The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Jambo85]

StanleyT said:

Is that what may be described as a BOLA - balance on load offer? I was on an Engineering Institute tour of a power plant when a "BOLA" came in. Basically the 20 of us of the tour were ignored for 20 minutes whilst additional turbines int he plant were brought on line. Hectic it seemed and this was a conventional plant. I guess this is why nuclear is baseload only, you don't want the operators turning nucs on and off and getting stressed?

I think it's more that you can't just shovel more uranium into the reactor as you might with coal et al, the refuelling process is pretty involved and has to be well planned and the plant shut down, AIUI. On the other side of the coin once the reactor is fired up and producing heat you must cool it and the generating equipment is sensible way to do that.

[Gary C]

Jambo85 said:

StanleyT said:

Is that what may be described as a BOLA - balance on load offer? I was on an Engineering Institute tour of a power plant when a "BOLA" came in. Basically the 20 of us of the tour were ignored for 20 minutes whilst additional turbines int he plant were brought on line. Hectic it seemed and this was a conventional plant. I guess this is why nuclear is baseload only, you don't want the operators turning nucs on and off and getting stressed?

I think it's more that you can't just shovel more uranium into the reactor as you might with coal et al, the refuelling process is pretty involved and has to be well planned and the plant shut down, AIUI. On the other side of the coin once the reactor is fired up and producing heat you must cool it and the generating equipment is sensible way to do that.

Thats now how we change load/.

For an AGR, the core flow is reduced and that tends to increase the outlet gas temperature, the auto control inserts the control rods to maintain outlet gas temperature at target.

The reduced gas mas flow carries less energy to the boilers which tends to reduce the steam temperature, the auto control closes the feed valves in to maintain steam temperature.

The reduction in steam mass flow (and therefore energy) means less power from the turbine.

Slightly simplifed and the different generations of AGR's have slightly different control schemes buts thats basically it.

Refuelling is as you say planned, but has nothing to do with restrictions in load following. Infact at Torness and Heysham 2, refuelling is done at power as originally designed (well almost, we do it at lower load than originally planned)

The main reason AGR's dont load follow is the thermal effects on the fuel. Repeated power cycling could lead to fuel failures.. We do offer NG ten 100MW(e) NISM load drops a year, but we have never done it. PWR's are a bit more flexible but they often have some fuel failures where our AGR has never had one in 30 years . We did once install dump tubes into the condenser to allow steam to bypass the turbine to allow load to be reduced without changing power on the reactor, but we never used it and it was removed a few years ago.

[Jambo85]

Thanks for the corrections Gary, I really shouldn't have said anything...!

I am sure I was told some time that the other reason for nuclear not adjusting to load is the financial aspect - that fuel cost is essentially negligible and the economics of building and running a nuclear plant only really work if it is flat out for the maximum time possible. Is that accurate and are their contracts set up to support running flat out?

[Gary C]

Jambo85 said:

Thanks for the corrections Gary, I really shouldn't have said anything...!

I am sure I was told some time that the other reason for nuclear not adjusting to load is the financial aspect - that fuel cost is essentially negligible and the economics of building and running a nuclear plant only really work if it is flat out for the maximum time possible. Is that accurate and are their contracts set up to support running flat out?

Oh, you certainly have a point there. Fuel costs aren't exactly negligible (few million a shot), but yes we need to generate to really make money, but in the new market, if we were fully flexible we could operate in the balancing market to make money maybe, but we cant so we sit as baseload.

Condi is the expert, we dont get much training on trading on purpose, we are meant to ignore market pressures in favour of nuclear safety but I did have a trader on the phone demanding a REMIT load statement when I was trying to address an alarm that halted a load increase Was a bit grumpy with her (as it was the second time with the same person) and almost put the phone down, will do it next time, grrr.

[Gary C]

robinessex said:

Wouldn't all this 'price for energy' bks go away if we renationalised the whole bloody lot?

Interesting

We used to operate on a merit order. The most expensive station was the last on and first off. Bills were simple and controlled by government.

Investment into the industry was good, and pay/conditions/pensions were excellent.

However, the costs of the industry before privatisation were not covered by the electricity bills. The CEGB etc was huge, the numbers of research labs, HQ's, Maintenance facilities, computer installations, Staff etc was mind boggling. We even had our own fully featured real time control computer language, with full support.

A privatised electricity industry means its unions can be excessively powerful and the attitudes of the 70's meant excessive pay and truly fantastic pensions (senior shift engineer ~£100K with a final salary 2/3 pension in todays money) because no government could afford to be blamed for a country wide instant shutdown.

Now im sure in theory, it could be governed correctly, but Gov's tend to tinker.

[robinessex]

Gary C said:

robinessex said:

Wouldn't all this 'price for energy' bks go away if we renationalised the whole bloody lot?

Interesting

We used to operate on a merit order. The most expensive station was the last on and first off. Bills were simple and controlled by government.

Investment into the industry was good, and pay/conditions/pensions were excellent.

However, the costs of the industry before privatisation were not covered by the electricity bills. The CEGB etc was huge, the numbers of research labs, HQ's, Maintenance facilities, computer installations, Staff etc was mind boggling. We even had our own fully featured real time control computer language, with full support.

A privatised electricity industry means its unions can be excessively powerful and the attitudes of the 70's meant excessive pay and truly fantastic pensions (senior shift engineer ~£100K with a final salary 2/3 pension in todays money) because no government could afford to be blamed for a country wide instant shutdown.

Now im sure in theory, it could be governed correctly, but Gov's tend to tinker.

Funny, other countries have a nationalised supply system, and then come and buy into out private one(s).!!!!!

[Gary C]

robinessex said:

Gary C said:

robinessex said:

Wouldn't all this 'price for energy' bks go away if we renationalised the whole bloody lot?

Interesting

We used to operate on a merit order. The most expensive station was the last on and first off. Bills were simple and controlled by government.

Investment into the industry was good, and pay/conditions/pensions were excellent.

However, the costs of the industry before privatisation were not covered by the electricity bills. The CEGB etc was huge, the numbers of research labs, HQ's, Maintenance facilities, computer installations, Staff etc was mind boggling. We even had our own fully featured real time control computer language, with full support.

A privatised electricity industry means its unions can be excessively powerful and the attitudes of the 70's meant excessive pay and truly fantastic pensions (senior shift engineer ~£100K with a final salary 2/3 pension in todays money) because no government could afford to be blamed for a country wide instant shutdown.

Now im sure in theory, it could be governed correctly, but Gov's tend to tinker.

Funny, other countries have a nationalised supply system, and then come and buy into out private one(s).!!!!!

Have you seen the debt EDF france has ? actually, not sure what it is now, but your right, im sure a nationalised company could/can be run correctly, but its not the universal panacea for solving energy issues its sold as. It has significant risks that are often conveniently ignored and some people look back on the CEGB as a model of efficiency and low prices.

Lets face if, Heysham 2 was built with Parsons turbines and Torness was built with GEC turbines just to support two UK companies and staff (not saying though that that was the wrong thing to do) which increased complexity and costs of what could/should? have been two identical sites.

Our Gov would not be able to resist interfering.

Edited by Gary C on Tuesday 29th January 17:15

Edited by Gary C on Tuesday 29th January 17:18

Edited by Gary C on Tuesday 29th January 17:19

[gadgetmac]

I'll just leave this here for you to work yourselves up over.

[Murph7355]

gadgetmac said:

I'll just leave this here for you to work yourselves up over.

At least they'll be near a source of fuel for when it's neither sunny nor windy

[turbobloke]

Mine sites with windymills and "Greenpeace voices criticism" which means they'll just love these December headlines as much as the hapless biased beeb did.

China-backed coal projects prompt climate change fears - BBC News

China coal giant plans record share sale - AMM
.
India, China's coal consumption rise, global emissions may hit record - business-standard.com


From this month's chip paper:

China plans to use a nuclear bomb detonator to release shale gas - techregister.co.uk


Valium for green peas, stat!

[gadgetmac]

Ah, so the response is to load the thread up with stuff that has been posted before.

Gotcha.

I'll repost the picture at suitable intervals then...

[QuantumTokoloshi]

gadgetmac said:

Ah, so the response is to load the thread up with stuff that has been posted before.

Gotcha.

I'll repost the picture at suitable intervals then...

Could you add this too, in interests of balance ?

In Mandarin, saving the planet is pronounced thus "build 260 GW worth of coal power station" A tricky language to understand.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/26/sate...

Lucky, we were saving the planet with renewables this cold, dark, windless morning. Oh wait....

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 30th January 09:08

[turbobloke]

'Not all that one sees has been posted before, grasshopper'

From the 'Still Relevant' section of the martial arts training manual that wasn't written by General Isations.

[alangla]

Good chance of a triad tonight - demand currently 48GW, forecast is 48.4 by 17:30, the 3 current eligible dates are all under 47GW. Wind output is currently 2.2GW, but the system looks like it's currently long - net imbalance currently -981MW. Will be interesting to see the breakdown of generation at 17:30 roughly.

[phumy]

Gary C said:

Lets face if, Heysham 2 was built with Parsons turbines and Torness was built with GEC turbines just to support two UK companies and staff (not saying though that that was the wrong thing to do) which increased complexity and costs of what could/should? have been two identical sites.

Our Gov would not be able to resist interfering.

Edited by Gary C on Tuesday 29th January 17:15

Edited by Gary C on Tuesday 29th January 17:18

Edited by Gary C on Tuesday 29th January 17:19

In the good old days of the CEGB, when those two stations were built, it was all about instilling competition between turbine manufacturers and attempting to get lower prices.

[Murph7355]

Is it time to buy myself a generator?

Couple of owners previous had one as the infrastructure out by me was unreliable. That's not really the case any more, but I have a spot for a little genny and some sockets in the house that cn be powered by one.... And they seem to be cheap.

If I get one, should I get wind powered or super u/l?

[dickymint]

Murph7355 said:

Is it time to buy myself a generator?

Couple of owners previous had one as the infrastructure out by me was unreliable. That's not really the case any more, but I have a spot for a little genny and some sockets in the house that cn be powered by one.... And they seem to be cheap.

If I get one, should I get wind powered or super u/l?

Genuine coffee and keyboard moment there

[Gary C]

phumy said:

Gary C said:

Lets face if, Heysham 2 was built with Parsons turbines and Torness was built with GEC turbines just to support two UK companies and staff (not saying though that that was the wrong thing to do) which increased complexity and costs of what could/should? have been two identical sites.

Our Gov would not be able to resist interfering.

In the good old days of the CEGB, when those two stations were built, it was all about instilling competition between turbine manufacturers and attempting to get lower prices.

Yeh right, that was the official line, but Gov always supported both as losing a fleet order in a generation could have put the loser out on the streets. Happened throughout, did the same with boiler manufactures too.

Efficiency was the watchword of the CEGB, we were obsessed with it, the Turbine designs of the big two did tend to leapfrog each other, the 500MW GEC units took years to get right, vibration problems up and down the set. Cant quite remember the fix but the 660's, the GEC units were ok. Our Radax rotors fell to bits and we shed a few Parsons LP blades

It didn't save much money in the end either. Too many differences reduced the benefits of scale.
Then we decided that the control systems should be different. Heysham 2 used Honeywell supermini's with Intel multibus targets, whereas Torness used Ferranti Argus. Ended up with different safety cases too.

[Talksteer]

Gary C said:

Yeh right, that was the official line, but Gov always supported both as losing a fleet order in a generation could have put the loser out on the streets. Happened throughout, did the same with boiler manufactures too.

Efficiency was the watchword of the CEGB, we were obsessed with it, the Turbine designs of the big two did tend to leapfrog each other, the 500MW GEC units took years to get right, vibration problems up and down the set. Cant quite remember the fix but the 660's, the GEC units were ok. Our Radax rotors fell to bits and we shed a few Parsons LP blades

It didn't save much money in the end either. Too many differences reduced the benefits of scale.
Then we decided that the control systems should be different. Heysham 2 used Honeywell supermini's with Intel multibus targets, whereas Torness used Ferranti Argus. Ended up with different safety cases too.

The French "national champion" designing the plant with one design incremented in batches was the best model.

It remains so to this day as it is what the Korean's practiced before they shot themselves in the foot.

It has been said that the French have hundreds of cheeses and three reactor designs, the Americans had one hundred reactor designs and three cheese's 😂

Let's ignore the EPR....

[V8 Fettler]

Talksteer said:

Gary C said:

Yeh right, that was the official line, but Gov always supported both as losing a fleet order in a generation could have put the loser out on the streets. Happened throughout, did the same with boiler manufactures too.

Efficiency was the watchword of the CEGB, we were obsessed with it, the Turbine designs of the big two did tend to leapfrog each other, the 500MW GEC units took years to get right, vibration problems up and down the set. Cant quite remember the fix but the 660's, the GEC units were ok. Our Radax rotors fell to bits and we shed a few Parsons LP blades

It didn't save much money in the end either. Too many differences reduced the benefits of scale.
Then we decided that the control systems should be different. Heysham 2 used Honeywell supermini's with Intel multibus targets, whereas Torness used Ferranti Argus. Ended up with different safety cases too.

The French "national champion" designing the plant with one design incremented in batches was the best model.

It remains so to this day as it is what the Korean's practiced before they shot themselves in the foot.

It has been said that the French have hundreds of cheeses and three reactor designs, the Americans had one hundred reactor designs and three cheese's ??

Let's ignore the EPR....

Which is the most resilient to catastrophic coolant loss? AGR or PWR?

Always a good idea to have alternative suppliers where a long run of construction projects is anticipated, hence keeping Parsons and GEC involved. It was just the long run of construction projects that was missing.

A cooler day in the UK, coal currently out-performing nuclear.