Bell's Banter 2022

[andy97]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Andy, whilst I agree with you surely a reactor for a submarine would be insufficient to provide power to any but a few properties. So, I believe the RR mini reactors are entirely new technology. "Mini" in this case being a smaller footprint than the current design, but still significantly bigger than a submarine.

Peter, I am no expert but I am sure that the RN used to say that an N sub reactor could provide enough electricity for a town the size of Swindon. Not an insignificant output. We would need a lot of them but often easier to get planning permission for a larger number of small things than a few massive things.
The new RR modular reactors, I think, are different in terms of their modular construction technology but it’s still an N reactor. Not sure on how the size compares with the submarine ones.
I still think that the U.K. could have, say, 50 “submarine sized reactors” around the country and, as they already exist in design and production, could be on stream in a “relatively” short time period. It would help provide the base load to 50 “Swindon sized towns”.
That does not stop the new “modular reactors” being developed to provide additional long term power, but they are not available yet and someway off as still at the design stage, prototype needed, production facilities built etc etc.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

In summary, the costs associated with development and extraction of fossil fuels depend on location. The deeper they are,the more costly it is. But the value of the energy is based upon the quantity available. That's why the USA, Qatar, UAE etc. all have lower energy bills because they sell to their home market at "cost". The same principles apply to wind. You have to locate the area, survey, both geographically and goetechnically. Then you have to design the foundations and cabling routes. Once done you have to either pour loads of concrete, or drive massive tubular piles and pour loads of concrete. This latter method is creating all sorts of claims because the developers like it due to its speed, but they are using them at depths where they are at the design limit.

So effectively the develoment and construction costs for offshore renewables is similar to oil and gas. The returns though are based on the gas price so whilst renewables are unreliable they are paid as if they are as constant as gas.

Nowhere will ever be net zero but until we have enough nuclear to plug the real failures of wind (solar in This country really is struging) we won't get anywhere near it.

Somewhere on the internet one can find "wind maps" for the world.

These are, basically, identifying the areas of the world, frequently offshore, where air movement is somewhat optimal for wind-powered electricity generation with a potential for return on the investment.

Of course, all of that is constrained by existing technology but, as with oil and gas resources, it is fair to assume that the easiest and cheapest options for most situations are already deployed.

Once one moves out of those areas generation may be less reliable and costs of one sort of another become higher. It may not take long to for costs to be higher than the value of the product UNLESS all alternative sources of less expensive energy have been eliminated in some way.

At that point the value of energy as a net proportion of global GDP (or human life supporting productivity vs. running costs for food, shelter and security taken in isolation from the energy on which they all rely) may need to be adjusted upwards in the mix of "needs" that humans feel they require to function.

With successful population growth, brought about by the industrial revolution and all that came with it followed by the drive to discover and develop more flexible and useful energy sources such as oil, the options for reverting to pre-IndRev ideals are somewhat challenging.

For example we apparently need more and more land for housing.

The cheapest and "safest" options are green fields rather than reclaimed land. Partly because of the cost associated with the rules of reclamation. So builders and solar farm advocates are buying up productive farmland and competing with the need for human and animal food requirements.

Redeveloping in cities seems only to be viable for "student accommodation" for some reason. I assume that's because getting planning permission is easier and standards can be lower leading to higher profits based on Govt. mandated long-term debt.

It's all a bit like building and developing a competition car. Takes a long time to make it and test it and tweak it to the point where it is ready for competition and only seconds to damage it sufficiently to the point where it is never seen again.

The current energy situation is, long term, most likely a real problem of oil and gas availabilty at affordable cost as the easy to develop resources are consumed.

The IMMEDIATE situation is not so much related to resource availability per se as it is is to policies for restricting supply that involve reliance on politics and unstable suppliers - more recently VERY unstable suppliers. With no plan B ready to run this has become a short-term delivery problem.

In the end the Russian gas will be re-branded through multiple transit points and with multiple traders taking cuts along the way, and will simply be more expensive than it needs to be with all other suppliers taking advantage to jack up prices along the way.

In turn the cost of everything else will go up because the cost of energy will increase. The value of the pound on one's payment card will vacillate for a while and investment of all sorts may fluctuate but in the end the proportional worth that one has through earnings, investments or pensions will re-balance in some way.

Some sort of life will continue, though one might possibly see a gradual decline in population in some parts of the world due to a combination of reduced birth rate and reduced life expectancy.

If some of the more extreme proposed policies are followed one might need to look back to circa 1700 to get a feel for the way things might need to change if the policies are effective.

True, Nuclear could go a long way towards maintaining some standards closer to current expectations but it would need to gain wider acceptance very soon for it to arrive with enough output capacity in time replace fossil at scale.

We would also have to hope that political posturing of all kinds kept out of the way and that local skills come to be that eliminate the reliance on the Countries that presently seem to dominate Nuclear Power Plant manufacturing activity. Basically exactly the same issues that seem to be influencing the current challenges.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by andy97

Peter, I am no expert but I am sure that the RN used to say that an N sub reactor could provide enough electricity for a town the size of Swindon. Not an insignificant output. We would need a lot of them but often easier to get planning permission for a larger number of small things than a few massive things.
The new RR modular reactors, I think, are different in terms of their modular construction technology but it’s still an N reactor. Not sure on how the size compares with the submarine ones.
I still think that the U.K. could have, say, 50 “submarine sized reactors” around the country and, as they already exist in design and production, could be on stream in a “relatively” short time period. It would help provide the base load to 50 “Swindon sized towns”.
That does not stop the new “modular reactors” being developed to provide additional long term power, but they are not available yet and someway off as still at the design stage, prototype needed, production facilities built etc etc.

Andy,

From memory (I should look it up) I don't think the SMR stuff would be ready within 10 years unless some planning and regulatory steps are truncated quickly. Even then 5 to 6 years from "Start" seems to be the number stuck in my mind.

I agree and like the concept of multiple small(ish) sites but that would come with the problem of local opposition ... see comments re. planning etc., above.

The other possible constraint is suitable locations given the cooling requirements.

Basically the best sites are, pretty much, those already in use or earmarked for use. Limited options unless some remarkable new design can be delivered.

Of course all other sources including wind and solar have similar constraints, though maybe not considered as being as limiting as Nuclear plant cooling.

Many people complain that Pumped Storage and Hydro should be more widely deployed but the problem for them is one of finding suitable locations that can operate efficiently.

Plus any rapid roll-out would put severe strains on civil engineering energy demands and would likely push the CO2 output number far ahead of targets with potential to make the "climate cure" treatment as bad or worse than the current modelled predictions. Basically a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Knee-jerk reactions are rarely good responses and especially not in the world of politics.

Peter's comments about lack of (sensible) energy policy for some time (over 3 decades in my opinion) ring very true.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by midgetman

It truly is the end of an era. I don't think King Charles is looked at with anywhere near as much affection and respect as Queen Elizabeth.

However - God save the King! I hope he can carve out his own niche and serve us as well as his mother.

Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk

One benefit of his elevation is that he has already said he will have to be less publically opinionated.

I can see some benefit in that - unless William has been trained to take up the baton on his behalf.

I fear he has.

[midgetman]

Originally Posted by midgetman

It truly is the end of an era. I don't think King Charles is looked at with anywhere near as much affection and respect as Queen Elizabeth.

However - God save the King! I hope he can carve out his own niche and serve us as well as his mother.

Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk

Although what a great start he made with his impromptu walkabout when he arrived at Buck House! And then to allow the cameras at his first meeting with the PM.

This appears to be a monarch who has an understanding of the UK population, who has learned the PR lessons of his wife's funeral. Very good.

Equally I notice that Nick Witchell referred to him as "Charles". No way was Her Maj ever "Elizabeth" in a voiceover. Change already.



Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk

[John Elwin]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Although what a great start he made with his impromptu walkabout when he arrived at Buck House! And then to allow the cameras at his first meeting with the PM.

This appears to be a monarch who has an understanding of the UK population, who has learned the PR lessons of his wife's funeral. Very good.

Equally I notice that Nick Witchell referred to him as "Charles". No way was Her Maj ever "Elizabeth" in a voiceover. Change already.



Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk

Re your last line, it'll take time to adjust. I'm sure everything will be fine.

Has there ever been a time when we have had a new King & a new PM in the same week?

[Peter Mallett]

Not for at least 70 years.

[midgetman]

Originally Posted by John Elwin

Re your last line, it'll take time to adjust. I'm sure everything will be fine.

Don't get me wrong, I like it. It's good that we get access and the monarchy loses its stuffy image.

Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk

[John Elwin]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Don't get me wrong, I like it. It's good that we get access and the monarchy loses its stuffy image.

Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk

No, not getting you wrong at all. Don't think I have ever thought of calling the Queen stuffy though, she had a great sense of humour.

One of the best stories I have seen recently was of when Putin was visiting Britain & at a function of some sort then government minister David Blunkett's guide dog was barking at Putin. The Queen simply commented: "Isn't it interesting how they always show their instincts?

Very scuttle & very smart, I thought!

[midgetman]

One thing my job does is it makes me spend more time with my son's contemporaries (20 somethings) than mine, and I gather their generation do find the monarchy "stuffy". They just don't engage because it's all old people.

"Boring" and "irrelevant" are also words bandied around.

There's the challenge. 25 years ago the monarchy seriously misjudged the public mood over Diana, I don't think KC3 will make the same mistake again. I think he and the future W5 are working hard to keep the monarchy relevant.

Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk

[grantp]

Originally Posted by midgetman

I think he and the future W5 are working hard to keep the monarchy relevant.

And smaller, if news reports in recent times are to be taken at face value.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by grantp

And smaller, if news reports in recent times are to be taken at face value.

Quite a lot has been going on behind the scene, a lot driven by William. Charles is not unknown to have some very extravagant ways, especially when it comes to personal staff, although he has also stated that he would like to possibly mothball Buck House except for ceremonial and state events.

About the comments from Witchell, you can't take anything he says as gospel. He is, apparently, universally despised/loathed by pretty well all the royals and they avoid him like the plague.

If the royals really want to have any relevance to the younger generation, then Charles should have stood aside to let William take the mantle, as I believe that Wills is far more popular than his dad - for goodness' sake, Brian is already 73 years old. However, that would have been quite unlikely as he has been waiting to take over from Her Maj for over 50 years.

[John Elwin]

Don't forget Charls has done a lot for young people via the Prince's Trust. I had a young neighbour, brought up in children's homes, who got set-up in business via the Trust. I saw at first-hand just how much he & the Trust did for youngsters - it was a real eye-opener.

[midgetman]

I think he's a Good Man and could make a Good King. I hope he can make a niche for the monarchy that works for all parties in the UK.

What do we call ourselves now? We were New Elizabethans, let's hope we're not now to be Right Charlies

Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by midgetman

What do we call ourselves now? We were New Elizabethans, let's hope we're not now to be Right Charlies

Technically, Caroleans. But there us growing opinion that the period from George V onwards may be known as the Windsor era.

[S griffin]

I thought Charles handled the declaration very well. I think he will be fine, despite my doubts about him. He has a hard act to follow granted, but he shouldn’t try and compare himself to his mother

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by midgetman

I think he's a Good Man and could make a Good King. I hope he can make a niche for the monarchy that works for all parties in the UK.

Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk

I agree entirely, Max. I think he knows how popular his mother was and he is wise enough to know to follow suit.


Some have criticised the monarchy for how they handled the Princess Di situation but he of all of them handled it best. He flew to Paris immediately and, if I remember correctly, accompanied her body home. I know the Di fans will always criticise him for the failure of his marriage but let's face it - 50% of marriages fail. In fact 75% of the late Queen's children were divorced.

[Gerard C]

Originally Posted by morninggents

let's face it - 50% of marriages fail.

Official data…

[S griffin]

I wonder what the other 50% do differently?

[Peter Mallett]

Well don't forget 99% of statistics are made up.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Well don't forget 99% of statistics are made up.

Nice one, Peter.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

If the royals really want to have any relevance to the younger generation, then Charles should have stood aside to let William take the mantle, as I believe that Wills is far more popular than his dad - for goodness' sake, Brian is already 73 years old.

Sorry Mike, I can't let this one pass.
We have a system which has worked well for hundreds of years. Brilliantly 70 years ago.
It's not a popularity contest. Who should decide who is to stand down and who should take their place. Should we for ****'* sake leave it to Simon Cowell to organise and make a fortune from ... and at the same time ruin it as he has pop music?

[John Elwin]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I wonder what the other 50% do differently?

They don't get married!

[John Elwin]

Sorry, but back to Dijon Mustard...

I spotted the other day that Leclerc's actually had some in stock so I bought a jar. I've since noticed in very small print on the back it says 'Made in Ukraine', to a recipe for Dijon Mustard. My other half doesn't like it & says it is like English Mustard (it isn't - nothing like!).

At least I have contributed in a very small way to the Ukrainian economy.

[Gerard C]

Originally Posted by John Elwin

Sorry, but back to Dijon Mustard...

What about camembert, vieux Lille or beaujolais? Asking for a Max friend!