Air Busan Flight 391, an international passenger service operated by Air Busan, was scheduled to fly from Gimhae International Airport in Busan, South Korea, to Hong Kong International Airport. On January 28, 2025, the aircraft caught fire just before takeoff at Gimhae International Airport, leading to the evacuation of passengers and crew.
The cause of the fire is suspected to be a battery that had been placed inside a carry-on bag in an overhead compartment.
Batteries overheat. Especially damaged ones. How many times have we all seen someone drop a phone down a crack in the seats on an aircraft? Or, while searching for a dropped phone, adjust their seat, crushing it? Or forgetting the phone or laptop or tablet or MP3 player and leaving it on-board?
Thankfully all 176 passengers and crew survived, although there were seven injuries. Imagine what might have happened if the fire hadn't started until after take-off.
Interesting Panorama last night with the
debate how to deliver green electricity to homes, the government,
being mindful of the infrastructure costs and wanting to minimise
them, proposing to use pylons onshore and multiple points to bring offshore
wind ashore, environmentalists concerned on the landscape effect but
supportive of 'net zero', so wanting them to look at more expensive
alternatives. Which should it be, or a combination, or neither and give up?
I think we need a slight rethink on the concept of a grid. We will need some form of national grid for the large scale production of renewables as well as Nuclear and any imports. but see this being complemented by localised connected "grids" whereby councils, other organisations set up for this, businesses and individuals with batteries can be connected, can charge batteries (and vehicles) from the national grid when production is high and then discharge it locally when required to smooth out peaks and troughs in large scale production. Can be managed through a flexible incentives scheme - reduced prices to charge batteries and vehicles when production is high. These localised grids will also have their own small scale production - solar and mini home wind turbines etc.
Does rely on solid state batteries but am hopeful for some big news on those this year.
I hope you are right about local generation & battery innovations, Canters, because - although I am sure renewables + nuclear will provide sufficient power in the long term, I think there is a real risk in the short term of lack of nuclear back-up for cold, windless winter nights & cloudy days.
We currently have 9 operable nuclear power stations, which can generate a total of 5,883 MW. However, Hartlepool 1 & 2 and Heysham1(all of which have already had their operational lives extended by 7 years) are due to close in 2027, reducing the output by 1,670 MW, leaving a total of 4,213 MW Heysham 2 and Torness have had their lives extended to 2030, and once they close we will have just Sizewell B which has a capacity of 1,198 MW.
There are 2 new nuclear power stations under construction at Hinkley Point, now due to open in 2030, providing a combined output of 3,260 MW. (Building started in 2018 with a initial completion date in 2023) On their own, they will not compensate for the nuclear power stations closing between now and 2030. Bradwell B power station (2.200 MW) proposes to start construction in 2025, aiming for completion in 2030 Sizewell C power station (3,200 MW} is planned to be a similar design to Hinkley Point, also aiming for completion in 2030, but no start date for construction seems to have been published. Unless Hinkley Point and at least one out of Bradwell B and Sizewell C hit the 2030 target, things look very tight.
This is why I keep questioning the apparent lack of interest in tidal stream energy - utterly predictable, 4 peak flows per day, varying in time at different places round the coast; for an island country it seems a no-brainer. At the moment we get just 10 MW of our energy needs from this source, which it is estimated could be scaled up to 11 % of our needs. Although the UK has been very active with world leading research in this field, there has not been the investment in large scale development. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-tidal-stream-energy/
Interesting Panorama last night with the
debate how to deliver green electricity to homes, the government,
being mindful of the infrastructure costs and wanting to minimise
them, proposing to use pylons onshore and multiple points to bring offshore
wind ashore, environmentalists concerned on the landscape effect but
supportive of 'net zero', so wanting them to look at more expensive
alternatives. Which should it be, or a combination, or neither and give up?
I think we need a slight rethink on the concept of a grid. We will need some form of national grid for the large scale production of renewables as well as Nuclear and any imports. but see this being complemented by localised connected "grids" whereby councils, other organisations set up for this, businesses and individuals with batteries can be connected, can charge batteries (and vehicles) from the national grid when production is high and then discharge it locally when required to smooth out peaks and troughs in large scale production. Can be managed through a flexible incentives scheme - reduced prices to charge batteries and vehicles when production is high. These localised grids will also have their own small scale production - solar and mini home wind turbines etc.
Does rely on solid state batteries but am hopeful for some big news on those this year.
I hope you are right about local generation & battery innovations, Canters, because - although I am sure renewables + nuclear will provide sufficient power in the long term, I think there is a real risk in the short term of lack of nuclear back-up for cold, windless winter nights & cloudy days.
We currently have 9 operable nuclear power stations, which can generate a total of 5,883 MW. However, Hartlepool 1 & 2 and Heysham1(all of which have already had their operational lives extended by 7 years) are due to close in 2027, reducing the output by 1,670 MW, leaving a total of 4,213 MW Heysham 2 and Torness have had their lives extended to 2030, and once they close we will have just Sizewell B which has a capacity of 1,198 MW.
There are 2 new nuclear power stations under construction at Hinkley Point, now due to open in 2030, providing a combined output of 3,260 MW. (Building started in 2018 with a initial completion date in 2023) On their own, they will not compensate for the nuclear power stations closing between now and 2030. Bradwell B power station (2.200 MW) proposes to start construction in 2025, aiming for completion in 2030 Sizewell C power station (3,200 MW} is planned to be a similar design to Hinkley Point, also aiming for completion in 2030, but no start date for construction seems to have been published. Unless Hinkley Point and at least one out of Bradwell B and Sizewell C hit the 2030 target, things look very tight.
This is why I keep questioning the apparent lack of interest in tidal stream energy - utterly predictable, 4 peak flows per day, varying in time at different places round the coast; for an island country it seems a no-brainer. At the moment we get just 10 MW of our energy needs from this source, which it is estimated could be scaled up to 11 % of our needs. Although the UK has been very active with world leading research in this field, there has not been the investment in large scale development. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-tidal-stream-energy/
Isn't the fact that tidal stream generation is currently more expensive than more mature renewables why there's been no tidal surge here? It's a more predictable / reliable source, but Ed Miliband is focused on delivering clean, affordable green energy, hence the main emphasis on solar, wind, and pushing the button on nuclear options.
That article indicated that cost reductions could be expected to come from economies of scale and accelerated learning, as has happened with renewable technologies, which may make tidal stream energy part of a cost-effective decarbonisation pathway, but the figures they used still showed it to be more than twice as costly per unit as offshore wind by 2035 after taking them into account, if I was reading it correctly.
Interesting Panorama last night with the
debate how to deliver green electricity to homes, the government,
being mindful of the infrastructure costs and wanting to minimise
them, proposing to use pylons onshore and multiple points to bring offshore
wind ashore, environmentalists concerned on the landscape effect but
supportive of 'net zero', so wanting them to look at more expensive
alternatives. Which should it be, or a combination, or neither and give up?
I think we need a slight rethink on the concept of a grid. We will need some form of national grid for the large scale production of renewables as well as Nuclear and any imports. but see this being complemented by localised connected "grids" whereby councils, other organisations set up for this, businesses and individuals with batteries can be connected, can charge batteries (and vehicles) from the national grid when production is high and then discharge it locally when required to smooth out peaks and troughs in large scale production. Can be managed through a flexible incentives scheme - reduced prices to charge batteries and vehicles when production is high. These localised grids will also have their own small scale production - solar and mini home wind turbines etc.
Does rely on solid state batteries but am hopeful for some big news on those this year.
I hope you are right about local generation & battery innovations, Canters, because - although I am sure renewables + nuclear will provide sufficient power in the long term, I think there is a real risk in the short term of lack of nuclear back-up for cold, windless winter nights & cloudy days.
We currently have 9 operable nuclear power stations, which can generate a total of 5,883 MW. However, Hartlepool 1 & 2 and Heysham1(all of which have already had their operational lives extended by 7 years) are due to close in 2027, reducing the output by 1,670 MW, leaving a total of 4,213 MW Heysham 2 and Torness have had their lives extended to 2030, and once they close we will have just Sizewell B which has a capacity of 1,198 MW.
There are 2 new nuclear power stations under construction at Hinkley Point, now due to open in 2030, providing a combined output of 3,260 MW. (Building started in 2018 with a initial completion date in 2023) On their own, they will not compensate for the nuclear power stations closing between now and 2030. Bradwell B power station (2.200 MW) proposes to start construction in 2025, aiming for completion in 2030 Sizewell C power station (3,200 MW} is planned to be a similar design to Hinkley Point, also aiming for completion in 2030, but no start date for construction seems to have been published. Unless Hinkley Point and at least one out of Bradwell B and Sizewell C hit the 2030 target, things look very tight.
This is why I keep questioning the apparent lack of interest in tidal stream energy - utterly predictable, 4 peak flows per day, varying in time at different places round the coast; for an island country it seems a no-brainer. At the moment we get just 10 MW of our energy needs from this source, which it is estimated could be scaled up to 11 % of our needs. Although the UK has been very active with world leading research in this field, there has not been the investment in large scale development. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-tidal-stream-energy/
Isn't the fact that tidal stream generation is currently more expensive than more mature renewables why there's been no tidal surge here? It's a more predictable / reliable source, but Ed Miliband is focused on delivering clean, affordable green energy, hence the main emphasis on solar, wind, and pushing the button on nuclear options.
That article indicated that cost reductions could be expected to come from economies of scale and accelerated learning, as has happened with renewable technologies, which may make tidal stream energy part of a cost-effective decarbonisation pathway, but the figures they used still showed it to be more than twice as costly per unit as offshore wind by 2035 after taking them into account, if I was reading it correctly.
Isn’t / wasn’t there a conflict of interest issue with Ed Milliband pushing his green agenda ? Did that get resolved ? It looks like the question is still open when I google it.
Nobody can seriously object to renewables but the need / benefit to have and retain some fossil fuel in the interim is what seems to be the argument.
The complexity of the global pricing model (which will evolve in due corse) and the thousands of employees / tax revenues / existing infrastructure etc associated with fossils mean it is not simple to immediately switch.
It has to be accepted the migration will take time.
The immediate action that should be supported is less what we continue to do with fissile fuel (for lots of valid reasons) but more to do with supporting short term renewable developments.
Nobody can seriously object to renewables but the need / benefit to have and retain some fossil fuel in the interim is what seems to be the argument.
The complexity of the global pricing model (which will evolve in due corse) and the thousands of employees / tax revenues / existing infrastructure etc associated with fossils mean it is not simple to immediately switch.
It has to be accepted the migration will take time.
The immediate action that should be supported is less what we continue to do with fissile fuel (for lots of valid reasons) but more to do with supporting short term renewable developments.
I don't think anybody sensible is suggesting anything otherwise. The problem is, to some people, you say 'renewables' or 'climate change' and within 30 seconds of seeing rhe post, they're instantly replying: 'WE CAN'T DO RENEWABLES THE SUN DOESN'T ALWAYS SHINE IT ISN'T ALWAYS WINDY IT WILL BE TOO EXPENSIVE YOU'RE BEING LIED TO BY THE GREEN LOBBY HOW CAN WE TURN OFF OIL AND GAS YOU'RE ALL MENTAL WHY SHOULD WE DO IT AND NOT OTHER COUNTRIES' repeat to fade.
Interesting Panorama last night with the
debate how to deliver green electricity to homes, the government,
being mindful of the infrastructure costs and wanting to minimise
them, proposing to use pylons onshore and multiple points to bring offshore
wind ashore, environmentalists concerned on the landscape effect but
supportive of 'net zero', so wanting them to look at more expensive
alternatives. Which should it be, or a combination, or neither and give up?
I think we need a slight rethink on the concept of a grid. We will need some form of national grid for the large scale production of renewables as well as Nuclear and any imports. but see this being complemented by localised connected "grids" whereby councils, other organisations set up for this, businesses and individuals with batteries can be connected, can charge batteries (and vehicles) from the national grid when production is high and then discharge it locally when required to smooth out peaks and troughs in large scale production. Can be managed through a flexible incentives scheme - reduced prices to charge batteries and vehicles when production is high. These localised grids will also have their own small scale production - solar and mini home wind turbines etc.
Does rely on solid state batteries but am hopeful for some big news on those this year.
I hope you are right about local generation & battery innovations, Canters, because - although I am sure renewables + nuclear will provide sufficient power in the long term, I think there is a real risk in the short term of lack of nuclear back-up for cold, windless winter nights & cloudy days.
We currently have 9 operable nuclear power stations, which can generate a total of 5,883 MW. However, Hartlepool 1 & 2 and Heysham1(all of which have already had their operational lives extended by 7 years) are due to close in 2027, reducing the output by 1,670 MW, leaving a total of 4,213 MW Heysham 2 and Torness have had their lives extended to 2030, and once they close we will have just Sizewell B which has a capacity of 1,198 MW.
There are 2 new nuclear power stations under construction at Hinkley Point, now due to open in 2030, providing a combined output of 3,260 MW. (Building started in 2018 with a initial completion date in 2023) On their own, they will not compensate for the nuclear power stations closing between now and 2030. Bradwell B power station (2.200 MW) proposes to start construction in 2025, aiming for completion in 2030 Sizewell C power station (3,200 MW} is planned to be a similar design to Hinkley Point, also aiming for completion in 2030, but no start date for construction seems to have been published. Unless Hinkley Point and at least one out of Bradwell B and Sizewell C hit the 2030 target, things look very tight.
This is why I keep questioning the apparent lack of interest in tidal stream energy - utterly predictable, 4 peak flows per day, varying in time at different places round the coast; for an island country it seems a no-brainer. At the moment we get just 10 MW of our energy needs from this source, which it is estimated could be scaled up to 11 % of our needs. Although the UK has been very active with world leading research in this field, there has not been the investment in large scale development. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-tidal-stream-energy/
Isn't the fact that tidal stream generation is currently more expensive than more mature renewables why there's been no tidal surge here? It's a more predictable / reliable source, but Ed Miliband is focused on delivering clean, affordable green energy, hence the main emphasis on solar, wind, and pushing the button on nuclear options.
That article indicated that cost reductions could be expected to come from economies of scale and accelerated learning, as has happened with renewable technologies, which may make tidal stream energy part of a cost-effective decarbonisation pathway, but the figures they used still showed it to be more than twice as costly per unit as offshore wind by 2035 after taking them into account, if I was reading it correctly.
Yes, the unit cost of under-sea turbines is currently high, as I'm sure were the costs of the initial experimental wind turbines. At the moment they are only being produced in very small numbers to prove the concept is viable, does not cause wholesale massacre of fish & dolphins, can withstand the rough waters of the Pentland Firth, etc. The costs are a classic chicken & egg situation. There is zero economy of scale at present, it will need a big investment to change that, and investment is discouraged by the current high unit costs. We need to replace bespoke "Rolls Royces" with mass-produced "Fords"!
It would be interesting to know how the cost (and expected life) of 3.2 GW worth of mass produced tidal stream generators would compare with the total cost of building and decommissioning Hinkley Point C. Nuclear is certainly not a cheap option when decommissioning is factored in.
Bearing in mind the aim to cut carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 & make the UK carbon neutral by 2050, the demand for electricity is only going to grow. As shown in my previous posts, along with grid capacity, the elephant in the room is that nuclear power will be pushed to maintain even its existing levels through to / beyond 2030. On land, additional wind power will doubtless make a contribution, but it is far less productive per wind turbine than those out at sea. I would prefer solar panels to be on the roofs of all suitable buildings, rather than covering farmer's fields. Pump- storage hydro stations are a good way of storing excess energy for later instantaneous demand, but the total capacity is low, with geographically limited scope to build new schemes.
I feel we cannot afford to ignore any source of green energy, yet mention tidal energy and most people I know think only of the discredited tidal barrage schemes for Morecambe Bay and the Severn Estuary - they are unaware of the possibilities of tidal stream turbines. Hopefully Ed Miliband is better informed, and not subject to any conflicts of interest.
Interesting Panorama last night with the
debate how to deliver green electricity to homes, the government,
being mindful of the infrastructure costs and wanting to minimise
them, proposing to use pylons onshore and multiple points to bring offshore
wind ashore, environmentalists concerned on the landscape effect but
supportive of 'net zero', so wanting them to look at more expensive
alternatives. Which should it be, or a combination, or neither and give up?
I think we need a slight rethink on the concept of a grid. We will need some form of national grid for the large scale production of renewables as well as Nuclear and any imports. but see this being complemented by localised connected "grids" whereby councils, other organisations set up for this, businesses and individuals with batteries can be connected, can charge batteries (and vehicles) from the national grid when production is high and then discharge it locally when required to smooth out peaks and troughs in large scale production. Can be managed through a flexible incentives scheme - reduced prices to charge batteries and vehicles when production is high. These localised grids will also have their own small scale production - solar and mini home wind turbines etc.
Does rely on solid state batteries but am hopeful for some big news on those this year.
I hope you are right about local generation & battery innovations, Canters, because - although I am sure renewables + nuclear will provide sufficient power in the long term, I think there is a real risk in the short term of lack of nuclear back-up for cold, windless winter nights & cloudy days.
We currently have 9 operable nuclear power stations, which can generate a total of 5,883 MW. However, Hartlepool 1 & 2 and Heysham1(all of which have already had their operational lives extended by 7 years) are due to close in 2027, reducing the output by 1,670 MW, leaving a total of 4,213 MW Heysham 2 and Torness have had their lives extended to 2030, and once they close we will have just Sizewell B which has a capacity of 1,198 MW.
There are 2 new nuclear power stations under construction at Hinkley Point, now due to open in 2030, providing a combined output of 3,260 MW. (Building started in 2018 with a initial completion date in 2023) On their own, they will not compensate for the nuclear power stations closing between now and 2030. Bradwell B power station (2.200 MW) proposes to start construction in 2025, aiming for completion in 2030 Sizewell C power station (3,200 MW} is planned to be a similar design to Hinkley Point, also aiming for completion in 2030, but no start date for construction seems to have been published. Unless Hinkley Point and at least one out of Bradwell B and Sizewell C hit the 2030 target, things look very tight.
This is why I keep questioning the apparent lack of interest in tidal stream energy - utterly predictable, 4 peak flows per day, varying in time at different places round the coast; for an island country it seems a no-brainer. At the moment we get just 10 MW of our energy needs from this source, which it is estimated could be scaled up to 11 % of our needs. Although the UK has been very active with world leading research in this field, there has not been the investment in large scale development. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-tidal-stream-energy/
Isn't the fact that tidal stream generation is currently more expensive than more mature renewables why there's been no tidal surge here? It's a more predictable / reliable source, but Ed Miliband is focused on delivering clean, affordable green energy, hence the main emphasis on solar, wind, and pushing the button on nuclear options.
That article indicated that cost reductions could be expected to come from economies of scale and accelerated learning, as has happened with renewable technologies, which may make tidal stream energy part of a cost-effective decarbonisation pathway, but the figures they used still showed it to be more than twice as costly per unit as offshore wind by 2035 after taking them into account, if I was reading it correctly.
Yes, the unit cost of under-sea turbines is currently high, as I'm sure were the costs of the initial experimental wind turbines. At the moment they are only being produced in very small numbers to prove the concept is viable, does not cause wholesale massacre of fish & dolphins, can withstand the rough waters of the Pentland Firth, etc. The costs are a classic chicken & egg situation. There is zero economy of scale at present, it will need a big investment to change that, and investment is discouraged by the current high unit costs. We need to replace bespoke "Rolls Royces" with mass-produced "Fords"!
It would be interesting to know how the cost (and expected life) of 3.2 GW worth of mass produced tidal stream generators would compare with the total cost of building and decommissioning Hinkley Point C. Nuclear is certainly not a cheap option when decommissioning is factored in.
Bearing in mind the aim to cut carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 & make the UK carbon neutral by 2050, the demand for electricity is only going to grow. As shown in my previous posts, along with grid capacity, the elephant in the room is that nuclear power will be pushed to maintain even its existing levels through to / beyond 2030. On land, additional wind power will doubtless make a contribution, but it is far less productive per wind turbine than those out at sea. I would prefer solar panels to be on the roofs of all suitable buildings, rather than covering farmer's fields. Pump- storage hydro stations are a good way of storing excess energy for later instantaneous demand, but the total capacity is low, with geographically limited scope to build new schemes.
I feel we cannot afford to ignore any source of green energy, yet mention tidal energy and most people I know think only of the discredited tidal barrage schemes for Morecambe Bay and the Severn Estuary - they are unaware of the possibilities of tidal stream turbines. Hopefully Ed Miliband is better informed, and not subject to any conflicts of interest.
Completely agree.
One point about the bit in bold. It's got quite a lot of negative attention over the last year but there are a few misconceptions out there about it. First thing is this isn't a one or the other, solar vs farming choice there are plenty of examples of the 2 working well together with both animals and crops with minimal loss of farming capacity. There are even some benefits of the 2 working together in the same space - shade for animals to utilise on hot days, similarly helping prevent soil erosion and prevent crops for scorching in heat (requires some quite specific spacing). Probably a few other benefits I can't remember.
I have a friend (more acquaintance through cricket) who is a farmer (has taken over his dad's business) who has done them and its the most profitable part of his business. He's gradually covered every barn and chicken shed with them and now a couple of fields have them working in conjunction with the animals and crops. And before anyone accusing me of only having lefty friends - he votes reform, me and him had a disagreement on a WhatsApp chat about inheritance tax, he's pretty big in the protests against that and has appeared on GB news a few times about it!
Not saying there aren't better places for them - providing shade or cover over car parks, warehouses etc. But farmers shouldn't be prevented or discouraged if they are on board.
@cantersaddick No one can blame your farmer friend for making the best of any legal financial opportunities open to him and I have seen examples of combining solar panels with grazing near where I live - as well as fields disappointingly devoted entirely to solar panels and weeds. The source of the situation of farmers struggling to make more income from food production than energy generation lies elsewhere, and I'm sure climate change plays a part.
I firmly believe the country should strive where possible to be self-sufficient in basic foods as well as energy. By all means import to extend short seasons or to bring in things like citrus fruits which we cannot grow commercially in the UK, but let's reduce food-miles (and carbon emissions) where possible.
@cantersaddick No one can blame your farmer friend for making the best of any legal financial opportunities open to him and I have seen examples of combining solar panels with grazing near where I live - as well as fields disappointingly devoted entirely to solar panels and weeds. The source of the situation of farmers struggling to make more income from food production than energy generation lies elsewhere, and I'm sure climate change plays a part.
I firmly believe the country should strive where possible to be self-sufficient in basic foods as well as energy. By all means import to extend short seasons or to bring in things like citrus fruits which we cannot grow commercially in the UK, but let's reduce food-miles (and carbon emissions) where possible.
Completely agree farming is important and also adfected by climate change but also a significant contributor to climate change (land use, monocultures, pesticides etc.). Don't want us to end up with a US like system with large corporations farms but we do need to find a way to invest in technology like hydroponics and vertical farming which can produce more food in less space. Farming (and our eating) needs to become part of the solution. More organic, insect corridors, promoting biodiversity. I don't want to mention the V word as I know some get triggered but moving our meat consumption per head nearer to what it was in 1970 would massively reduce land use for farming.
Oligopoly power of supermarkets is the problem for farmers. 98% of the profit margin on food is made by them and only 2% left for farmers, distributors, processors to share.
BTW solar and weeds in fields is actually great for bio diversity, the insects that pollinate the crops, soil quality etc. In the long run the farm and other local farms will benefit.
Live broadcast from city hall of the London Assembly Environment Committee investigation into the mayor's pledge for swimmable rivers. A ding dong between River Action and Thames Water is underway
Comments
Air Busan Flight 391, an international passenger service operated by Air Busan, was scheduled to fly from Gimhae International Airport in Busan, South Korea, to Hong Kong International Airport. On January 28, 2025, the aircraft caught fire just before takeoff at Gimhae International Airport, leading to the evacuation of passengers and crew.
The cause of the fire is suspected to be a battery that had been placed inside a carry-on bag in an overhead compartment.
Batteries overheat. Especially damaged ones. How many times have we all seen someone drop a phone down a crack in the seats on an aircraft? Or, while searching for a dropped phone, adjust their seat, crushing it? Or forgetting the phone or laptop or tablet or MP3 player and leaving it on-board?
Thankfully all 176 passengers and crew survived, although there were seven injuries. Imagine what might have happened if the fire hadn't started until after take-off.
We currently have 9 operable nuclear power stations, which can generate a total of 5,883 MW.
However, Hartlepool 1 & 2 and Heysham1(all of which have already had their operational lives extended by 7 years) are due to close in 2027, reducing the output by 1,670 MW, leaving a total of 4,213 MW
Heysham 2 and Torness have had their lives extended to 2030, and once they close we will have just Sizewell B which has a capacity of 1,198 MW.
There are 2 new nuclear power stations under construction at Hinkley Point, now due to open in 2030, providing a combined output of 3,260 MW. (Building started in 2018 with a initial completion date in 2023) On their own, they will not compensate for the nuclear power stations closing between now and 2030.
Bradwell B power station (2.200 MW) proposes to start construction in 2025, aiming for completion in 2030
Sizewell C power station (3,200 MW} is planned to be a similar design to Hinkley Point, also aiming for completion in 2030, but no start date for construction seems to have been published.
Unless Hinkley Point and at least one out of Bradwell B and Sizewell C hit the 2030 target, things look very tight.
https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-reactor-database/summary/United Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=Nuclear power in the United Kingdom generated 16.1% of the,PWR)), producing 5.9 GWe.
This is why I keep questioning the apparent lack of interest in tidal stream energy - utterly predictable, 4 peak flows per day, varying in time at different places round the coast; for an island country it seems a no-brainer. At the moment we get just 10 MW of our energy needs from this source, which it is estimated could be scaled up to 11 % of our needs. Although the UK has been very active with world leading research in this field, there has not been the investment in large scale development.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-tidal-stream-energy/
Isn't the fact that tidal stream generation is currently more expensive than more mature renewables why there's been no tidal surge here? It's a more predictable / reliable source, but Ed Miliband is focused on delivering clean, affordable green energy, hence the main emphasis on solar, wind, and pushing the button on nuclear options.
That article indicated that cost reductions could be expected to come from economies of scale and accelerated learning, as has happened with renewable technologies, which may make tidal stream energy part of a cost-effective decarbonisation pathway, but the figures they used still showed it to be more than twice as costly per unit as offshore wind by 2035 after taking them into account, if I was reading it correctly.
It would be interesting to know how the cost (and expected life) of 3.2 GW worth of mass produced tidal stream generators would compare with the total cost of building and decommissioning Hinkley Point C. Nuclear is certainly not a cheap option when decommissioning is factored in.
Bearing in mind the aim to cut carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 & make the UK carbon neutral by 2050, the demand for electricity is only going to grow. As shown in my previous posts, along with grid capacity, the elephant in the room is that nuclear power will be pushed to maintain even its existing levels through to / beyond 2030. On land, additional wind power will doubtless make a contribution, but it is far less productive per wind turbine than those out at sea. I would prefer solar panels to be on the roofs of all suitable buildings, rather than covering farmer's fields. Pump- storage hydro stations are a good way of storing excess energy for later instantaneous demand, but the total capacity is low, with geographically limited scope to build new schemes.
I feel we cannot afford to ignore any source of green energy, yet mention tidal energy and most people I know think only of the discredited tidal barrage schemes for Morecambe Bay and the Severn Estuary - they are unaware of the possibilities of tidal stream turbines. Hopefully Ed Miliband is better informed, and not subject to any conflicts of interest.
One point about the bit in bold. It's got quite a lot of negative attention over the last year but there are a few misconceptions out there about it. First thing is this isn't a one or the other, solar vs farming choice there are plenty of examples of the 2 working well together with both animals and crops with minimal loss of farming capacity. There are even some benefits of the 2 working together in the same space - shade for animals to utilise on hot days, similarly helping prevent soil erosion and prevent crops for scorching in heat (requires some quite specific spacing). Probably a few other benefits I can't remember.
I have a friend (more acquaintance through cricket) who is a farmer (has taken over his dad's business) who has done them and its the most profitable part of his business. He's gradually covered every barn and chicken shed with them and now a couple of fields have them working in conjunction with the animals and crops. And before anyone accusing me of only having lefty friends - he votes reform, me and him had a disagreement on a WhatsApp chat about inheritance tax, he's pretty big in the protests against that and has appeared on GB news a few times about it!
Not saying there aren't better places for them - providing shade or cover over car parks, warehouses etc. But farmers shouldn't be prevented or discouraged if they are on board.
No one can blame your farmer friend for making the best of any legal financial opportunities open to him and I have seen examples of combining solar panels with grazing near where I live - as well as fields disappointingly devoted entirely to solar panels and weeds. The source of the situation of farmers struggling to make more income from food production than energy generation lies elsewhere, and I'm sure climate change plays a part.
I firmly believe the country should strive where possible to be self-sufficient in basic foods as well as energy. By all means import to extend short seasons or to bring in things like citrus fruits which we cannot grow commercially in the UK, but let's reduce food-miles (and carbon emissions) where possible.
Oligopoly power of supermarkets is the problem for farmers. 98% of the profit margin on food is made by them and only 2% left for farmers, distributors, processors to share.
BTW solar and weeds in fields is actually great for bio diversity, the insects that pollinate the crops, soil quality etc. In the long run the farm and other local farms will benefit.
Polluted rivers of London.
Live broadcast from city hall of the London Assembly Environment Committee investigation into the mayor's pledge for swimmable rivers. A ding dong between River Action and Thames Water is underway
https://webcasts.london.gov.uk/Assembly/Event/Index/b522f4aa-2493-4dea-a57c-ec433c8e8d66