Saving the Planet … or is it ?

[Tony Pratt 1Participant @tonypratt1]

The 'tent dwellers' as you call them have been busy buying the world with money we gave them.

Tony

[Kevan ShawParticipant @kevanshaw32462]

I don’t think you need to worry about fracking or tent dwellers. Us Kilt wearers are just opening Cambodian field and we still have plenty oil and gas in the existing fields for a good few decades yet.

there are other options including underground gasification of the vast remaining deep coal reserves under the UK. Nuclear in its present form is not a good idea as evidenced by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukishima.

one point that is being roundly ignored is the inefficiency of power transmission. Between 40% and 60% power is lost between power generation and socket outlet. Big scale generation is not as efficient as it might seem. When the power source energy is”free” such as wind, tide or solar maybe not such an issue but “expensive” energy in either monetary or environmental terms are best used local to the demand.

I really have my doubts that the projected power generation and existing distribution network are capable of the massive load increase required from the change over to electric vehicles and replacing gas central heating with electric heating and heat pumps. But we are all fitting “smart” meters. They can have two way conversations with your supplier. I expect that we will get used to “load shedding” when our domestic supplies get “throttled “ much like our internet does when we get a bit greedy with our data use!

We are already in the throes of a power crisis right now. Not a shortage but a market failure brought about through governmental mis management, compounded by a panicky population scared by the press into filling their vehicle tanks faster than a depleted tanker fleet can refill petrol stations!

If we do increase demand for electricity beyond available resources how will we all react!

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Can they switch Drax back to coal or is it stuck burning wood? I hear that Chris Huhne, liberal energy loon in the Cameron Clegg partnership, has made a fortune converting American forest into wood pellets.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by Kevan Shaw on 27/09/2021 22:47:06:

…………

there are other options including underground gasification of the vast remaining deep coal reserves under the UK. Nuclear in its present form is not a good idea as evidenced by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukishima.

one point that is being roundly ignored is the inefficiency of power transmission. Between 40% and 60% power is lost between power generation and socket outlet. Big scale generation is not as efficient as it might seem. ……..

Underground gasification produces just as much if not more CO2 than digging up the coal and burning it in a power station.

Burning coal kills a lot more people than nuclear per MWhr, mainly widely spread out due to pollution, and of course nuclear has a much lower CO2 emission. Very few people died as a direct result of Three Mile Island and Fukushima

according to Wikepedia

Although overall losses in the national grid are low, there are significant further losses in onward electricity distribution to the consumer, causing a total distribution loss of about 7.7%.^[29] However losses differ significantly for customers connected at different voltages; connected at high voltage the total losses are about 2.6%, at medium voltage 6.4% and at low voltage 12.2%

I do wish people would check their facts.

The Vajont dam disaster in Italy killed at least 1,910 people, so even hydro power isn't completely safe. This is well worth a read deaths per TWhr, shows nuclear is actually relatively safe

[Oven ManParticipant @ovenman]

Good to see small modular reactors are being moved up the priority list. The idea of installing them on decommissioned coal fired power plant sites with their existing infrastructure seems like a sensible idea to me. I accept that the turbines and generators will need to be replaced but the transmission lines are already in place.

Peter

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

The UK used to lead the world in developing practical nuclear-power generation, principally at UKAE Winfrith, in Dorset. However its main project was jointly with the French, who pulled out at some stage and for reasons I have never established, our government thought it impractial or uneconomic to continue alone.

So like so many other things developed in Britain, our governments of both parties threw it all away. Winfrith is now a trading-estate with the remaining two, big, experimental reactors in their own secure enclave, still being dismantled.

'

As for Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island…

The opponents of nuclear power like to parrot those names to support their case, but that is rather like using the Tay Bridge disaster to ban major viaducts. Whilst the genuine problems of dealing with nuclear waste are undeniable and costly, I would not expect us to use those disasters in the "green" way in a forum dedicated to engineering.

The reasons for all those four failures are all known; hence teaching us what to avoid in future.

I don't personally know what happened at Chernobyl; but a major factor at Three-Mile Island was found to be adjacent control-panels mirror-imaged for aesthetics, disastrously confusing the operators suddenly working under considerable stress when something failed.

At Fukushima, the reactors were unharmed by the tsunami and would have been closed down to a safe state had the site's designers done something very simple: place the necessary emergency-generators well above possible tsunami and storm-surge reach. The wave swamped the low-lying emergency plant, stopping the reactor circulating-pumps and control systems after their normal mains supplies had been cut by the inundation. After all, as the very word tsunami shows, Japan is hardly a stranger to earthquakes and tsunamis.

What baffles me also is why Germany so feared the same type of disaster on the seismically-calm Baltic shores, that she used it to justify ending her own nuclear-power programme.

Tay Bridge? Design flaws, poor oversight of the design and building, and appalling workmanship in both parts-manufacture and erection, including not always meeting the designed specifications.

===

All engineering problems, needing engineers to solve… but sadly too often hampered by politicians, money-traders and others who barely know stress from strain. If that.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Why would we need to replace the turbines and generators. Might need to reblade the turbines, but generators, condensers, cooling towers should be reusable.

Nigel makes an excellent point about Tay bridge

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

You must have missed the ' scorched earth ' series of explosions permanently destroying Didcot, Ferrybridge ,etc ..

There is no chance of 'going back' , to save us.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

There are still several coal stations not demolished, but it would take government action to prevent their demolition. If mothballed they probably still have to pay business rates, and cannot be sold for housing. There are also lots of nuclear stations coming to the end of their lives, replacing the reactors with SMRs would give them another 40 years, and an income stream to pay for the decommissioning of the old reactors. With the current crop of politicians of all hues I'll not hold my breath

[JimmieSParticipant @jimmies]

From Ireland some honest comments.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0929/1249533-electricity-supply-warning/

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

Nearly all of the AGR's have 660MW turbine sets , far too big to be fed from SMR's..

Not ideal , but some decent coal-fired boiler sets could be built adjacent to the reactor buildings.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

No reason why several SMRs cannot work in parallel to feed one big turbine. Plenty of cotton mills had more than one boiler feeding one engine.

The idea that we are going to build new coal fired stations is for the birds

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

Given time, and a bit of luck, things may get that bad.

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

Well done wind , finally Nat Grid being made to make it happen.

Currently providing 42% of demand but I bet they are having worries of stability if it suddenly drops.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by J Hancock on 29/09/2021 12:14:58:

…

Not ideal , but some decent coal-fired boiler sets could be built adjacent to the reactor buildings.

Even if all the other objections were put to bed coal isn't a runner for this.

Nuclear turbines are designed to work with the very large volumes of moderately super-heated low pressure steam produced by a reactor. Coal turbines are designed to work with smaller volumes of hot high pressure steam produced by a conventional boiler. Some figures, circa 2000:

• Fossil steam, 538 to 566°C at 2300 to 3500psi
• Nuclear steam, 260 to 290°C at about 1050psi, but with a much higher flow rate, 2.5 tons of steam per second for a 1200MW unit.

The steam difference alters pretty much everything in the generator, from the size, shape and number of blades in the HP, LP and 2-flow LP turbines, to the condenser and all the reheat stages. Nuclear turbines spin at about 100m/s, which is considerably slower than a fossil unit. Nuclear and coal turbines are incompatible; you can't swap them. Geothermal turbines are different again.

Very difficult for anyone outside the industry who isn't also up to speed with energy futures to recommend anything! Coal was once the obvious right answer, but is bottom of the class today. Natural gas gave coal a good kicking, but it's prices too are unstable – gas won't last as the obvious alternative. Oil has never been popular for mass producing electricity, and it's position is weakening – too expensive. Nuclear has eye watering clean-up costs, which look worse than they are because they were dishonestly ignored in the past. Green is rapidly becoming cheaper than other sources, but is unreliable.

My money is on large scale green supplemented by some form of nuclear plus various storage methods. I expect future energy tariffs to change minute by minute to encourage people to use electricity when it's cheap, and strongly discourage consumption whenever green outputs flag. I could be completely wrong. The near future is going to be 'interesting'.

Dave

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

That's what the smart meter push is for, variable rates during the day to throttle consumption when required

"we're charging you £1 a KwH to save the planet today! Have a nice day!"

Cost more than 15 billion plus so far with 70% of households to go

(Somebody said that they're free)

Edited By Ady1 on 03/10/2021 18:50:39

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

That 15 Billion has been paid by US through our present electricity bills!

[Joseph Noci 1Participant @josephnoci1]

If you have not seen the video clip by AlJazeera – The Dark side of Green Energy – try to find it – maybe here –

Green Energy down Side

The resulting huge increase in manufacture of parts/items requiring use of heavy metals and other exotics ( Iridium, Barium, Neodymium, etc) results in the massive mining of these elements raw materials. The majority of these raw materials are found in world size quantities in non- first world countries – Chilli is the biggest copper producer with a 'hole' 7 x 5km, 500meters deep and a disastrous surrounding area from a wasteland, pollution and contamination point of view, all seeping into the groundwater. Copper mass will increase from 12kg in a typical IC engined car to 50 to 70kg in an 'E' car. The motors magnets will require around 22kg of magnets – from a heavy metal base. It is quoted that all copper production over the last 300 years will have to be repeated again, but this time within 30 years…

China has the largest Heavy metal mines in the world – that video shows the unbelievable disaster developing around those mines – Huge lakes formed from the mining sludge pumped out over open land – sludge containing all the heavy metal residues, acids used in the extraction process, etc. And they are not alone in there production methods – Waste management in all these places cuts into profits…

So the First world sits comfortable on there podium touting how green they are and saving the world…

The ONLY way out of this mess is for people to suffer so badly that we eventually have no choice but to buy less, use less, discard less, want less, fly less…

 

Edited By Joseph Noci 1 on 03/10/2021 20:43:25

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

All we've really done is outsource industrial pollution

CoP26 will be a jolly jape with them all flying first class and consuming five star produce from around the planet

No wonder the kids are getting radicalised

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Interesting little News item from the BBC : **LINK**

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58578061

… complete with the typically crass aside : Plus, classic car insurance is typically cheap, at least if the vehicle does not do much mileage. However, rates may rise sharply if you tell your insurance provider that there is now a Tesla engine under the bonnet that has made the vehicle significantly quicker.

MichaelG.

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

Never mind the heavy metals, it jangles my knurdles at the price of Basla wood that the blade manufacturers have cornered the market on for the blade cores. Bet Eddie Keil is fuming.

Regards Ian

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 04/10/2021 09:35:05:

Interesting little News item from the BBC : **LINK**

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58578061

… complete with the typically crass aside : Plus, classic car insurance is typically cheap, at least if the vehicle does not do much mileage. However, rates may rise sharply if you tell your insurance provider that there is now a Tesla engine under the bonnet that has made the vehicle significantly quicker.

MichaelG.

Uninsured vehicle if you don’t tell them though!

[roy entwistleParticipant @royentwistle24699]

Boiling water is not easy is it ?

Roy

Edited By roy entwistle on 04/10/2021 11:50:33

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

Posted by roy entwistle on 04/10/2021 11:49:32:

Boiling water is not easy is it ?

Roy

Edited By roy entwistle on 04/10/2021 11:50:33

Certainly difficult to make a decent hot cup of tes up on a high mountain top!

Edited By V8Eng on 04/10/2021 11:55:40

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by V8Eng on 04/10/2021 11:42:00:

.

Uninsured vehicle if you don’t tell them though!

.

Exactly … That’s why I mentioned “typically crass”

MichaelG.

.

adjective

1. showing no intelligence or sensitivity.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 04/10/2021 12:08:18

[Author]

Posts