The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[wombleh]

Normally I avoid friends of the earth but that book looks quite interesting Stanley. Thanks for the link.

History repeats itself, it talks about a big problem with the magnox stations being they were made by different consortium so ended up slightly different each time. Now the new nuclear stations are designed to be repeatable and benefit from scale, so what do we do? Get 3-4 different consortium each building 1-2 stations using different designs. Although Nugen and Horizon have gone which seems to leave a bit of a gap in the plans.

Weren't they always designed to use same turbines as coal stations to things easy?

Edited by wombleh on Friday 5th July 21:29

[Wayoftheflower]

StanleyT said:

Actually, daft question which I should know the answer to but having spend a life with steam turbines, is there a better way to make something rotate to make juice, or is the reason steam is so good, is because steam is so good?

H2O's big specific heat capacity and latent heat make it hard to beat. I know 5/8ths of FA on power generation, is there such a thing as a non-steam turbine?

Google-yes there are
link
"Typical examples of such synergetic gas mixture are helium-xenon and helium-carbon dioxide."

[hidetheelephants]

StanleyT said:

3.1416 said:

One question, still unanswered, is why did the UK not commit more fully to nuclear?

Answers on a postcard to:
Mr A Scargill,
NUM,
Now Redundant.

Read Walter Pattersons book, available as a pdf "Going Critical".

https://friendsoftheearth.uk/sites/default/files/d...

You think we [UK plc, CEGB, UKAEA, BNFL, NPC, BNDC, NNC, Rolls, Fairey, APC, Westinghouse etc etc] had fun developing the AGRs and Magnox reactors. Was in a "UKAEA" like office today on a future generation of reactors "have we decided the cooling fluid for transfer to the turbines yet so we can do the heat transfer calcs" was one of the first questions.......FFFS sake after now hundreds of years of turbines....steam is good for a reason, latent heat, work downward from there.......

Actually, daft question which I should know the answer to but having spend a life with steam turbines, is there a better way to make something rotate to make juice, or is the reason steam is so good, is because steam is so good?

It's an interesting but rather biased view of nuclear power. Steam has hegemony because no-one is willing (yet) to spend the first-mover cost for developing a 600MW Brayton cycle turbine; for concentrated solar power, molten salt reactors or even fusion power someone will attempt it, simply because the potential cost savings and efficiency gains are so huge.

[3.1416]

Brayton Cycle and Gas Turbines (jet engines)

https://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-engineering/...

Water tends not to be combustible, but under high pressure, with heat, is deadly.

Hence advancements in metallurgy and boiler making.

[turbobloke]

Exocets and Mg/Al in ships on H2O don't mix well.

[3.1416]

Below water - gills or SMR powered tube.

[Wayoftheflower]

hidetheelephants said:

StanleyT said:

3.1416 said:

One question, still unanswered, is why did the UK not commit more fully to nuclear?

Answers on a postcard to:
Mr A Scargill,
NUM,
Now Redundant.

Read Walter Pattersons book, available as a pdf "Going Critical".

https://friendsoftheearth.uk/sites/default/files/d...

You think we [UK plc, CEGB, UKAEA, BNFL, NPC, BNDC, NNC, Rolls, Fairey, APC, Westinghouse etc etc] had fun developing the AGRs and Magnox reactors. Was in a "UKAEA" like office today on a future generation of reactors "have we decided the cooling fluid for transfer to the turbines yet so we can do the heat transfer calcs" was one of the first questions.......FFFS sake after now hundreds of years of turbines....steam is good for a reason, latent heat, work downward from there.......

Actually, daft question which I should know the answer to but having spend a life with steam turbines, is there a better way to make something rotate to make juice, or is the reason steam is so good, is because steam is so good?

It's an interesting but rather biased view of nuclear power. Steam has hegemony because no-one is willing (yet) to spend the first-mover cost for developing a 600MW Brayton cycle turbine; for concentrated solar power, molten salt reactors or even fusion power someone will attempt it, simply because the potential cost savings and efficiency gains are so huge.

So the 600W version would have a common (humongous) shaft turbine-compressor you think?

[Talksteer]

andymadmak said:

Indeed... all these things being driven by electricity rather than fossil fuels. But still no real solution to the renewables intermittency problem in sight.

Since the climate change act commits the UK to an 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050 the national grid is legally obligated to credibly plan for this eventuality. The outputs of this work are in this document.

http://fes.nationalgrid.com/fes-document/

What is notable about the FES is that the technical solutions proposed must be credible and be their best estimate but that they don't really estimate cost other than that it is unlikely to be unfeasibly expensive.

The short answer as to what you do to run a renewables heavy grid:

1: Have lots of renewables, in the renewables heavy option there was ~270GW of capacity by 2050 this ups your chance of having some of it deliver
2: Have some nuclear 7.8-18 GWe
3: Have interconnects 17-20 GWe
4: Add around 17-30GWe storage, pumped, V2G and utility batteries

Obviously storage can only really shift load between day and night and interconnects may have limited capability to make up capacity if demand or production is stretched across Europe. In these circumstances the deep reserve is gas turbines some of which may be open cycle and some of which may be fueled by biogas or hydrogen cracked using spare renewable power. These GTs would be run only intermittently and as such the majority of their cost would be their construction which is at least relatively cheap.

Re: Aircraft, in the next 5 years electric aircraft are going to be very real for a bunch of short range applications, one of their key properties is that their cost of ownership and thus fares will be lower. 400-500Wh/kg will basically unlock electric flying at all intra-continental ranges and those batteries are in the lab at the moment. See Eviation for what a 1000km range electric aircraft will look like, longer high aspect ration wings, multiple motors and flying slightly slower are all likely to factor.

1000Wh'kg will allow you to get anywhere in the world with recharging stops, given that these stops would be only 20-30 minutes I suspect that we might see long range aircraft operate more like trains/uber than the current model. The batteries to enable this happen some time between 2030-40 but obviously the further into the future we go the less certain we can be. However if there is lots of curtailment hydrogen kicking around by that time it would seam impolite not to use it fly sub-orbital!

Re:Ships - I make no firm predictions about precisely when it will go to hydrogen. If you look at cost reduction rates for solar if they hold by around the 2030 time frame it could potentially be very cheap in desert countries. This would allow electrolysis to be done much cheaper than today.

If the hydrogen is available the technology of fuel cells is already cheap enough ($53/kw) to run a large ship for low millions per unit. The storage technology has been perfected since the early days of the space race. Swapping diesel prime movers for electric motors is not a particularly massive challenge on something as un-space constrained as most ships.

If hydrogen is shown to be feasible I suspect that plenty of nations in Europe or similar will simple give a 5-10 year notice to ban cargo ships entering their ports if emitting anything, as to what happens to all the ships with usable lifetime they either get converted or scrapped. The key element will be the cheap solar energy and hydrogen production, the ships themselves are the easy bit.

https://new.abb.com/news/detail/5360/abb-and-balla...

Edited by Talksteer on Sunday 7th July 00:29

[turbobloke]

Talksteer said:

The short answer as to what you do to run a renewables heavy grid:

1: Have lots of renewables, in the renewables heavy option there was ~270GW of capacity by 2050 this ups your chance of having some of it deliver
2: Have some nuclear 7.8-18 GWe
3: Have interconnects 17-20 GWe
4: Add around 17-30GWe storage, pumped, V2G and utility batteries

May I enquire as to whether or not a point has been omitted?

5. Have large banks of expensive and polluting diesel generators ready for when it goes titsup.

UK plc has spent hundreds of millions of ££££££££££ on subsidies to polluting diesel generators to help solve the energy supply crunch facing the country for at least the next decade or two.. This involves at least 1.5 gigawatts of diesel power as back-up energy for the grid.

[hidetheelephants]

Wayoftheflower said:

So the 600W version would have a common (humongous) shaft turbine-compressor you think?

Not sure what you mean; can you elaborate?

[Wayoftheflower]

hidetheelephants said:

Wayoftheflower said:

So the 600W version would have a common (humongous) shaft turbine-compressor you think?

Not sure what you mean; can you elaborate?

So my wiki skills showed me that a Brayton cycle looks like a jet engine or turbocharger, common shaft linking the turbine to the compressor.

600MW one (forgot the M in my original reply) would you expect to directly link the turbine-compressor (humungous shaft) or something more like a Mercedes F1 MGU-H where the turbine to compressor can be decoupled (humungous clutch)?

[hidetheelephants]

Wayoftheflower said:

hidetheelephants said:

Wayoftheflower said:

So the 600W version would have a common (humongous) shaft turbine-compressor you think?

Not sure what you mean; can you elaborate?

So my wiki skills showed me that a Brayton cycle looks like a jet engine or turbocharger, common shaft linking the turbine to the compressor.

600MW one (forgot the M in my original reply) would you expect to directly link the turbine-compressor (humungous shaft) or something more like a Mercedes F1 MGU-H where the turbine to compressor can be decoupled (humungous clutch)?

I know nothing of the practicalities of closed Brayton cycle beyond what is googleable, but I've never seen one portrayed with the compressor decoupled from the turbine; I'm not sure why you'd want to.

[turbobloke]

A new publication via the GWPF features researchers investigating the detrimental environmental impact of wind energy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The Impact of Wind Energy on Wildlife and the Environment”

Professor Oliver Krüger describes his cutting-edge research which has shown how birds of prey and ducks are being killed in their thousands in Germany. The risk to these species is so great that there is a possibility of whole populations being wiped out.

Klaus Richarz, the former head of a major bird reserve in Germany, describes how windfarm operators are evading strict compliance with the rules, to the detriment of both birds and bats.

Dr Peter Henderson, of the University of Oxford, reviews the effects of wind turbines on a wide variety of animals. He suggests that death toll on bats may already be ecologically significant:
“About 200,000 bats are annually killed at onshore wind turbines in Germany alone. These numbers are sufficient to produce concern for future populations, as bats are long-lived and reproduce slowly, so cannot quickly replace such losses.”

Paula Byrne of WindAware Ireland describes how windfarms in her native country have desecrated landscapes, and have threatened the endangered Nore Freshwater Pearl Mussel.



Tip of the blade iceberg.

[rscott]

turbobloke said:

A new publication via the GWPF features researchers investigating the detrimental environmental impact of wind energy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The Impact of Wind Energy on Wildlife and the Environment”

Professor Oliver Krüger describes his cutting-edge research which has shown how birds of prey and ducks are being killed in their thousands in Germany. The risk to these species is so great that there is a possibility of whole populations being wiped out.

Klaus Richarz, the former head of a major bird reserve in Germany, describes how windfarm operators are evading strict compliance with the rules, to the detriment of both birds and bats.

Dr Peter Henderson, of the University of Oxford, reviews the effects of wind turbines on a wide variety of animals. He suggests that death toll on bats may already be ecologically significant:
“About 200,000 bats are annually killed at onshore wind turbines in Germany alone. These numbers are sufficient to produce concern for future populations, as bats are long-lived and reproduce slowly, so cannot quickly replace such losses.”

Paula Byrne of WindAware Ireland describes how windfarms in her native country have desecrated landscapes, and have threatened the endangered Nore Freshwater Pearl Mussel.



Tip of the blade iceberg.

The dangers to bats has been well documented for a decade or so.

There's even been research into how to reduce the number killed - one study showed it could be reduced by up to 93% by increasing the wind speed required before turbines are allowed to spin. (Bats are most active on relatively still days).

Is that the same Windaware Ireland who were strongly criticised by the CRU for publishing a report on wind energy full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings?

[turbobloke]

You're so hot on GWPF matters I checked to see if you'd posted it already

[rscott]

turbobloke said:

You're so hot on GWPF matters I checked to see if you'd posted it already

I leave the posting of quotes from their works of fiction to you.

I simply Google the quotes you post, find their latest waffle replicated on half a dozen interlinked sites and try to find the detail behind their claims.

Usually shows they're based on reports and studies by equally biased anti-renewable groups.

[Wayoftheflower]

turbobloke said:

Professor Oliver Krüger describes his cutting-edge research which has shown how birds of prey and ducks are being killed in their thousands in Germany. The risk to these species is so great that there is a possibility of whole populations being wiped out.

Sounds horrific!! Those poor birds!!
Oh wait, no you're full of it, again

Why do you bother posting this hysterical stuff that takes all of ten seconds on Google to debunk?

[anonymous-user]

rscott said:

turbobloke said:

You're so hot on GWPF matters I checked to see if you'd posted it already

I leave the posting of quotes from their works of fiction to you.

I simply Google the quotes you post, find their latest waffle replicated on half a dozen interlinked sites and try to find the detail behind their claims.

Usually shows they're based on reports and studies by equally biased anti-renewable groups.

On the climate politics thread he was even doctoring the quotes to try and disguise that they came from the GWPF website.

[turbobloke]

"Turbines Kill So Many Birds They're Effectively an Apex Predator"
A typical wind farm can kill thousands of birds every year, including raptors like falcons and eagles.

"Bat Killings by Wind Energy Turbines Continue" (Scientific American)
Industry plan to reduce deaths not enough scientists say.

PH renewables apologists may get hufty tufty but reality is plain to see. Wind is an abomination regarding bird and bat fatalities.

[Art0ir]

I don’t really care about a few birds in the grand scheme of things (sue me).

The only thing I care about with regards to wind is have we got a way yet to smooth out the peaks and troughs in energy generation from wind without massive inefficiencies.