The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Extreme weather has been decreasing of late
Well, you're good for a laugh if nothing else. I suppose you also reckon that the drastic fall in road fatalities over the last 80 years is because there are fewer cars on the road?BTW, here's a graph to back up your assertion, from that very article (which you obviously couldn't even be arsed to read, let alone understand)
Figure 2: Average Number of Extreme Weather Events per Year by Decade, 1900–2008. Source: Goklany (2009), based on EM-DAT (2009).
silentbrown said:
turbobloke said:
Extreme weather has been decreasing of late
Well, you're good for a laugh if nothing else. I suppose you also reckon that the drastic fall in road fatalities over the last 80 years is because there are fewer cars on the road?BTW, here's a graph to back up your assertion, from that very article (which you obviously couldn't even be arsed to read, let alone understand)
Figure 2: Average Number of Extreme Weather Events per Year by Decade, 1900–2008. Source: Goklany (2009), based on EM-DAT (2009).
"These trends indicate that the total risk of death from all extreme weather events has actually declined despite claims that the number and intensity of extreme weather events has increased."
Despite having a graph showing extreme weather events have massively increased.
All these 'forums' and 'policy units' on either side are just clouding the story.
"Shortly after building the NII at the time raised concerns about the pod boiler closures and ended up welding them in, removing one of the main features of the design and leading to problems 25 years later."
Heysham and Hartlepool, thankyou for the BCU overtime that paid off half my mortgage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Gary C will understand but the problems 25 years later basically took a lot of manual work in cramped conditions whilst British Energy was loosing was it about £3/4million per day income from each of four reactor / turbine units) - 74 hr weeks were not uncommon, on double / triple time over weekends and the Christmas period.
I then worked on a nuclear plant but the turbine side, (for the benfit of the poster whom asked about clash detection). Shed loads of electrical HV trunking everywhere but also a heck of a lot of cooling pipes. Many original drawings were lost or so badly scanned in archives as to be unusable. We did dig out a "dinosaur designer" from the old National Nuclear Corp at Knutsford. Fortunately he still had a lot of drawings "from an office clearout" in his loft.
When asked by one of our younger ngineers whom was doing loads of fancy pipe calcs in CAD / PDMS / CEASAR "how did you decide all these different pipe sizes without computers" the reply was "Sched 40, fluid velocity kept constant through the systems from branch to branch at x m/s". Our young designer must has come up with about 40 different pipe sizes based on stress requirements rather than fluid velocities, the original design had six. The original hand drawn three perspective drawings are also much cleared to read than the PDMS 3d layout / piping isos!!!!
The last of the AGR design guys are leaving our place now.........(ex British solely nuclear company privitised / quangoised / bought and resold four times over, now about to become an American design house forgetting UK pedigree.....).
Heysham and Hartlepool, thankyou for the BCU overtime that paid off half my mortgage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Gary C will understand but the problems 25 years later basically took a lot of manual work in cramped conditions whilst British Energy was loosing was it about £3/4million per day income from each of four reactor / turbine units) - 74 hr weeks were not uncommon, on double / triple time over weekends and the Christmas period.
I then worked on a nuclear plant but the turbine side, (for the benfit of the poster whom asked about clash detection). Shed loads of electrical HV trunking everywhere but also a heck of a lot of cooling pipes. Many original drawings were lost or so badly scanned in archives as to be unusable. We did dig out a "dinosaur designer" from the old National Nuclear Corp at Knutsford. Fortunately he still had a lot of drawings "from an office clearout" in his loft.
When asked by one of our younger ngineers whom was doing loads of fancy pipe calcs in CAD / PDMS / CEASAR "how did you decide all these different pipe sizes without computers" the reply was "Sched 40, fluid velocity kept constant through the systems from branch to branch at x m/s". Our young designer must has come up with about 40 different pipe sizes based on stress requirements rather than fluid velocities, the original design had six. The original hand drawn three perspective drawings are also much cleared to read than the PDMS 3d layout / piping isos!!!!
The last of the AGR design guys are leaving our place now.........(ex British solely nuclear company privitised / quangoised / bought and resold four times over, now about to become an American design house forgetting UK pedigree.....).
Gary C said:
V8 Fettler said:
Differing designs were almost guaranteed by the initial procurement process (several consortia bidding on a design and build basis), plus "nuclear information" was issued during the design process for each AGR power station, creating the need to re-design.
Conversations in 2017 with the original designers would be interesting, not much in the way of CAD (if anything) in the 1960s, clash detection must have been a nightmare (different services / structures occupying the same physical space).
the procurement process had nothing to do with the differing reactor designs.Conversations in 2017 with the original designers would be interesting, not much in the way of CAD (if anything) in the 1960s, clash detection must have been a nightmare (different services / structures occupying the same physical space).
World Nuclear Association said:
As was the case with the Magnox fleet, the AGRs were designed and built by private industrial nuclear power consortia as complete power stations. The Atomic Power Construction Ltd (APC)n consortium – one of three consortia competing for the contract – was awarded the first AGR contract for two 660 MWe (gross) units at Dungeness.The other two consortia also won orders for AGR stations. In 1967, The Nuclear Power Group (TNPG)o was awarded contracts by the CEGB and the South of Scotland Electricity Board (SSEB)p for the Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B stations, respectively. Also in 1967, the Nuclear Design and Construction (NDC) consortium, which was later to become British Nuclear Design and Construction (BNDC)q, was awarded contracts from the CEGB for the Hartlepool and Heysham I stations.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/appendices/nuclear-development-in-the-united-kingdom.aspxAnd eventually they all became either East Kilbride or Barnwood British Energy or Knutsford National Nuclear Corp BNFL Risley and as they all went busted / conglomerated, then it all got dis-amalgamated through privitisation / NDA/ split up of BNFL / British Energy and is now Babcocks, Cavendish, EdF, Jacobs, Amec, Woods, Worley Parsons, Siemens, GE, Alsthom, CH2 Hill, URS Washington, AECOM, Assytem, Motts, Costains, VT Nuclear, Deva Manufacturing etc etc etc etc.
Still at least wind turbine manufacturers don't drop ina nd out of the market as conditions are financially skewed by incentives (cough, never worked for Notamec on joint venture on wind farms which we ran away from when the market subsidies meant we couldn't afford lifetime decommissioning costs with the new subsidy terms, Isle of Lewis not not cough cough......).
Still at least wind turbine manufacturers don't drop ina nd out of the market as conditions are financially skewed by incentives (cough, never worked for Notamec on joint venture on wind farms which we ran away from when the market subsidies meant we couldn't afford lifetime decommissioning costs with the new subsidy terms, Isle of Lewis not not cough cough......).
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
jshell said:
Just shows, the oil and gas companies were right all along. Well, wind was never going to work, nuclear is unpalatable, we're too far North for solar so that leaves coal and gas. Climate change is a vehicle that o&g companies support in order to increase carbon floor prices and kill coal, the cheaper fuel...
Where will we end up? Gas. Currently being sold as a transitional fuel, which is a way of saying you have 1 choice for the future.
O&G wins as there is 60 - 100 years of gas in the ground.
And when you say Oil companies, ones like DONG? Or Shell? Or Statoil?Where will we end up? Gas. Currently being sold as a transitional fuel, which is a way of saying you have 1 choice for the future.
O&G wins as there is 60 - 100 years of gas in the ground.
Statoil, with Norwegian sensitivities about how much of the country's wealth comes from North Sea oil and gas, seems to be very likely to go the same way.
That leaves Shell.
I suspect they have a different plan in mind but that may not be clear for a while. It might be interesting to attend the AGM next year.
jshell said:
Just shows, the oil and gas companies were right all along. Well, wind was never going to work, nuclear is unpalatable, we're too far North for solar so that leaves coal and gas. Climate change is a vehicle that o&g companies support in order to increase carbon floor prices and kill coal, the cheaper fuel...
Where will we end up? Gas. Currently being sold as a transitional fuel, which is a way of saying you have 1 choice for the future.
O&G wins as there is 60 - 100 years of gas in the ground.
By that measure thorium wins; there's enough on the planet to power mankind for thousands of years. Where will we end up? Gas. Currently being sold as a transitional fuel, which is a way of saying you have 1 choice for the future.
O&G wins as there is 60 - 100 years of gas in the ground.
silentbrown said:
turbobloke said:
Extreme weather has been decreasing of late
Well, you're good for a laugh if nothing else. I suppose you also reckon that the drastic fall in road fatalities over the last 80 years is because there are fewer cars on the road?BTW, here's a graph to back up your assertion, from that very article (which you obviously couldn't even be arsed to read, let alone understand)
Figure 2: Average Number of Extreme Weather Events per Year by Decade, 1900–2008. Source: Goklany (2009), based on EM-DAT (2009).
as for extreme weather events .
"It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change. The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years’ time scale and the current predictions provides a real conundrum when any engineer tries to make a professional assessment of the real future value of any infrastructure project which aims to mitigate or adapt to climate change. What is the appropriate basis on which to make judgements when theory and data are in such disagreement?"
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/trends-in-...
MYOB said:
But HE started it, miss!(re. Goklany's graph that I posted: I'd be the first to say that look like unsubstantiated b
ks. Mainly because there wouldn't have been any centralised database/reporting for this stuff until a couple of decades ago. Improvements to technology and communications are hiding whatever underlying trend there might be.)silentbrown said:
MYOB said:
But HE started it, miss!(re. Goklany's graph that I posted: I'd be the first to say that look like unsubstantiated b
ks. presents
There are several equally credible sources saying the same thing as Goklany, for example, Prof Pielke Jr. If you knew anything much about the subjects you spout off on, or undertook basic research, you would have known this, I say that because surely you can't be a troll who knows the score but obfuscates anyway.
Climate fairytales spawned windymills and other pointless but expensive guff. It's relevant.
Good Energy:
"In March 2017, we also announced that we were stopping all further generation development activities. This was due to the continued lack of support from the Government for UK onshore wind and large scale solar."
Source
All goes to show that costs of solar and wind can’t be plummeting sufficiently to allow the unreliables to stand on their own feet.
"In March 2017, we also announced that we were stopping all further generation development activities. This was due to the continued lack of support from the Government for UK onshore wind and large scale solar."
Source
All goes to show that costs of solar and wind can’t be plummeting sufficiently to allow the unreliables to stand on their own feet.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
jshell said:
Just shows, the oil and gas companies were right all along. Well, wind was never going to work, nuclear is unpalatable, we're too far North for solar so that leaves coal and gas. Climate change is a vehicle that o&g companies support in order to increase carbon floor prices and kill coal, the cheaper fuel...
Where will we end up? Gas. Currently being sold as a transitional fuel, which is a way of saying you have 1 choice for the future.
O&G wins as there is 60 - 100 years of gas in the ground.
And when you say Oil companies, ones like DONG? Or Shell? Or Statoil?Where will we end up? Gas. Currently being sold as a transitional fuel, which is a way of saying you have 1 choice for the future.
O&G wins as there is 60 - 100 years of gas in the ground.
Statoil, with Norwegian sensitivities about how much of the country's wealth comes from North Sea oil and gas, seems to be very likely to go the same way.
That leaves Shell.
I suspect they have a different plan in mind but that may not be clear for a while. It might be interesting to attend the AGM next year.
DONG without the Oil and Natural Gas, was D
So are now Orsted and just do renewables.
Statoil gave some of the biggest OWF sites to develop in th next 8 years.
She’ll have been investing and buying in to Renewables
JShell is off the mark in his views
Statoil, through personal experience, are trying to corner the market in subsea gas compression systems, serously cutting edge and expensive stuff. Why? To further extend the reach and depth of subsea gas production systems such as the Barents which has just been opened. They may, like others invest in a level of renewables, but that for the moment is trying to appease the greens and farm the subsidies whilst the free cash exists.
I know you're 'Mr Wind', but you're not seeing the wood for the trees here. The long game is just as I have described and I say this from intimate knowledge, not political or a biased standpoint.
The future's Orange!
turbobloke said:
It's just as well you read the details and then posted your own preferred source of far more credible data rather than just bad-mouthing a source that presents data/info against your baseless position.
You said:-turbobloke said:
Extreme weather has been decreasing of late
... and included a link to a Goklany's article which has a graph showing the *exact opposite* to your claim.Do you think that graph is relevant, accurate or useful?
Edited by silentbrown on Tuesday 5th December 14:13
V8 Fettler said:
Gary C said:
V8 Fettler said:
Differing designs were almost guaranteed by the initial procurement process (several consortia bidding on a design and build basis), plus "nuclear information" was issued during the design process for each AGR power station, creating the need to re-design.
Conversations in 2017 with the original designers would be interesting, not much in the way of CAD (if anything) in the 1960s, clash detection must have been a nightmare (different services / structures occupying the same physical space).
the procurement process had nothing to do with the differing reactor designs.Conversations in 2017 with the original designers would be interesting, not much in the way of CAD (if anything) in the 1960s, clash detection must have been a nightmare (different services / structures occupying the same physical space).
World Nuclear Association said:
As was the case with the Magnox fleet, the AGRs were designed and built by private industrial nuclear power consortia as complete power stations. The Atomic Power Construction Ltd (APC)n consortium – one of three consortia competing for the contract – was awarded the first AGR contract for two 660 MWe (gross) units at Dungeness.The other two consortia also won orders for AGR stations. In 1967, The Nuclear Power Group (TNPG)o was awarded contracts by the CEGB and the South of Scotland Electricity Board (SSEB)p for the Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B stations, respectively. Also in 1967, the Nuclear Design and Construction (NDC) consortium, which was later to become British Nuclear Design and Construction (BNDC)q, was awarded contracts from the CEGB for the Hartlepool and Heysham I stations.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/appendices/nuclear-development-in-the-united-kingdom.aspx
When the design of Heysham 2, it was the first time they took one of the earlier designs and finally modified it to work better.
A lot of the contract placing was a bit suspect. The bidders for the bwr's and PWR's didn't get a look in. There is an interesting book, written by an insider about it.
So, as I said, up until Heysham 2 they were basically experimenting with the designs rather than evolving. As that article states, they had little in common.
Similar happened in magnox, berkley was a great reactor, working at BTC, but it had little in common with wylfa
To support this working methodology the cegb and government had huge labs and research establishments.
StanleyT said:
"Shortly after building the NII at the time raised concerns about the pod boiler closures and ended up welding them in, removing one of the main features of the design and leading to problems 25 years later."
Heysham and Hartlepool, thankyou for the BCU overtime that paid off half my mortgage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Gary C will understand but the problems 25 years later basically took a lot of manual work in cramped conditions whilst British Energy was loosing was it about £3/4million per day income from each of four reactor / turbine units) - 74 hr weeks were not uncommon, on double / triple time over weekends and the Christmas period.
sizes.).
We weren't jealous of the nice cars in next doors car park at all !, Not even that Gallardo !Heysham and Hartlepool, thankyou for the BCU overtime that paid off half my mortgage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Gary C will understand but the problems 25 years later basically took a lot of manual work in cramped conditions whilst British Energy was loosing was it about £3/4million per day income from each of four reactor / turbine units) - 74 hr weeks were not uncommon, on double / triple time over weekends and the Christmas period.
sizes.).
That project was run by my former boss, Stuart Crooks, who is now the director of the Hinckley C project.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff