The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Shame if on Monday the board at Hitachi pull the plug on Wylfa Neewwwyyyyddddd (a little known Welsh word translating to English as "White Ellllllllllephant, did no one lllllllllllearn anything from the days when the CEGB got NNC (No Nearer Completion) to build the AGR reactors").
I know someone who did some very good work design work indeed on sizing the laundry system water / delay tanks. Ho-hum, perhaps someone can use the system in a hotel instead for all workers putting up the electricity windmills we will need to cover Anglesey with instead.
Anyone see the irony in the World Nuclear News website recently that the first "European PWR" (i.e. that which is being built by the cider swillers down the South West) isn't ours, the French, the Finns (and that is it for Europe) but in China!!!!! Perhaps we need a longer extension lead for the interconnectors?
I know someone who did some very good work design work indeed on sizing the laundry system water / delay tanks. Ho-hum, perhaps someone can use the system in a hotel instead for all workers putting up the electricity windmills we will need to cover Anglesey with instead.
Anyone see the irony in the World Nuclear News website recently that the first "European PWR" (i.e. that which is being built by the cider swillers down the South West) isn't ours, the French, the Finns (and that is it for Europe) but in China!!!!! Perhaps we need a longer extension lead for the interconnectors?
WatchfulEye said:
Hitachi looks set to pull out of the Anglesey nuclear project.
https://www.ft.com/content/80b1c286-1589-11e9-a581...
On BBC now, too:https://www.ft.com/content/80b1c286-1589-11e9-a581...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46855799
TBH I'm surprised parent companies can wrap up things like this so easily.
StanleyT said:
Shame if on Monday the board at Hitachi pull the plug on Wylfa Neewwwyyyyddddd (a little known Welsh word translating to English as "White Ellllllllllephant, did no one lllllllllllearn anything from the days when the CEGB got NNC (No Nearer Completion) to build the AGR reactors").
I know someone who did some very good work design work indeed on sizing the laundry system water / delay tanks. Ho-hum, perhaps someone can use the system in a hotel instead for all workers putting up the electricity windmills we will need to cover Anglesey with instead.
Anyone see the irony in the World Nuclear News website recently that the first "European PWR" (i.e. that which is being built by the cider swillers down the South West) isn't ours, the French, the Finns (and that is it for Europe) but in China!!!!! Perhaps we need a longer extension lead for the interconnectors?
It is something of a black mark on the UK regulator, energy policy and supply chain that a plant design which can be constructed in Japan for ~$8 billion costs £15 billion when built in the UK!I know someone who did some very good work design work indeed on sizing the laundry system water / delay tanks. Ho-hum, perhaps someone can use the system in a hotel instead for all workers putting up the electricity windmills we will need to cover Anglesey with instead.
Anyone see the irony in the World Nuclear News website recently that the first "European PWR" (i.e. that which is being built by the cider swillers down the South West) isn't ours, the French, the Finns (and that is it for Europe) but in China!!!!! Perhaps we need a longer extension lead for the interconnectors?
Role on UK SMR.....
We've already got lots of SMRs. Just they tend to move about a bit, under the water..............we could build plenty (no secret, they get built in Derby and up to PWR3 tested in Scotland) and use them for power generation if we really reaaly wanted.
A wag at work pointed out that the USA SMRs are basically the same that theUS sold to us as PWR1 for submarines, with 50 yrs design standard improvements, then rotated 90 degrees and buried in the earth rather than a sub-sea-boat.
Mind you whom am I to dictate about tech translatiopn, my neighbour told me 10 days ago his PhD sponsored by Davy McKee was for coal gasification to be the basis, for what ended up as the two Hartlepool Nucs!
A wag at work pointed out that the USA SMRs are basically the same that theUS sold to us as PWR1 for submarines, with 50 yrs design standard improvements, then rotated 90 degrees and buried in the earth rather than a sub-sea-boat.
Mind you whom am I to dictate about tech translatiopn, my neighbour told me 10 days ago his PhD sponsored by Davy McKee was for coal gasification to be the basis, for what ended up as the two Hartlepool Nucs!
StanleyT said:
We've already got lots of SMRs. Just they tend to move about a bit, under the water..............we could build plenty (no secret, they get built in Derby and up to PWR3 tested in Scotland) and use them for power generation if we really reaaly wanted.
A wag at work pointed out that the USA SMRs are basically the same that theUS sold to us as PWR1 for submarines, with 50 yrs design standard improvements, then rotated 90 degrees and buried in the earth rather than a sub-sea-boat.
Mind you whom am I to dictate about tech translatiopn, my neighbour told me 10 days ago his PhD sponsored by Davy McKee was for coal gasification to be the basis, for what ended up as the two Hartlepool Nucs!
You wouldn't want to use a PWR 3 for power generation, very different requirements in detail (HEU, turbine with no re-heat, full of expensive one off parts and really tiny in output).A wag at work pointed out that the USA SMRs are basically the same that theUS sold to us as PWR1 for submarines, with 50 yrs design standard improvements, then rotated 90 degrees and buried in the earth rather than a sub-sea-boat.
Mind you whom am I to dictate about tech translatiopn, my neighbour told me 10 days ago his PhD sponsored by Davy McKee was for coal gasification to be the basis, for what ended up as the two Hartlepool Nucs!
The US SMR if you mean NuScale is some what different as regards fuel form and safety case to a Naval reactor too.
The "trick" to building an SMR or for that matter a larger nuclear plant is to focus of the execution and the manufacturing rather than the technology, see approach of SpaceX as an example.
Talksteer said:
It is something of a black mark on the UK regulator, energy policy and supply chain that a plant design which can be constructed in Japan for ~$8 billion costs £15 billion when built in the UK!
Role on UK SMR.....
It depends why. Some UK specific changes to EPR are to add non computerised control mechanisms which is expensive but for me that's essential. I would not want an entitely computer based control system without any manual fallback so agree with the ONR on that front.Role on UK SMR.....
Mentioned in step 3 report here
http://www.onr.org.uk/new-reactors/uk-epr/reports....
Edited by wombleh on Wednesday 16th January 13:26
wombleh said:
Talksteer said:
It is something of a black mark on the UK regulator, energy policy and supply chain that a plant design which can be constructed in Japan for ~$8 billion costs £15 billion when built in the UK!
Role on UK SMR.....
It depends why. Some UK specific changes to EPR are to add non computerised control mechanisms which is expensive but for me that's essential. I would not want an entirely computer based control system without any manual fallback so agree with the ONR on that front.Role on UK SMR.....
Mentioned in step 3 report here
http://www.onr.org.uk/new-reactors/uk-epr/reports....
https://www.eti.co.uk/library/the-eti-nuclear-cost...
My favourite element of the whole EPR debacle was the site drains at HPC. If the plant flooded it could potentially knockout the emergency diesels and/or emergency cooling systems. Therefore this drain gained class 1 safety significance, which now means it must be:
1: Built to very high levels of inspection and assurance
2: Be made from higher integrity concrete with higher degree of reinforcement
3: It must be inspectable in service.
4: Therefore it must have man access
The net result is that HPC will have several km of drains which you can drive a transit down and are made from concrete 1 ft thick.
Multiply this by every single feature and that is how you arrive at 20 billion.
The fundamental issue is that it was designed on the cheap by two partners each trying to incorporate as many features into it from their 70's designed plants using in many cases 70's levels of design practice (e.g. civils and layouts designed in 2D!). This then buts up against modern safety expectations, in the 70's if the drawing had issues they would just mod re-bar on site today the job stops.
As each issue like the one above occurs rather than go back and address route causes sticking plaster solutions of adding more systems, concrete or QA are adopted.
The ABWR design was conducted using what were cutting edge techniques CEA techniques and they have built these plants successfully already. Even with changes due to the regulator, these plant should be cheap, I suspect that the answer is UK construction productivity .
Talksteer said:
The EPR is just a shyte reactor design, executed poorly. Pretty much everything that you can do to make a project expensive has been done.
https://www.eti.co.uk/library/the-eti-nuclear-cost...
My favourite element of the whole EPR debacle was the site drains at HPC. If the plant flooded it could potentially knockout the emergency diesels and/or emergency cooling systems. Therefore this drain gained class 1 safety significance, which now means it must be:
1: Built to very high levels of inspection and assurance
2: Be made from higher integrity concrete with higher degree of reinforcement
3: It must be inspectable in service.
4: Therefore it must have man access
The net result is that HPC will have several km of drains which you can drive a transit down and are made from concrete 1 ft thick.
Multiply this by every single feature and that is how you arrive at 20 billion.
The fundamental issue is that it was designed on the cheap by two partners each trying to incorporate as many features into it from their 70's designed plants using in many cases 70's levels of design practice (e.g. civils and layouts designed in 2D!). This then buts up against modern safety expectations, in the 70's if the drawing had issues they would just mod re-bar on site today the job stops.
As each issue like the one above occurs rather than go back and address route causes sticking plaster solutions of adding more systems, concrete or QA are adopted.
The ABWR design was conducted using what were cutting edge techniques CEA techniques and they have built these plants successfully already. Even with changes due to the regulator, these plant should be cheap, I suspect that the answer is UK construction productivity .
The answer is incompetent management at several levels.https://www.eti.co.uk/library/the-eti-nuclear-cost...
My favourite element of the whole EPR debacle was the site drains at HPC. If the plant flooded it could potentially knockout the emergency diesels and/or emergency cooling systems. Therefore this drain gained class 1 safety significance, which now means it must be:
1: Built to very high levels of inspection and assurance
2: Be made from higher integrity concrete with higher degree of reinforcement
3: It must be inspectable in service.
4: Therefore it must have man access
The net result is that HPC will have several km of drains which you can drive a transit down and are made from concrete 1 ft thick.
Multiply this by every single feature and that is how you arrive at 20 billion.
The fundamental issue is that it was designed on the cheap by two partners each trying to incorporate as many features into it from their 70's designed plants using in many cases 70's levels of design practice (e.g. civils and layouts designed in 2D!). This then buts up against modern safety expectations, in the 70's if the drawing had issues they would just mod re-bar on site today the job stops.
As each issue like the one above occurs rather than go back and address route causes sticking plaster solutions of adding more systems, concrete or QA are adopted.
The ABWR design was conducted using what were cutting edge techniques CEA techniques and they have built these plants successfully already. Even with changes due to the regulator, these plant should be cheap, I suspect that the answer is UK construction productivity .
glazbagun said:
WatchfulEye said:
Hitachi looks set to pull out of the Anglesey nuclear project.
https://www.ft.com/content/80b1c286-1589-11e9-a581...
On BBC now, too:https://www.ft.com/content/80b1c286-1589-11e9-a581...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46855799
TBH I'm surprised parent companies can wrap up things like this so easily.
The £16bn Wylfa plant on Anglesey was meant to be the next in a line of new nuclear plants behind Hinkley Point C but the Japanese conglomerate failed to reach a deal with the UK government.
A Hitachi board meeting pulled the plug on mounting costs on Thursday, and the company said it would take a 300bn yen (£2.14bn) hit from axing
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/17/h...
Gary C said:
rolando said:
LoonyTunes said:
Weird. The Tories (under Thatcher) who wanted the coal mines all closed down in the 70's and 80's now want them all fired back up 
It was Scargill and his red mates who closed the coal mining industry through their greed.V8 Fettler said:
Talksteer said:
The EPR is just a shyte reactor design, executed poorly. Pretty much everything that you can do to make a project expensive has been done.
https://www.eti.co.uk/library/the-eti-nuclear-cost...
My favourite element of the whole EPR debacle was the site drains at HPC. If the plant flooded it could potentially knockout the emergency diesels and/or emergency cooling systems. Therefore this drain gained class 1 safety significance, which now means it must be:
1: Built to very high levels of inspection and assurance
2: Be made from higher integrity concrete with higher degree of reinforcement
3: It must be inspectable in service.
4: Therefore it must have man access
The net result is that HPC will have several km of drains which you can drive a transit down and are made from concrete 1 ft thick.
Multiply this by every single feature and that is how you arrive at 20 billion.
The fundamental issue is that it was designed on the cheap by two partners each trying to incorporate as many features into it from their 70's designed plants using in many cases 70's levels of design practice (e.g. civils and layouts designed in 2D!). This then buts up against modern safety expectations, in the 70's if the drawing had issues they would just mod re-bar on site today the job stops.
As each issue like the one above occurs rather than go back and address route causes sticking plaster solutions of adding more systems, concrete or QA are adopted.
The ABWR design was conducted using what were cutting edge techniques CEA techniques and they have built these plants successfully already. Even with changes due to the regulator, these plant should be cheap, I suspect that the answer is UK construction productivity .
The answer is incompetent management at several levels.https://www.eti.co.uk/library/the-eti-nuclear-cost...
My favourite element of the whole EPR debacle was the site drains at HPC. If the plant flooded it could potentially knockout the emergency diesels and/or emergency cooling systems. Therefore this drain gained class 1 safety significance, which now means it must be:
1: Built to very high levels of inspection and assurance
2: Be made from higher integrity concrete with higher degree of reinforcement
3: It must be inspectable in service.
4: Therefore it must have man access
The net result is that HPC will have several km of drains which you can drive a transit down and are made from concrete 1 ft thick.
Multiply this by every single feature and that is how you arrive at 20 billion.
The fundamental issue is that it was designed on the cheap by two partners each trying to incorporate as many features into it from their 70's designed plants using in many cases 70's levels of design practice (e.g. civils and layouts designed in 2D!). This then buts up against modern safety expectations, in the 70's if the drawing had issues they would just mod re-bar on site today the job stops.
As each issue like the one above occurs rather than go back and address route causes sticking plaster solutions of adding more systems, concrete or QA are adopted.
The ABWR design was conducted using what were cutting edge techniques CEA techniques and they have built these plants successfully already. Even with changes due to the regulator, these plant should be cheap, I suspect that the answer is UK construction productivity .
The lack of experienced people in the construction process today is bleedin scary........
StanleyT said:
We've already got lots of SMRs. Just they tend to move about a bit, under the water..............we could build plenty (no secret, they get built in Derby and up to PWR3 tested in Scotland) and use them for power generation if we really reaaly wanted.
A wag at work pointed out that the USA SMRs are basically the same that theUS sold to us as PWR1 for submarines, with 50 yrs design standard improvements, then rotated 90 degrees and buried in the earth rather than a sub-sea-boat.
Mind you whom am I to dictate about tech translatiopn, my neighbour told me 10 days ago his PhD sponsored by Davy McKee was for coal gasification to be the basis, for what ended up as the two Hartlepool Nucs!
Lol, the US submarine PWR's (and ours) are fueled with weapons grade HEU A wag at work pointed out that the USA SMRs are basically the same that theUS sold to us as PWR1 for submarines, with 50 yrs design standard improvements, then rotated 90 degrees and buried in the earth rather than a sub-sea-boat.
Mind you whom am I to dictate about tech translatiopn, my neighbour told me 10 days ago his PhD sponsored by Davy McKee was for coal gasification to be the basis, for what ended up as the two Hartlepool Nucs!
Gary C said:
Lol, the US submarine PWR's (and ours) are fueled with weapons grade HEU
Well, the Russians have managed to convert a pair of theirs to LEU, install them on a barge, and attach some generators and big power cables.https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/industry-and-ene...
I'm not sure that's an optimal solution for the UK, however.
A good question is about to be discussed at a meeting (not walk-in) later this month:
When: Tuesday 22nd January, from 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Where: 55 Tufton St, Westminster, SW1P 3QL
Title: Is Renewable Energy Affordable?
Speaker: Derek Birkett
About the speaker: Derek Birkett is a retired grid system control engineer with two decades of experience under both nationalisation and private ownership. He has had project responsibility on installation and commissioning at five major coal and nuclear power stations across the UK
It's an eventbrite event so their site may have a booking / tickets page if anyone is interested.
When: Tuesday 22nd January, from 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Where: 55 Tufton St, Westminster, SW1P 3QL
Title: Is Renewable Energy Affordable?
Speaker: Derek Birkett
About the speaker: Derek Birkett is a retired grid system control engineer with two decades of experience under both nationalisation and private ownership. He has had project responsibility on installation and commissioning at five major coal and nuclear power stations across the UK
It's an eventbrite event so their site may have a booking / tickets page if anyone is interested.
turbobloke said:
A good question is about to be discussed at a meeting (not walk-in) later this month:
When: Tuesday 22nd January, from 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Where: 55 Tufton St, Westminster, SW1P 3QL
Title: Is Renewable Energy Affordable?
Speaker: Derek Birkett
About the speaker: Derek Birkett is a retired grid system control engineer with two decades of experience under both nationalisation and private ownership. He has had project responsibility on installation and commissioning at five major coal and nuclear power stations across the UK
It's an eventbrite event so their site may have a booking / tickets page if anyone is interested.
He's plugging his book then - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42835550-is-re...When: Tuesday 22nd January, from 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Where: 55 Tufton St, Westminster, SW1P 3QL
Title: Is Renewable Energy Affordable?
Speaker: Derek Birkett
About the speaker: Derek Birkett is a retired grid system control engineer with two decades of experience under both nationalisation and private ownership. He has had project responsibility on installation and commissioning at five major coal and nuclear power stations across the UK
It's an eventbrite event so their site may have a booking / tickets page if anyone is interested.
Is it organised by the GWPF - isn't that their official address - or is it just a coincidence...
rscott said:
turbobloke said:
A good question is about to be discussed at a meeting (not walk-in) later this month:
When: Tuesday 22nd January, from 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Where: 55 Tufton St, Westminster, SW1P 3QL
Title: Is Renewable Energy Affordable?
Speaker: Derek Birkett
About the speaker: Derek Birkett is a retired grid system control engineer with two decades of experience under both nationalisation and private ownership. He has had project responsibility on installation and commissioning at five major coal and nuclear power stations across the UK
It's an eventbrite event so their site may have a booking / tickets page if anyone is interested.
He's plugging his book then - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42835550-is-re...When: Tuesday 22nd January, from 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Where: 55 Tufton St, Westminster, SW1P 3QL
Title: Is Renewable Energy Affordable?
Speaker: Derek Birkett
About the speaker: Derek Birkett is a retired grid system control engineer with two decades of experience under both nationalisation and private ownership. He has had project responsibility on installation and commissioning at five major coal and nuclear power stations across the UK
It's an eventbrite event so their site may have a booking / tickets page if anyone is interested.
Is it organised by the GWPF - isn't that their official address - or is it just a coincidence...
The talk could be promoted by the GWPF, or they're merely hosting it. Were you expecting a meeting with that title to be hosted at the BBC or Guardian offices? The content of Birkett's talk will stand or fall on its merits and the theme offers a timely opportunity to examine the affordability and overall efficacy of unreliables.
Guybrush said:
LoonyTunes said:
Weird. The Tories (under Thatcher) who wanted the coal mines all closed down in the 70's and 80's now want them all fired back up
When talking who closed the most mines, it was Labour.11 years of Thatcher -33%
11 years before Thatcher (mostly Wilson):: -45%
11 years after Thatcher (Major and Blair): -72%
11 years of New Labour (Blair and Brown): -64%
Thatcher in least worst shocker.
O/T and before the manufacturing chestnut gets another roasting:
Thatcher - manufacturing fell -3.3% of GDP
Bliar - manufacturing fell -7.2% of GDP
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff