am It maybe inefficient but well worthwhile if it captures wasted electrical ecopower at night as we do right now. Pumped water storage is another possibility. These technologies focus attention on the problem of instantaneous electrical power wastage and like all such things large scale examples will provoke others into experimenting and developing better solutions.

AFAICT there's little or no prospect of further viable pumped storage in the UK - simply no viable sites. I think we get some via the Norway interconnector - topology obviously favours Norway...

Car batteries is the big potential for storage/ load balancing. Would be interesting to compare the total storage capacity if the UK car fleet was fully electrified* vs say Dinorwig**

*20 million vehicles at 60kwh battery capacity = 1200 GWhr

** 9 GWhr https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

Yes. Lots of possibilities out there.

And a perceived inability to store shouldn't slow the introduction of intermittent renewables.

Car batteries in vehicle-to-grid (and vehicle-to-home) are looking more and more feasible.

The east Oxford project uses both a lithium battery and a vanadium flow battery: very interesting technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery

Progress and details on the Oxford EV charging hub:
https://energysuperhuboxford.org/uks-la ... kes-shape/

And bit more on where the vanadium flow battery fits in:
https://energysuperhuboxford.org/techno ... y-storage/

Jonathan

I understand that some folk don’t like SMR’s. That there are technical challenges is understandable but those challenges lie within what is possible to overcome with today’s scientific and engineering skills. I would point out that all over the world there are nuclear powered vessels moving about and there have been such vessels for many decades. Small scale nuclear isn’t a new thing at Sea and (relatively) low powered nuclear in the U.K. worked with the Magnox type Power Stations. Incidentally Magnox and Pumped Storage worked well together, but within the U.K. suitable pumped storage sites are somewhat rare and not at all small.

As I see things with power storage what’s really needed is a change in technology, making what we have work better is good but the possible gains are limited. Communication took leaps forward with the printing press, with radio communications, with transistors and with the internet age; it took change’s in technology to allow those leaps forward. The humble light bulb has changed over the years as different light generating technologies have been embraced and later discarded as the next advance was made, today’s LED bulbs are completely different from the original filament bulbs of the past and massively more energy efficient. Similarly electric lights were a great advance over candles. That step change is due to using entirely different technology.

Carlton green wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 8:31amThat there are technical challenges with SMRs) is understandable but those challenges lie within what is possible to overcome with today’s scientific and engineering skills.

Carlton green wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 8:31amAs I see things with power storage what’s really needed is a change in technology, making what we have work better is good but the possible gains are limited.

That's the same problematic comparison again: energy storage technologies are out there and working now, but you think that what is needed is "a change in technology". Production SMRs aren't, but "those challenges lie within what is possible to overcome".

Jonathan

Carlton green wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 8:31am I would point out that all over the world there are nuclear powered vessels moving about and there have been such vessels for many decades.

Yes, there are. All but four that have ever been built were government-run, there is one currently operating merchant vessel, and none are operating commercially. And there are good reasons why they haven't been successful outside the military niches.

Can you point to one marine reactor that has been successfully decommissioned?

Thanks

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 8:38am

Carlton green wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 8:31amThat there are technical challenges with SMRs) is understandable but those challenges lie within what is possible to overcome with today’s scientific and engineering skills.

Carlton green wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 8:31amAs I see things with power storage what’s really needed is a change in technology, making what we have work better is good but the possible gains are limited.

That's the same problematic comparison again: energy storage technologies are out there and working now, but you think that what is needed is "a change in technology". Productions SMRs aren't, but "those challenges lie within what is possible to overcome".

Jonathan

That’s one interpretation but it fails to see the differences between the two issues. You have your perspective and I have mine, I’m not in anyway anti power storage schemes but simply reflect that all we’re doing is slowly refining old ideas - and have been for decades - whilst what’s really needed is a step change in technology. With regard to scaling up what we have now there will be limits on material availability. Look at the high price of battery electric car batteries and consider the mass availability of rare earth magnets - wonder why they’re called that. Did you pick up on the point of Hydro Electric energy storage capacity being limited in this country, the technology exists but we haven’t got places where we can use (build) it.

With regard to production SMR’s they aren’t ‘there now’ because of lack of political will and public support, had we started a decade or two ago then we could be using them now. Could they be successfully decommissioned? No less so than any other modern nuclear reactor but whether that would satisfy enough people to be allowed is another question.

Comparing a technology that's out there and working with one that isn't isn't a difference of "perspective", it's the most important single property of any technology.

Carlton green wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 9:02am With regard to production SMR’s they aren’t ‘there now’ because of lack of political will and public support, had we started a decade or two ago then we could be using them now.

That's an unproven assertion. They might work in practice, they might not.

Wind farms and energy storage are working now. The technology will improve, but that's not a reason not to roll them out at massive scale now.

Jonathan

Carlton green wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 9:02am... consider the mass availability of rare earth magnets - wonder why they’re called that.

It's a misnomer for the elements. Many of them are quite common. There's more cerium than copper or lead in the crust.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2014/3078/pdf/fs2014-3078.pdf

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 9:13am

Carlton green wrote: ↑11 Apr 2022, 9:02am... consider the mass availability of rare earth magnets - wonder why they’re called that.

It's a misnomer for the elements. Many of them are quite common. There's more cerium than copper or lead in the crust.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2014/3078/pdf/fs2014-3078.pdf

Jonathan

The document dates from 2014 so isn’t really current because much that is relevant to rare earth elements has changed since then - a lot more are used. Note that the document is quite clear about where the limited known deposits where and that extraction is difficult. Note also that China, where the largest deposits where, had a policy of restricting exports.

From the document:

Since the late 1990s, China has provided 85 – 95 percent of the world’s REEs. In 2010, China announced their intention to reduce REE exports.

REEs generally occur in uncommon geologic rock types and settings. As mentioned earlier, REEs are common in the Earth’s crust but rarely in economic concentrations. Economic REE deposits occur primarily in four geologic environments: carbonatites, alkaline igneous systems, ion-absorption clay deposits, and monazite-xenotime-bearing placer deposits. Even within these deposit types, minable (economic) concentrations of REEs are rare. For example, globally there are more than 500 known carbonatites but only 6 are currently mined for REEs.

REE = rare earth elements.