Offshore wind now cheaper than Nucular

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

The story that we do not have suitable geology for a repository is a fiction put about by the greenies. My suggestion is that we build the reactors in the repository, when we've finished with them pull out the fuel (which is easy) and back fill the rest with concrete. Yes we then have to manage the fuel, which is a bit more difficult, but we've been doing it for over 60 years without serious incident. If all the electricity one person uses over a lifetime were generated by nuclear, the resultant vitrified highly active waste would be about the size of an ice hockey puck. Yes it is very dangerous, but so are chemical toxins, and there are thousands of tons of Arsenic buried under Devon, we've lived with that for ever!

Other countries have successfully built long term underground nuclear waste stores, our problem is political, not technical.

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

I agree DW, just how we managed to go from the 'white heat of technology in the 60's' to the present

pathetic state is a scandal yet to be written.

I just hope I live long enough to see how this Hinkley Point problem will be resolved.

Maybe, the French are hoping the 500MW EU Fusion project works.

Then it will be " problem resolu", forever.

[clogsParticipant @clogs]

don't we take in bloody foreign nuclear waste…….?

the only way this problem will be solved is when politicions get their snout out of the trough……they know sod all and only interested in filling their pockets…….HS2 comes to mind……..

let the experts get on with the job I say…..there's room for green energy as well as atomic……

clogs

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

Well I have said this before chaps, but I am going to say it again, because the media puts out a lot of doctored figures about wind and renewables, whilst giving the impression that we rely on nuclear energy for our base load electricity, which is simply not true. Firstly, all the UK nuclear installations put together, and generating at full capacity (which they rarely if ever do, due to maintenance and re-fuelling) can just about manage 24% of the peak daily demand. When you add in ALL the costs of nuclear, including the astronomical cost of decommisioning, which will be borne by us, the taxpayers, nuclear is the most expensive, dangerous, and long term polluting way of generating electricity by a long margin. The only reason it still exists is because of the incredible deal it has with the grid, which means it can sell every watt it produces, and this means that other forms of generation, like wind, are TURNED OFF in order that nuclear can sell all it produces.it is the only way it can remain viable. Remember that the grid and its generators are at their most efficient when supply is matched exactly to demand, and only constant monitoring and trimming of output keeps the system in near equilibrium. This is why you see wind turbines not working although there is wind available. Wing turbines only work 36% of the time? utter rubbish, especially offshore ones. On my six mile drive to work every morning, I pass a high point between Driffield and Langtoft in East Yorkshire where it is possible to see 48 wind turbines How often are they running? about 85 to 90% of the time!! Demand for electricity in the UK has fallen 15% in the last decade, and is continuing to fall, which is why, even at three times todays price, (which is the price they EDF have negotiated with the government for HinkleyC), EDF et al are getting cold feet on the Hinkley project. Today the lions share of UK demand is met by combined cycle gas turbines, which produce over 40% of peak load on a daily basis, and are at present about 48% efficient. This next is from Electrical Review, Sept 2017, by "Gossage"

Christmas cheer

"So farewell then to Vincent de Rivaz. Mr de Rivaz has been with the French state-backed energy giant Electricité de France for the past forty years. and has stood at the helm of the UK business since 2002.

At first he was chief executive of the London Electricity Group before it merged with Seeboard and the Eastern Network to become EDF Energy in 2003. His appointment coincided with Prime Minister Tony Blair launching the first energy policy government White Paper for almost forty years, stating that there was little or no future for nuclear power.

That policy altered 180 degrees, and by 2006 Blair was instead promising a vast new nuclear programme now estimated by energy finance expert professor Steve Thomas of Greenwich University to cost over £125bn. Subsequently de Rivaz has spent practically all of the ensuing period locked in negotiations over the Hinkley Point C new nuclear project, which received ostensible government approval in September last year. And may, or may not, be completed by 2024.

Mr de Rivaz’s retirement will apparently start just before this Christmas. This is fortuitous. It was after all he who so famously promised Blair, and all the rest of us, that we would be able to be cooking our 2017 Christmas turkeys with electricity generated at Hinkley Point C. I understand that the de Rivaz family is planning a distinctly abstemious Christmas this year."

The only use for nuclear fusion is to provide top paid research jobs for scientists and engineers, which would end should they ever actually make it work, which is highly unlikely. Neither will they speculate on what would happen to a fusion reactor if the highly complex electromagnetic containment system failed. Fusion has never produced a usable watt, and is a money pit and like Hinkley pointC is not needed if we make full use of renewables, that is, use ALL the available renewable energy FIRST, and then top up with other systems of generation. We have not even scratched the surface of available Tidal energy. Given that the UK has both the best wind charicteristics, and some of the highest and most powerful tides in the northern hemisphere, one must come to the conclusion that the only reason we are not exploiting them is the vested interest of other forms of generation. Britain has not traditionally been afraid of engineering projects on a huge scale! It only requires that our politicians open their eyes, and start to do their own research, instead of listening to the industry "experts" who have a vested interest in maintaining the status Quo.

Grid statistics and monitoring here http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Phil

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

Just looked at the above link, and at 1900 today nuclear is generating 22.92% (7.97 GW) of demand, and wind is producing 23.27% (8.14 GW) of demand. It CAN be done!

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 11/09/2017 10:53:21:

Talking of old farts (and I speak as a fully qualified member of the club), we always have to remember that everything is continually changing. Our experiences and understandings may not still be valid. For example, listening to a chap talking about electric cars the other day, I suddenly realised that my ideas about battery reliability and cost are 30 years out-of-date. Modern batteries are much better than the carp of my youth, but somehow I don't quite believe it. It made me wonder if other forum members have similar problems with their world view?

Drifting off in this other direction, what about plastic.

When I was a lad, if things were 'cheap and plasticky' that was the sign of poor quality.

Today I use 101 things that are made of plastic every day, many of them serving in roles that require durability. I even changed a roll bar droplink a few months ago that was made of plastic.

Neil

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by Phil Whitley on 11/09/2017 19:02:21:

Just looked at the above link, and at 1900 today nuclear is generating 22.92% (7.97 GW) of demand, and wind is producing 23.27% (8.14 GW) of demand. It CAN be done!

But at midnight on Sunday, wind was producing *** all, and of course solar even less.

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

I drove up from the south of France once and must have passed at least 600 wind turbines all at a standstill.

Mike

[John ReeseParticipant @johnreese12848]

Re Fukoshima. The designers did not anticipate the tsunami destroying the emergency power generators that ran the cooling pumps. If the emergency power generators were hardened or situated on higher ground the Fulushima plant would be still operating. It is likely that those deciding what is safe enough had a primary goal of keeping cost down.

Regarding cost of generated power: In the US government subsidies for green power have distorted the market. The state of Illinois recently voted to subsidize the local nuclear plant because it could not compete with federally subsidized wind energy.

[Andrew EvansParticipant @andrewevans67134]

Nuclear has been getting staggering levels of tax payers subsidy for decades in all countries that have nuclear power. Wind / wave / hydro has gotten miniscule amounts in comparison.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

The designers did not anticipate the tsunami destroying the emergency power generators etc

One of their big issues was that things were being run down because the plant was at the end of its life, so no new investment was being made

On the balance of probability, it was never going to happen

Then it happened, oops

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Here we go again. Lies, damn lies and statistics – how true!

The 36% is, in fact, not the time that wind turbines are running. Just plain poppycock. It is simply a measure of the amount of leccy produced, compared to the name-plate power of the turbine, twisted round to mean something else, by either ignorant journalists or by opponents of these structures (including those who are anti renewables in any way, shape or form).

To those that actually think about it, the connection to the grid must be adequate for the maximum possible power that might be generated at any point in time. Think about it – use a 3 amp fuse in a circuit because none of the five connected loads exceed that value, then turn all those loads on at the same time. Yep, the fuse would blow! A very simple concept that many choose to ignore or are not even aware of (and applies to wind turbines in a similar way).

Off shore turbines can provide more than 40% of the full rated output over the year; land turbines operate at typically 25%. That is why off shore turbines are better – more wind, more consistent running and more power output!

Now to Mike's comment. Let us analyse what he said. 'Once' Yeah right, one instance with no consideration of the other 364 days in the year. So the statement is a useless yard stick. Of course, we should all know that the wind does not always blow at all times! So a very misleading comment from someone who either does not understand the weather, or maybe an opponent of wind turbines – or maybe just a mischievous comment – take your pick!

Further, the fact that the rotors may be turning at full speed does not mean the output is high – the blade attack angle is changed to maintain a constant rotational speed and generator output is controlled at the maximum available from the current wind conditions. When the wind speed exceeds the maximum for 100% power output, the blades are feathered to reduce the power taken from the wind.

Just like flaps are used on aeroplane wings to increase lift at slow ground/air speeds compared to minimum drag situations in normal flight. Simples, really, and all engineers should be able to comprehend that.

On occasions, if the wind is really excessive, the turbine(s) may need to be stopped fo avoid over-stressing the structure. Also, on accasions, the connected grid cannot transfer all the power, provided by the turbines, and output has to be 'curtailed'. Nowt to do with the wind turbines, just a failing of the grid design (which historically radiates from power stations to smaller, thinner conductors at the extremities (clearly needs to be changed when the power supply is off shore).

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

It was an observation that wind power will always be at the mercy of the weather and that even a large area like France can be becalmed. We will always need an alternative supply to fill in the gaps in supply from solar and wind. It was lovely sunny weather and I expect the solar installations were on full output even though the windmills were becalmed. A calm night is not going to contribute very much power so we will have to have alternative capacity. Perhaps we need to get cracking with more wave and tidal projects, these seem slow to be adopted. If we get fusion sorted out then perhaps fields will have crops in them again.

Mike

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

Well said Duncan! Use green energy when available, but the base load has to be either gas or nuclear, unless all these greens want the lights to go out at inconvenient times!

Andrew.

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

Well said Duncan! Use green energy when available, but the base load has to be either gas or nuclear, unless all these greens want the lights to go out at inconvenient times!

Andrew.

[MWParticipant @mw27036]

I agree with what Duncan said about politics, nuclear power is further complicated by the fact it's a political animal as well as simply performing a basic power service. The amount of money is considered worth it because when a science/technology as revolutionary as atomic energy comes along, everyone wants a piece of that cake. Hence why pretty much all the worlds leading powers keep throwing money at it.

The biggest concern with nuclear is around the recycling and end life of the spent material. But advances are also being made in that sector. We have to remember that this technology is still developing as time moves on and so better ways of doing it will be found through experience.

I personally find the idea of sending the nuclear waste into space a laughable one. All the carbon and pollution savings you would've gained from nuclear rather than burning coal has just vanished in the amount of rocket fuel you've burnt sending concrete laden containers out of earth's orbit;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

Escape velocity and all that… 

Michael W

 

Edited By Michael-w on 12/09/2017 13:38:28

[richardandtracyParticipant @richardandtracy]

We got the nuclear fuel out of radioactive holes in the ground. After a cooling period the activity is higher than originally was the case, but if the fuel burnup can be got as high as possible, then you are actually accelerating the decay path to lead, and if you stop at the right point, the activity if the burnt-out radioactive fuel is about 3x what it was when it came out of the ground. Makes sense to me to put it back into the holes it came out of, as the local area is already coping with RA contamination from the stuff that is there naturally.

We need to extend the burnup rates of uranium as there is not a huge amount around – if all power was generated by Uranium only with no subsequent isotopes being used, we'd run out in 10 years. Fast breeder technology is needed (and used), with U238 being deliberately converted to Pu in normal reactors to make depleted Uranium (otherwise a waste product) into a fuel. Need to get fusion working too. These can act as the base load until we sort out how to store enough energy from the renewables to cover the periods when we cannot harvest such power.

Regards,

Richard

[Bob Brown 1Participant @bobbrown1]

Coming to a place near you **LINK**

[Andrew EvansParticipant @andrewevans67134]

interesting concept

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Not particularly revolutionary, the reactors in nuclear ships and submarines aren't exactly huge…

Neil

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

I seem to recall the revolutionary bit in submarines was no flanges on a nuclear submarine reactor, a rather clever system was perfected by the USA which increased safety

The Russian ones had huge flange and bolts systems and this simply wasn't strong enough to handle certain events over many years and maintain 100% integrity for the reactor

Edited By Ady1 on 12/09/2017 22:00:28

[Bob Brown 1Participant @bobbrown1]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 12/09/2017 21:52:34:

Not particularly revolutionary, the reactors in nuclear ships and submarines aren't exactly huge…

Neil

Quite true the Nmitz class aircraft carriers are only 194 MW and submarines are even smaller by a factor of over 10.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Although not really 'close to my heart' … this must be one of the smaller examples of nuclear power: **LINK**

http://osrp.lanl.gov/pacemakers.shtml

MichaelG.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

The current holy grail of nuclear station designers is the Small Modular Reactor. The idea is that you can build it in controlled conditions in a factory and transport it to site in one piece. It always costs less this way rather than building on site, basically in a field! You also get economies of scale by building lots of little ones rathger than a few big ones. That is as long as you make them all the same, something we've never been good at! The generally agreed size is less than 300 MW. For comparison Drax is 4 GW, so you'd need 13 SMRs, but this isn't silly, if one went offline you'd only lose 1/13 of the output, and they can all be on one site, sharing one turbine hall and steam turbine(s)

[Mark RandParticipant @markrand96270]

The thing about submarine and ship reactors is that they are not designed to be refueled, EVER. This is not practical for a power station reactor. PWR reactors for power stations are not really good engineering, they're just common. Graphite cored reactors have their own problems (mostly in the need to anneal the core occasionally to release Wigner Energy). The major advantage of graphite core reactors is that they can be refueled online and that fuel rods can be moved around the core to improve total fuel burn. In a PWR, this is an outage job that costs production/money. The fact that graphite cored power stations have better thermal efficiency than PWRs is comforting, but not really relevant considering that the fuel cost is essentially nothing.

Also:- Nuclear in the UK is insanely expensive because we stopped doing nuclear after 1995 and just about all of the UK engineers that have worked on nuclear projects have retired or died. If we had kept on with AGR builds (expensive to build, but very reliable) after the late '70s, we would have more stable and slightly lower electricity prices.

I have to declare an interest:- I worked at 5 UK fossil fueled sites, 4 UK nuclear sites, 3 foreign fossil fueled sites and 4 foreign nuclear sites.

More relevant to the M-E forum. Heysham Nuclear power station was a home for Andrew Barclay 1950/1928 'Heysham No.2'. I used to walk past it every day when working there in 1984 on steam turbine performance tests.

[Author]

Posts