The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Ali G said:
Fast breeder reactor tech from the late '60s
Dounreay
Much as I don't really like LWRs, from a regulatory perspective they're the only game in town for getting replacement GW into service in the next 10-20 years, never mind extra GW. Dounreay
UK Gov said:
PFR had the dual role of providing power to the national grid and offering unique research and development facilities. PFR provided information for future design and operation of large commercial fast reactor stations. It was the final step towards bringing fast reactors into use as conventional power stations.
The United Kingdom decided in the late 1980s that there was no immediate need to take the next step to a conventional station and discontinued the programme.
More need required now, and with a degree of haste to meet commitments made under Paris Agreement!The United Kingdom decided in the late 1980s that there was no immediate need to take the next step to a conventional station and discontinued the programme.
I'm sceptical of fast reactors, at least with solid fuel; the ones built so far have a terrible record for capacity factor, blowing their budgets and schedules. EBR2 demonstrated impressive levels of intrinsic safety in tests but the projected cost of commercial size plants was fairly boggling. liquid fuel fast reactors may well be much cheaper, but as with thermal and epithermal MSR concepts much research work remains to be done to develop the necessary materials technology and design knowledge.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
See -that wasn't so hard after all was it ?
Any data I have produced is refuted.
Is it verboten to challenge data? The punters must accept the words of the renewablists? How very BBC. Any data I have produced is refuted.
If the 5% estimate for the minimum utilisation ratio remains unchallenged, what data do you have for the cost of providing 30GW of standby power e.g. diesel plant?
hidetheelephants said:
Ali G said:
Fast breeder reactor tech from the late '60s
Dounreay
Much as I don't really like LWRs, from a regulatory perspective they're the only game in town for getting replacement GW into service in the next 10-20 years, never mind extra GW. Dounreay
UK Gov said:
PFR had the dual role of providing power to the national grid and offering unique research and development facilities. PFR provided information for future design and operation of large commercial fast reactor stations. It was the final step towards bringing fast reactors into use as conventional power stations.
The United Kingdom decided in the late 1980s that there was no immediate need to take the next step to a conventional station and discontinued the programme.
More need required now, and with a degree of haste to meet commitments made under Paris Agreement!The United Kingdom decided in the late 1980s that there was no immediate need to take the next step to a conventional station and discontinued the programme.
I'm sceptical of fast reactors, at least with solid fuel; the ones built so far have a terrible record for capacity factor, blowing their budgets and schedules. EBR2 demonstrated impressive levels of intrinsic safety in tests but the projected cost of commercial size plants was fairly boggling. liquid fuel fast reactors may well be much cheaper, but as with thermal and epithermal MSR concepts much research work remains to be done to develop the necessary materials technology and design knowledge.
V8 Fettler said:
Is it verboten to challenge data? The punters must accept the words of the renewablists? How very BBC.
If there's a genuine industry insider near you, ask them about information suppression. Where has the industry (or the BBC) published the following studies:1 Wind farms harming the countryside including the rural economy (Owen Paterson report)
2 Wind farms and 'house price blight' (see above)
3 Wind farms and local climate change (Vautard et al)
4 Wind farms and global climate change (Keith et al)
5 House of Lords economic affairs committee report on UK energy policy failures
Arch climate fairytale believer Ed Davey suppressed the report on 1 and 2 and has probably never heard of, let alone read about, items 3 and 4 in keeping with the entire industry and its green shilling takers.
Item 5 is likely to be the best known but not widely so as it's never been widely publicised, It can be found if somebody is determined enough. The conclusions are damning which is why the BBC and other fawning green blobbers won't mention it too offten if at all.
- UK energy security must be put first, above green ideology, however...
- 'global warming' has had improper precedence over security of supply and affordability
- focus on decarbonisation has left energy bills rising and electricity supplies perilously insecure
- renewables contracts that guarantee a given price for a fixed period have reduced capaciy and inflated prices
The array of vested interests really didn't like it and spent what little air time the report had attacking the people behind it rather than the message, which was and is spot on. This is a tedious and futile but familiar pattern we also see regularly on PH.
V8 Fettler said:
Build twin-reactor versions of Sizewell B.
Sizewell B is an Westinghouse SNUPPS plant - modified for the UK regulatory and electrical environment.Westinghouse obsoleted the SNUPPS when they developed their AP1000 design. The AP1000 was intended to be considerably easier to build by the use of novel technologies and extensive computer analysis which permitted deletion of multiple complex subsystems. Claims for the AP1000 are 50% fewer valves than its predecessor, 89% less piping and 85% less wiring, substantially smaller land area (about half that of Sizewell B) and substantially fewer building materials (80% less concrete, 80% less rebar), while being substantially simpler to commission and operate and substantially safer (serious accident risk reduced by approx 2 orders of magnitude).
The construction of 4 AP1000 units in the US is a tale of woe, such that two have now been abandoned mid-way through construction, and Toshiba who had been planning to lead the consortium to build 3 of them in Cumbria is now in dire financial straits and is unlikely to be able to fund the construction.
Even in China, the construction of AP1000 reactors is well behind schedule. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel, as the first is about to fuel its reactor and begin test runs.
The tale of most recent Western nuclear construction is the same. Difficulty findings adequately skilled workers, developing a reliable supply chain, and lack of control of distant parts of the supply chain resulting in unsatisfactory services/products.
The fiasco with the emergency diesel generators in Finland is an example of the problems that can crop up in complex supply chains; the regulator expected to see "nuclear grade" specifications, design and quality control paperwork for not just the diesel generator, but every component within the generator, such as the individual parts making up a fuel injector. However, the generator subcontractor wasn't expecting this, and the suppliers of the fuel injectors certainly weren't.
Nuclear products are often custom made and require niche materials, which may no longer be available by the time a plant comes to construction. For example, new nuclear plants have tended to specify chlorosulfonated polyethylene (CSPE) insulation for their electrical wiring. This is an obscure polymer, but has a number of useful properties, such as heat and humidity resistance, good aging properties, low enthalpy of cumbustion, good radiation resistance, combustion fumes do not degrade safety systems such as catalytic converters, etc. The only problem is that since the designs have been finalised, all the major manufacturers of CSPE have discontinued it. As a result there are now few commercial sources, and even fewer with experience of supplying to the nuclear industry.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
turbobloke said:
If there's a genuine industry insider near you, ask them about information suppression. Where has the industry (or the BBC) published the following studies:
1 Wind farms harming the countryside including the rural economy (Owen Paterson report)
2 Wind farms and 'house price blight' (see above)
3 Wind farms and local climate change (Vautard et al)
4 Wind farms and global climate change (Keith et al)
5 House of Lords economic affairs committee report on UK energy policy failures
Arch climate fairytale believer Ed Davey suppressed the report on 1 and 2 and has probably never heard of, let alone read about, items 3 and 4 in keeping with the entire industry and its green shilling takers.
Item 5 is likely to be the best known but not widely so as it's never been widely publicised, It can be found if somebody is determined enough. The conclusions are damning which is why the BBC and other fawning green blobbers won't mention it too offten if at all.
- UK energy security must be put first, above green ideology, however...
- 'global warming' has had improper precedence over security of supply and affordability
- focus on decarbonisation has left energy bills rising and electricity supplies perilously insecure
- renewables contracts that guarantee a given price for a fixed period have reduced capaciy and inflated prices
The array of vested interests really didn't like it and spent what little air time the report had attacking the people behind it rather than the message, which was and is spot on. This is a tedious and futile but familiar pattern we also see regularly on PH.
The reason this thread was created I believe was to leave your hyperbole and conspiracy theory of suppressed reporting on your Climate Change Political thread.1 Wind farms harming the countryside including the rural economy (Owen Paterson report)
2 Wind farms and 'house price blight' (see above)
3 Wind farms and local climate change (Vautard et al)
4 Wind farms and global climate change (Keith et al)
5 House of Lords economic affairs committee report on UK energy policy failures
Arch climate fairytale believer Ed Davey suppressed the report on 1 and 2 and has probably never heard of, let alone read about, items 3 and 4 in keeping with the entire industry and its green shilling takers.
Item 5 is likely to be the best known but not widely so as it's never been widely publicised, It can be found if somebody is determined enough. The conclusions are damning which is why the BBC and other fawning green blobbers won't mention it too offten if at all.
- UK energy security must be put first, above green ideology, however...
- 'global warming' has had improper precedence over security of supply and affordability
- focus on decarbonisation has left energy bills rising and electricity supplies perilously insecure
- renewables contracts that guarantee a given price for a fixed period have reduced capaciy and inflated prices
The array of vested interests really didn't like it and spent what little air time the report had attacking the people behind it rather than the message, which was and is spot on. This is a tedious and futile but familiar pattern we also see regularly on PH.
Can't you take this post down and put it back in there where it belongs ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windp...
Theres also links to articles from Sky News, The Daily Mail and wait for it the BBC...
WatchfulEye said:
The tale of most recent Western nuclear construction is the same. Difficulty findings adequately skilled workers, developing a reliable supply chain, and lack of control of distant parts of the supply chain resulting in unsatisfactory services/products.
Western troubles - unable to organise a p*ss up in a brewery. Too much strictly dumb prancing and now insufficient ability to justify a stellar standard of living.
PnM said:
turbobloke said:
vested interests ...attacking the people behind it rather than the message, which was and is spot on. This is a tedious and futile but familiar pattern we also see regularly on PH.
The reason this thread was created I believe was to leave your hyperbole and conspiracy theory of suppressed reporting on your Climate Change Political thread.It's LongQ's thread, in any case. Duh.
My post was on-topic unlike your repeated white flag personal angles.
chrispmartha said:
Theres also links to articles from Sky News, The Daily Mail and wait for it the BBC...
Strawman and cherry picking offences alert 
Where are links to the two research papers discussing large-scale windfarm proliferation, as planned by inept politicians as part of widespread decarbonisation, as a source of both local and global climate change? The global climate change they're supposed to be 'tackling'? Vautard et al, Keith et al, awol.
Are you claiming that the countryside economy report wasn't kept out of the way and then subjected to an unholy row over suppression? Troll on!
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 8th August 12:59
WatchfulEye said:
V8 Fettler said:
Build twin-reactor versions of Sizewell B.
Sizewell B is an Westinghouse SNUPPS plant - modified for the UK regulatory and electrical environment.Westinghouse obsoleted the SNUPPS when they developed their AP1000 design. The AP1000 was intended to be considerably easier to build by the use of novel technologies and extensive computer analysis which permitted deletion of multiple complex subsystems. Claims for the AP1000 are 50% fewer valves than its predecessor, 89% less piping and 85% less wiring, substantially smaller land area (about half that of Sizewell B) and substantially fewer building materials (80% less concrete, 80% less rebar), while being substantially simpler to commission and operate and substantially safer (serious accident risk reduced by approx 2 orders of magnitude).
The construction of 4 AP1000 units in the US is a tale of woe, such that two have now been abandoned mid-way through construction, and Toshiba who had been planning to lead the consortium to build 3 of them in Cumbria is now in dire financial straits and is unlikely to be able to fund the construction.
Even in China, the construction of AP1000 reactors is well behind schedule. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel, as the first is about to fuel its reactor and begin test runs.
The tale of most recent Western nuclear construction is the same. Difficulty findings adequately skilled workers, developing a reliable supply chain, and lack of control of distant parts of the supply chain resulting in unsatisfactory services/products.
The fiasco with the emergency diesel generators in Finland is an example of the problems that can crop up in complex supply chains; the regulator expected to see "nuclear grade" specifications, design and quality control paperwork for not just the diesel generator, but every component within the generator, such as the individual parts making up a fuel injector. However, the generator subcontractor wasn't expecting this, and the suppliers of the fuel injectors certainly weren't.
Nuclear products are often custom made and require niche materials, which may no longer be available by the time a plant comes to construction. For example, new nuclear plants have tended to specify chlorosulfonated polyethylene (CSPE) insulation for their electrical wiring. This is an obscure polymer, but has a number of useful properties, such as heat and humidity resistance, good aging properties, low enthalpy of cumbustion, good radiation resistance, combustion fumes do not degrade safety systems such as catalytic converters, etc. The only problem is that since the designs have been finalised, all the major manufacturers of CSPE have discontinued it. As a result there are now few commercial sources, and even fewer with experience of supplying to the nuclear industry.
Sizewell B was on time and on budget, although some may claim that the budgetary goalposts were moved. Technically, we can build similar again, because we've already built one. Supply issues (components and workforce) would tend to be minimised under a rolling programme of several similar stations (as per the CEGB's original scheme).
Raising the contractor's game to meet the spec can be an issue, but it is resolvable providing that the client team doesn't sit in a bunker. In your Finnish example, there should have been no surprises of any magnitude for the client, regulator or contractors.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
V8 Fettler said:
Is it verboten to challenge data? The punters must accept the words of the renewablists? How very BBC.
If the 5% estimate for the minimum utilisation ratio remains unchallenged, what data do you have for the cost of providing 30GW of standby power e.g. diesel plant?
You're confusing what you call a renewabalist with industrial activityIf the 5% estimate for the minimum utilisation ratio remains unchallenged, what data do you have for the cost of providing 30GW of standby power e.g. diesel plant?
Surprising that an expert such as yourself doesn't have the figures for the costs associated with providing 30GW of diesel plant for standby duties, are not these figures an integral part of identifying the true cost of wind energy?
s2art said:
Its cheap, and we have coal fired power stations that have plenty of years in them.
Have a read of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact...And affordable clean coal technology seems to still be just a pipedream. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemper_Project
Also, it's not sustainable. Not going to run out in our lifetimes, but certainly not going to make it to the next millenium if go back to coal in any significant way.
silentbrown said:
s2art said:
Its cheap, and we have coal fired power stations that have plenty of years in them.
Have a read of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact...And affordable clean coal technology seems to still be just a pipedream. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemper_Project
Also, it's not sustainable. Not going to run out in our lifetimes, but certainly not going to make it to the next millenium if go back to coal in any significant way.
Ironically the fossil fuels people want to stop using immediately (to hit emissions targets) are required in order to fuel the proposed huge expansion of "renewables" technology.
If the objective for "right now" (Per Hansen, Monbiot and many others) is to instantly cut "carbon" emissions it's ironic that to do so would make achieving the cuts extremely difficult. But that's human hubris for you.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I guess some people just want to see the world burn ?
What?How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Or to put it another way, why would 0.2 degrees C by 2100, "saved"as predicted, make any difference?
Do you have any evidence that "the world" as a whole would be in worse shape?
Fossil finds suggest that in past and much warmer periods the earth was especially bountiful. Would humanity wish to try to constrain such a positive repeat development?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Whoosh parrot.
Nevermind, an almost jovial comment about unnecessarily pulling coal out the ground (at expense) and burning it.
Nothing to see here.....
Hmm.Nevermind, an almost jovial comment about unnecessarily pulling coal out the ground (at expense) and burning it.
Nothing to see here.....
Got me there Paddy.
Never thought of the whole world being made of coal.
I'll watch out for further examples of your humour in the future. I'm always up for a subtle joke.
That said one could argue that releasing coal from captivity is no more that helping the planet return to a former state of abundance for a while.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff