The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[Gary C]

hidetheelephants said:

Gary C said:

wombleh said:

The gen3 reactors were intended to be cheaper by using modular and repeatable patterns. The first one in any given regulatory area will always be more expensive while the finer details are pinned down, however the following ones should benefit more from that efficiency. Which fails miserably when you get multiple different private organisations to build 1-2 of various different designs rather than a fleet of the same type.

There was an interesting book linked from here about the mess the UK govt made of the original reactor fleet, possibly this one: http://waltpatterson.org/goingcritical.pdf

Its an interesting read, and while I would not necessarily dispute a lot of the information, it was obviously written by someone with a huge chip on both shoulders who set out to write a book to discredit anyone involved right from the start rather then present a real balanced work.

There are much better books, it's a diatribe from a radiophobe really. "Nuclear Power" by Pocock is better technically and "Nuclear Power Decisions" by Williams is much better on the politics. Neither attempt to whitewash terrible decision-making, the latter book particularly.

Thanks, I will look for them

[Parbold milkperson]

Tidal power is a way to go; Water power generally, we can do it.

[Gary C]

Parbold milkperson said:

Tidal power is a way to go; Water power generally, we can do it.

except for the ecological destruction a tidal lagoon causes

[Evanivitch]

Gary C said:

Parbold milkperson said:

Tidal power is a way to go; Water power generally, we can do it.

except for the ecological destruction a tidal lagoon causes

And the huge variability in peak tide across a month and year.

[hidetheelephants]

Evanivitch said:

Gary C said:

Parbold milkperson said:

Tidal power is a way to go; Water power generally, we can do it.

except for the ecological destruction a tidal lagoon causes

And the huge variability in peak tide across a month and year.

The stupendous cost and consequent payback period isn't encouraging either

[Gary C]

hidetheelephants said:

Evanivitch said:

Gary C said:

Parbold milkperson said:

Tidal power is a way to go; Water power generally, we can do it.

except for the ecological destruction a tidal lagoon causes

And the huge variability in peak tide across a month and year.

The stupendous cost and consequent payback period isn't encouraging either

yes but despite the variability, the destruction, the payback, the capital cost and the limited sites

What has tidal power ever done for us

[Evanivitch]

Gary C said:

hidetheelephants said:

Evanivitch said:

Gary C said:

Parbold milkperson said:

Tidal power is a way to go; Water power generally, we can do it.

except for the ecological destruction a tidal lagoon causes

And the huge variability in peak tide across a month and year.

The stupendous cost and consequent payback period isn't encouraging either

yes but despite the variability, the destruction, the payback, the capital cost and the limited sites

What has tidal power ever done for us

I think Swansea should have one, if only because those ***** in Cardiff have Cardiff Bay, and it doesn't produce even a mW!

[PushedDover]

Parbold milkperson said:

Tidal power is a way to go; Water power generally, we can do it.

Pleased to see your workings, basis and knowledge on this.

[irc]

A good layman's guide to the inability of tidal power to provide constant baseload power. Even with 7 different locations to try and take advantage of different tide times.

http://euanmearns.com/swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon-and...

[hidetheelephants]

Gary C said:

yes but despite the variability, the destruction, the payback, the capital cost and the limited sites

What has tidal power ever done for us

But, but, but... it could provide base load 4-5 hours a day!

[wombleh]

hidetheelephants said:

Gary C said:

wombleh said:

The gen3 reactors were intended to be cheaper by using modular and repeatable patterns. The first one in any given regulatory area will always be more expensive while the finer details are pinned down, however the following ones should benefit more from that efficiency. Which fails miserably when you get multiple different private organisations to build 1-2 of various different designs rather than a fleet of the same type.

There was an interesting book linked from here about the mess the UK govt made of the original reactor fleet, possibly this one: http://waltpatterson.org/goingcritical.pdf

Its an interesting read, and while I would not necessarily dispute a lot of the information, it was obviously written by someone with a huge chip on both shoulders who set out to write a book to discredit anyone involved right from the start rather then present a real balanced work.

There are much better books, it's a diatribe from a radiophobe really. "Nuclear Power" by Pocock is better technically and "Nuclear Power Decisions" by Williams is much better on the politics. Neither attempt to whitewash terrible decision-making, the latter book particularly.

Good reminder, I’ve got the pocock one on the shelf but hadnt got around to reading very much yet. It’s got some interesting background on the original station builds, about how the states had cheap coal and oil locally so could spend time on research, while the UK coal was expensive to extract and oil imported so we had a more urgent need and had to go with known tech at the time.

From what I remember of going critical, the authors issue was with selection of AGR over PWR, due to complexity and novelty, pocock talks about the relatively higher cost of enriching fuel and lower build costs due to lower interest rates meaning the larger AGR not needing such high enrichment levels made more technical sense in U.K. than PWR

SZB seemed closer to budget and deadline than other builds so maybe something in the complexity argument, haven’t seen anything comparing the overall costs. Given how long we ran the AGRs then cheaper fuel may well have paid off

Edited by wombleh on Sunday 9th May 18:00

[silentbrown]

A "dual lagoon" solves much of the baseload intermittency, which Mearns seems not to have heard of.

Mackay pp85/86 here: https://www.withouthotair.com/c14/page_85.shtml

https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/2017/01/16...

OTOH, I don't think any double lagoon systems have actually been built, and it doesn't address any of the other concerns

[wombleh]

If the intention is to reduce our impact on the environment then artificial tidal lagoons seem a bit of a non starter! Ones like orbital marine solution look better, still going to be intermittent, although predictably intermittent.

Can’t remember if this was pasted here previously:
https://www.orbitalmarine.com/o2/

[PushedDover]

More new jobs the haters wont like: https://www-hulldailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org...

[Gary C]

wombleh said:

Good reminder, I’ve got the pocock one on the shelf but hadnt got around to reading very much yet. It’s got some interesting background on the original station builds, about how the states had cheap coal and oil locally so could spend time on research, while the UK coal was expensive to extract and oil imported so we had a more urgent need and had to go with known tech at the time.

From what I remember of going critical, the authors issue was with selection of AGR over PWR, due to complexity and novelty, pocock talks about the relatively higher cost of enriching fuel and lower build costs due to lower interest rates meaning the larger AGR not needing such high enrichment levels made more technical sense in U.K. than PWR

SZB seemed closer to budget and deadline than other builds so maybe something in the complexity argument, haven’t seen anything comparing the overall costs. Given how long we ran the AGRs then cheaper fuel may well have paid off

Edited by wombleh on Sunday 9th May 18:00

I do remember it was said that Heysham 2 cost 2bn to built but it was well 'understood' by people I talked to who worked for NNC, that the real cost was twice that. So much of the costs were absorbed into the CEGB/Government system that its difficult to really ever know.

The real shame, is that the AGRs were built with a lifetime that cannot be overcome and we are all staring down the barrel of closure. Shame really, as they really do work, and with the much lower power density, have much longer fault recovery times than any PWR.

[robinessex]

PushedDover said:

More new jobs the haters wont like: https://www-hulldailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org...

Why is the company not UK owned?

[PushedDover]

robinessex said:

PushedDover said:

More new jobs the haters wont like: https://www-hulldailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org...

Why is the company not UK owned?

Which ?

[CraigyMc]

PushedDover said:

robinessex said:

PushedDover said:

More new jobs the haters wont like: https://www-hulldailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org...

Why is the company not UK owned?

Which ?

PD appears to be annoyed that Siemens isn't British? Most odd.
Maybe PD would prefer it if it was a UK business owned by UK interests rather than an openly traded, German HQ'ed business that manufactures stuff here.

[PushedDover]

CraigyMc said:

PushedDover said:

robinessex said:

PushedDover said:

More new jobs the haters wont like: https://www-hulldailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org...

Why is the company not UK owned?

Which ?

PD appears to be annoyed that Siemens isn't British? Most odd.
Maybe PD would prefer it if it was a UK business owned by UK interests rather than an openly traded, German HQ'ed business that manufactures stuff here.

Umm, no - I think you have your posters. / quotes confused.
Robinessex is trying to find a negative point - hence the barb.



Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy Ltd exists btw.

[robinessex]

[quote=PushedDover

Robinessex is trying to find a negative point - hence the barb.


[/quote]


Er, no I'm not. When I came into Engineering ages ago, this country was alive and buzzing with manufacturing and technology. Now it's a shadow of its former self. Quite how Germany, the loser in WW2 managed to get where it is now, is a source of constant annoyance to me. Quite obviously, the German government set out to achieve this by setting the right agenda and environment, while ours pissed up the wall and got mesmerised by bloody wkers, bankers.