The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[aeropilot]

Europa1 said:

I do think as a nation we should just accept that nuclear must play a significant part. Whilst clearly not the easiest things to build, we do seem to be making an almighty meal of the next 2 to be built, in terms of time, cost and chosen technology. I was surprised by a recent documentary on BBC4 which stated that in the 1950s to 60s, the UK built 8 nuclear power stations in 10 years.

Yep.

When I started work in 1980, I started at the begining of the design of the last 2 x AGR's built in the UK.

We actually built 9 x Magnox commercial Nuc Power stations between 1956 and 1971, as well as 7 x AGR stations between 1965 and 1988.

Sadly, as a result, of a succession of Govt's dithering about the next generation to be built, we've effectively lost all the in house knowledge to do so, almost everyone has died or long retired......so hence us now having to import/buy the tech from abroad, and turning the whole thing into a sorry mess. Also, it was all under the control of the CEGB back then, now its all privatised.

[LongQ]

babatunde said:

Thing is we are surrounded by Luddites, even in this thread wehave people arguing the merits of Incandscent bulbs over LEDs these aren't persons convinced by logical arguments.

I think you probably need to take some time to understand what people are writing and then perhaps think about it for a while before moving to your keyboard.

[Likes Fast Cars]

aeropilot said:

Europa1 said:

I do think as a nation we should just accept that nuclear must play a significant part. Whilst clearly not the easiest things to build, we do seem to be making an almighty meal of the next 2 to be built, in terms of time, cost and chosen technology. I was surprised by a recent documentary on BBC4 which stated that in the 1950s to 60s, the UK built 8 nuclear power stations in 10 years.

Yep.

When I started work in 1980, I started at the begining of the design of the last 2 x AGR's built in the UK.

We actually built 9 x Magnox commercial Nuc Power stations between 1956 and 1971, as well as 7 x AGR stations between 1965 and 1988.

Sadly, as a result, of a succession of Govt's dithering about the next generation to be built, we've effectively lost all the in house knowledge to do so, almost everyone has died or long retired......so hence us now having to import/buy the tech from abroad, and turning the whole thing into a sorry mess. Also, it was all under the control of the CEGB back then, now its all privatised.

It's interesting how the world is advancing in many ways yet we seem to have taken massive steps back on things such as nuclear as an effective and safe form of electricity production.

And as aeropilot says the loss of know-how in the industry - something that will take a generation (if you'll pardon the pun!) or more to re-gain.

[aeropilot]

Likes Fast Cars said:

aeropilot said:

Europa1 said:

I do think as a nation we should just accept that nuclear must play a significant part. Whilst clearly not the easiest things to build, we do seem to be making an almighty meal of the next 2 to be built, in terms of time, cost and chosen technology. I was surprised by a recent documentary on BBC4 which stated that in the 1950s to 60s, the UK built 8 nuclear power stations in 10 years.

Yep.

When I started work in 1980, I started at the begining of the design of the last 2 x AGR's built in the UK.

We actually built 9 x Magnox commercial Nuc Power stations between 1956 and 1971, as well as 7 x AGR stations between 1965 and 1988.

Sadly, as a result, of a succession of Govt's dithering about the next generation to be built, we've effectively lost all the in house knowledge to do so, almost everyone has died or long retired......so hence us now having to import/buy the tech from abroad, and turning the whole thing into a sorry mess. Also, it was all under the control of the CEGB back then, now its all privatised.

It's interesting how the world is advancing in many ways yet we seem to have taken massive steps back on things such as nuclear as an effective and safe form of electricity production.

And as aeropilot says the loss of know-how in the industry - something that will take a generation (if you'll pardon the pun!) or more to re-gain.

The one thing the UK is expert at is not making a decision.

Career politicians are only interested in their own little short term pet interests not the long term interests of the country.
While we building the first PWR at Sizewell B in the late 80's/early 90's (and what was to be the last NPS in the UK) all the muppets in Westminster were only interested in themselves not making the decision where the next one was going to be built.

[Fizpop]

Breaking cover again, hope I don't regret it
Large scale wind farm and ground mount solar developer here. Electrical Engineer by discipline, been in the business for around 10 years. Happy to answer questions that I can, and equally hear other opinions and views on the state of the market and where the industry is going.

[babatunde]

aeropilot said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

aeropilot said:

Europa1 said:

I do think as a nation we should just accept that nuclear must play a significant part. Whilst clearly not the easiest things to build, we do seem to be making an almighty meal of the next 2 to be built, in terms of time, cost and chosen technology. I was surprised by a recent documentary on BBC4 which stated that in the 1950s to 60s, the UK built 8 nuclear power stations in 10 years.

Yep.

When I started work in 1980, I started at the begining of the design of the last 2 x AGR's built in the UK.

We actually built 9 x Magnox commercial Nuc Power stations between 1956 and 1971, as well as 7 x AGR stations between 1965 and 1988.

Sadly, as a result, of a succession of Govt's dithering about the next generation to be built, we've effectively lost all the in house knowledge to do so, almost everyone has died or long retired......so hence us now having to import/buy the tech from abroad, and turning the whole thing into a sorry mess. Also, it was all under the control of the CEGB back then, now its all privatised.

It's interesting how the world is advancing in many ways yet we seem to have taken massive steps back on things such as nuclear as an effective and safe form of electricity production.

And as aeropilot says the loss of know-how in the industry - something that will take a generation (if you'll pardon the pun!) or more to re-gain.

The one thing the UK is expert at is not making a decision.

Career politicians are only interested in their own little short term pet interests not the long term interests of the country.
While we building the first PWR at Sizewell B in the late 80's/early 90's (and what was to be the last NPS in the UK) all the muppets in Westminster were only interested in themselves not making the decision where the next one was going to be built.

I think you probably need to take some time to understand what people are writing and then perhaps think about it for a while before moving to your keyboard.

"The future of power generation in the UK"
Future, not past or present, the FUTURE will be a mix of current mainstream & niche technologys, some of the current mainstream will have fallen out of favour some of the niche will become mainstream, the future is never purely technological politics will always pay a major role.
Sometimes a major rethink is required in a field, Tesla seem to be current​ leaders of that clean sheet rethink process hence the hype around them, I always refer people to http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-chang... for a discussion of "energy" which is really the bottom line of what we are discussing here.
Unfortunately "Nuclear" is seen as a scary word, the Sun on the othehand is the infinite source of most of our energy (go read the article) hence the drive to use it as directly as possible, Wind experienced it in even a part of its fury makes one realise it generates a whole.lot of energy that can be harvested,

finally renewables is used as a buzz word but when you step back and think about it, isn't that utopia, unlimited energy

[aeropilot]

babatunde said:

aeropilot said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

aeropilot said:

Europa1 said:

I do think as a nation we should just accept that nuclear must play a significant part. Whilst clearly not the easiest things to build, we do seem to be making an almighty meal of the next 2 to be built, in terms of time, cost and chosen technology. I was surprised by a recent documentary on BBC4 which stated that in the 1950s to 60s, the UK built 8 nuclear power stations in 10 years.

Yep.

When I started work in 1980, I started at the begining of the design of the last 2 x AGR's built in the UK.

We actually built 9 x Magnox commercial Nuc Power stations between 1956 and 1971, as well as 7 x AGR stations between 1965 and 1988.

Sadly, as a result, of a succession of Govt's dithering about the next generation to be built, we've effectively lost all the in house knowledge to do so, almost everyone has died or long retired......so hence us now having to import/buy the tech from abroad, and turning the whole thing into a sorry mess. Also, it was all under the control of the CEGB back then, now its all privatised.

It's interesting how the world is advancing in many ways yet we seem to have taken massive steps back on things such as nuclear as an effective and safe form of electricity production.

And as aeropilot says the loss of know-how in the industry - something that will take a generation (if you'll pardon the pun!) or more to re-gain.

The one thing the UK is expert at is not making a decision.

Career politicians are only interested in their own little short term pet interests not the long term interests of the country.
While we building the first PWR at Sizewell B in the late 80's/early 90's (and what was to be the last NPS in the UK) all the muppets in Westminster were only interested in themselves not making the decision where the next one was going to be built.

I think you probably need to take some time to understand what people are writing and then perhaps think about it for a while before moving to your keyboard.

Not me that is lacking understanding here I think......sheez, talk about sanctimonious

[WatchfulEye]

AlexC1981 said:

I don't know if it's been covered but why don't we use the moon?

By that I mean all that vast body of water which surrounds our island and goes in and out twice a day. The movement of so much water must contain a huge amount of energy. Why can't we get more power from tidal energy?

Tidal energy is difficult to capture efficiently due to a low head pressure, which needs huge turbines, and vast flow rates.
You also need vast constructions to channel the water flow in such a way that you get acceptable flow velocities.
On top of that, tidal estuaries are environmentally very sensitive, and tidal barrages or similar constructions will greatly alter water flows and levels, dramatically changing the environment.
Maintenance costs are also expected to be high.

For example, a mersey tidal scheme has had extensive feasibility studies performed. The expected levelised cost of electricity (based on a 120 year expected asset life) for this project ranges from £450 to £1200 /MWh, depending on financial assumptions, whether environmental mitigation measures could be dispensed with or not, etc.

These are quite high prices, compared to other technologies.

Other tidal sites may be better, the lower bound estimate for a Severn scheme was £211/MWh.

Artifical lagoons have gained favour recently due to more controlled environmental effects, and more flexible siting. At the time the swansea lagoon project was proposed, the modelled cost was expected to be in the region of £168/MWh, although more favourable cost estimates have been released since (albeit by a politician, quite possibly looking for a vanity project; and looking for the tax payer to fund an index-linked "strike price" for 100 years). The £168/MWh estimate is at least by an independent group of consultants at the request of the project sponsors.

[Likes Fast Cars]

WatchfulEye said:

Tidal energy is difficult to capture efficiently due to a low head pressure, which needs huge turbines, and vast flow rates.
You also need vast constructions to channel the water flow in such a way that you get acceptable flow velocities.
On top of that, tidal estuaries are environmentally very sensitive, and tidal barrages or similar constructions will greatly alter water flows and levels, dramatically changing the environment.
Maintenance costs are also expected to be high.

[b]For example, a mersey tidal scheme has had extensive feasibility studies performed. The expected levelised cost of electricity (based on a 120 year expected asset life) for this project ranges from £450 to £1200 /MWh, depending on financial assumptions, whether environmental mitigation measures could be dispensed with or not, etc.

These are quite high prices, compared to other technologies. [/b]

Other tidal sites may be better, the lower bound estimate for a Severn scheme was £211/MWh.

Artifical lagoons have gained favour recently due to more controlled environmental effects, and more flexible siting. At the time the swansea lagoon project was proposed, the modelled cost was expected to be in the region of £168/MWh, although more favourable cost estimates have been released since (albeit by a politician, quite possibly looking for a vanity project; and looking for the tax payer to fund an index-linked "strike price" for 100 years). The £168/MWh estimate is at least by an independent group of consultants at the request of the project sponsors.

Fq me! "quite high prices', that is an understatement!

450 to 1200 per MWh is clearly not feasible, not in our lifetimes..... (I hope I don't live to regret saying that!).

[wc98]

babatunde said:

finally renewables is used as a buzz word but when you step back and think about it, isn't that utopia, unlimited energy

that "utopia" of unlimited energy would come at a significant price i believe. like the poster above that mentioned using the tidal energy driven by the moon, you appear to have not thought too much about the effects of that. as the climate change brigade will find out (not really,they already know) oceans are the planets energy store and the atmosphere provides short and long term regulation of that energy.

start removing large amounts of energy from the oceans and the atmosphere then i think we will see far bigger problems than those we currently see as a result of fossil fuel use. all that energy in the oceans and the atmosphere is already doing the work that provides us with a planet we can inhabit comfortably ,certain areas excepted .

[LongQ]

Likes Fast Cars said:

WatchfulEye said:

Tidal energy is difficult to capture efficiently due to a low head pressure, which needs huge turbines, and vast flow rates.
You also need vast constructions to channel the water flow in such a way that you get acceptable flow velocities.
On top of that, tidal estuaries are environmentally very sensitive, and tidal barrages or similar constructions will greatly alter water flows and levels, dramatically changing the environment.
Maintenance costs are also expected to be high.

[b]For example, a mersey tidal scheme has had extensive feasibility studies performed. The expected levelised cost of electricity (based on a 120 year expected asset life) for this project ranges from £450 to £1200 /MWh, depending on financial assumptions, whether environmental mitigation measures could be dispensed with or not, etc.

These are quite high prices, compared to other technologies. [/b]

Other tidal sites may be better, the lower bound estimate for a Severn scheme was £211/MWh.

Artifical lagoons have gained favour recently due to more controlled environmental effects, and more flexible siting. At the time the swansea lagoon project was proposed, the modelled cost was expected to be in the region of £168/MWh, although more favourable cost estimates have been released since (albeit by a politician, quite possibly looking for a vanity project; and looking for the tax payer to fund an index-linked "strike price" for 100 years). The £168/MWh estimate is at least by an independent group of consultants at the request of the project sponsors.

Fq me! "quite high prices', that is an understatement!

450 to 1200 per MWh is clearly not feasible, not in our lifetimes..... (I hope I don't live to regret saying that!).

If those numbers are "relative to today" prices it looks like very expensive "free" energy to me.

The sort that would only be adopted world wide when no other options remain - or the entire world goes completely mad in unison.

[Likes Fast Cars]

LongQ said:

If those numbers are "relative to today" prices it looks like very expensive "free" energy to me.

The sort that would only be adopted world wide when no other options remain - or the entire world goes completely mad in unison .

You never know, it could - and does - happen.

[LongQ]

Likes Fast Cars said:

LongQ said:

If those numbers are "relative to today" prices it looks like very expensive "free" energy to me.

The sort that would only be adopted world wide when no other options remain - or the entire world goes completely mad in unison .

You never know, it could - and does - happen.

Well, since the last post several weeks ago I think we do indeed see signs of mass madness developing.

M. Hulot in France seeking some of the glitter of M. Macron while he has the chance and Volvo taking Geely into the "something's got to be electric" car market.

I note that Geely are also, reportedly, buying a "Flying Car" company.

Perhaps next week we will hear that Dyson have come up with a modified rechargeable "reverse suction" vacuum device that can fly in some way not dissimilar to a witch's broomstick.

So where will Europe, and indeed the rest of the world, obtain its electric energy to fulfill the dream day and night?

Some suggest that the rapid technological development of offshore wind will suffice for the most part being both plentiful and reliable. Paddy N. Murphy is a a poster here who appears to be highly supportive of such a view. I'm less convinced that such a solution, even if viable at any cost, makes sense unless it can be guaranteed to be 100% successful with a safety margin. Once policy has taken electricity generation a long way down that road and invested heavily there is unlikely to be an easy or quick way back should it not work out.

Here is an article that considers a couple of recent papers and suggests that the hoped for benefits of a large amount of offshore generation is unlikely to be sufficient by itself no matter how much of it there is.

http://euanmearns.com/can-offshore-wind-be-integra...


Who will be first up to go and dispute the conclusions on that blog?

Paddy?

Go on, you know you want to as part of your education program.

[Ali G]

There should be a growth market in porcine avionics!

How else are they to find out where they are flying to?

[Wayoftheflower]

wc98 said:

that "utopia" of unlimited energy would come at a significant price i believe. like the poster above that mentioned using the tidal energy driven by the moon, you appear to have not thought too much about the effects of that. as the climate change brigade will find out (not really,they already know) oceans are the planets energy store and the atmosphere provides short and long term regulation of that energy.

start removing large amounts of energy from the oceans and the atmosphere then i think we will see far bigger problems than those we currently see as a result of fossil fuel use. all that energy in the oceans and the atmosphere is already doing the work that provides us with a planet we can inhabit comfortably ,certain areas excepted .

Sorry but that smacks of the "We're going to run out of wind" school of thought.

Lets ignore the harnessing the potential energy stored in the orbit of the moon and powering the tides for the moment.

What kind of power does the sun deliver for us to potentially extract in solar, wind, wave and biofuel power?

The sun delivers about 170,000,000,000,000 (17x10^17) Watts to the Earths surface, that's 15*10^22 Joules per day, 5.4*10^24Joules/year.

The best estimate I found for total global energy production (not use so efficiency to the user would be for below 100%), is from 2013 was 5.67*10^20Joules. Or one ten thousandth of what the sun delivers. You are never going to make a dent in that.

So if we grab some common 15% efficiency panels we need a 500m strip of panels around the equator for all our energy needs with plenty to spare.

[rovermorris999]

Wayoftheflower said:

So if we grab some common 15% efficiency panels we need a 500m strip of panels around the equator for all our energy needs with plenty to spare.

Problem solved!

[Oakey]

Yep, simple as that. Just a 500m strip around the equator.

[98elise]

Oakey said:

Yep, simple as that. Just a 500m strip around the equator.

We just need to get Donald Trump on that. His Mexican wall is going to be 2k miles long, so 26k miles of solar panels is just thinking a bit bigger.

[garagewidow]

it'll be like painting the forth bridge.

on another note france plans the banning of fossil fuelled vehicles by 2040 so that means a probable increase in nuclear power just to keep up with the power demand from users.

remember the 'nuclear power will mean low or virtually free electricity' mantra back in the 60's.

I wonder how much electricity prices will rocket once we are all driving them,sure it only costs what,10p? to charge an electric car today!

[loafer123]

A mitigant to that problem is that battery tech is advancing rapidly, which will substantially reduce the requirement for peak capacity reserve.