UK power generation

[Java Jive]

If it's really bollocks, it should be easy enough to refute it rationally, but as you haven't done so, I assume that you're resorting to abuse because you have no rational argument to give.

It's not head > > On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:53:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)" > > wrote: > >>

I shouldn't need to. You should know that making unsubstantiated assertions is not an acceptable way of conducting a reasonable discussion.

I don't read the Guardian.

However, several interesting facts come out of that article, that have obviously passed you by ...

"Global supplies of uranium will begin to run out in 2023 when UK will rely on domestic nuclear supply, predicts Sir David King"

So it seems that at very least, despite your endless ridicule, according to the former Government Chief Scientist my calculations in my worst case scenario were pretty well spot on, or were perhaps even too lenient, as it is already being touted that my worst case is actually going to happen.

"More than 100 tonnes of plutonium are currently in storage, the waste products of nuclear energy generation, and no future has yet been decided for it."

... but ...

"Typically about one percent of the used fuel discharged from a reactor is plutonium, and some two thirds of this is fissile (c. 50% Pu-239, 15% Pu-241)."

so the UK's 100T stockpile actually equates to 67T of fuel potentially usable with the technology currently used in the UK.

Using Tim Streater's sample figures elsewhere in this thread, demand was 52GW, of which nuclear was 14%, or 7.3GW, which over a year would be 7.3GWyr. From a previous post of mine ...

... but not everyone agrees with this figure ...

figures for tU/GWyr are 200, whereas Mackay's was 160 or 162, depending on which paragraph you read. I would like to presume that Mackay is talking about U whereas as WNA are actually discussing oxide, U3O8, even though the latter give the above figure with the above units. If that were the case, each unit of oxide is approximately 3*238/(3*238 + 8*16) or 85% U by mass. However, that would mean 200t of oxide would contain 170t U, so still no agreement with Mackay. Worse still, if we multiply WNA's figure for current world nuclear generation of 372GW by 200t, we get 74400t of, well, is it U which would equate to roughly 87,530t oxide, or is it oxide - either way, elsewhere on the page they say 77,000t oxide, which doesn't agree with either figure! It is to be hoped that the people who actually run the nuclear power stations are more competent, but every place of work I've ever known suggests not.

Whatever, at least there is agreement to order of magnitude between Mackay and WNA, so we'll stick with Mackay's figure, even though it may be optimistic. Accordingly, this "10-15 years" stockpile represents 67/(7.3*160) = 6% of a current year's demand, or 5 months, using the technology currently in use in the UK. Further, from the first linked WNA page:

"Currently about 40 reactors in Europe (Belgium, Switzerland, Germany and France) are licensed to use MOX, and over 30 are doing so."

So none in the UK then. How long would it take, and how much would it cost, to get that up and running, just to supply our needs for a 5 month period? (Yes, I know it would be useful in burning subsequently produced Pu from other reactors, which would be a good thing to do anyway, but we're discussing the existing "10-15 years" stockpile here!)

Again, this has been covered in previous threads, which was when I last looked it up. We need fast-breeder technology that actually works to burn most of that.

World wide generally speaking, there was only one FBR in the world actually generating, and most of the others were either already abandoned or were bedeviled by problems and massively late and/or over-budget. For the UK in particular, we haven't had an FBR in the country since Dounreay, which itself was hardly a model of success.

At best, it's blue-sky and years away, and would be a massive drain on resources that could be better used elsewhere on technology for which we have indigenous supplies, such as carbon-sequestering for carbon fuels.

I plonked you because you were being abusive.

The above suggests not. I seem to have my feet more firmly on the ground than you.

[tony sayer]

In article , Java Jive scribeth thus

So no change there then..

[tony sayer]

In article , Java Jive scribeth thus

Well perhaps we should have one bit of the UK thats wind/renewable powered and those who want to .. live there.

Lets call it the peoples republic of Greenshire.

Course your replies would be a bit belated recently;..

Terribly unscientific I know but...

Wanna pioneer that, do ya;!?...

[tony sayer]

In article , Java Jive scribeth thus

I don't think so. The Greens what their stupid heads banging together, we have some round this way they understand f*ck all about power and what it is and the real world..

Suggest rather than those silly comments you read some of it..

[The Other Mike]

For a VERY long period

We need to flood all of Scotland

If it keeps the lights on and eliminates the SNP I for one think it is a price worth paying.

[Tim Watts]

It is, but expect to be criticised for it when the concensus is to bottom post here.

Ousdale and Mill of Cairston in Scotland have uranium deposits.

Exactly how much I am not sure....

[polygonum]

Perhaps not all of Scotland - highlands only would do...

[Mark]

--snip--

The problem is that the majority of people genuinely believe that renewalable energy is a "Good Thing". Therefore politicians will keep supporting it because it wins them votes. I very much doubt that a handful of letters to the contrary will make any difference.

Of course, all will change when the lights go out.

[Huge]

Typical melon. Green on the outside, red in the middle.

[Huge]

Selfish f*ck. If you participate in a social space, it's customary to abide by the rules of that social space. Or be thought a boor.

[Mark]

I vote for London.

[polygonum]

But London has no significant altitude.

[The Other Mike]

Do you log the wind forecast and outturn?

Have you determined the maximum rate of change of wind generation both for your existing dataset?

[The Other Mike]

How do you think the lights were came on pre 1990 Electricity Act? They used the existing plant in a flexible manner because load following is not the exclusive preserve of gas fired generation.

As far as coal and oil plant was concerned, initially with lower capacity units up to 120MW but from the mid to late 80's some of the 500's were operating in a very flexible manner, two shifting and eventually three shifting.

While on a coal unit you wouldn't go from full load to no load and back up again in a few hours, many CCGT's don't do this either. Overnight you'll see 20GW or so of coal on the bars. That is not exclusively a select number of stations at full load and the others at zero. You may typically see a 500MW unit sat at 250 or 300MW, a 660MW unit at 500. Come the load increase in the morning they can increase output rapidly, some may even drop back mid morning and pick up again for the evening peak. You may find some more expensive to run coal fired sites will shutdown some of their generation overnight, and at weekends.

From stone cold all large generating plants be they coal, oil or gas fired will take time to come up to temperature. While gas fired plants, or at least part of them are quicker to ramp up, you cannot put in steam at many hundreds of degrees C into a stone cold steam turbine.

Going the other way to zero output and then returning to full load is always less of a problem, all you essentially need to do is stop firing which, even on a 660MW unit takes a few 10's of minutes, vent steam to waste to maintain pressure below safety valve lift for a short while. circulate water in the boiler, and feed water to replace the steam lost. Close the dampers and leave the turbine on barring gear and it can stop like that for a few days, given a few hours notice it can be back at full load.

If all the gas generation we have today was replaced with late 60's era coal, then the load profile could easily be followed, modern control certainly eases this process but half a dozen blokes pressing buttons and operating valves could get a 500MW unit online in three hours in the 60's without breaking much of a sweat.

[The Other Mike]

Global supplies of most things began to run out millions of years ago.

If you want to live within a tiny energy budget then do it, but don't force your greenwash agenda on those of us that prefer to live in something significantly more upmarket and comfortable than a cave.

[The Other Mike]

In 40 years we have no indigenous oil gas and coal reserves, have pissed away a fortune on wind and solar, and can't afford to build even a single nuclear station.

Then what?

Are you Trigger?

[The Other Mike]

The LCPD hours run limitation only applies for opt out sites. They were opted out for what were deemed sound financial considerations by the operators. Those who opted in and retrofitted controls on SO2 and NOx have no such limitation.

[Java Jive]

Unfortunately, none of us are exempt from the future consequences of the present. You can't escape from the future just by refusing to face it. Nor is it a greenwash agenda, I am not a currently a member of any organistion that could be called green. (And anyway the phrase is 'green agenda', 'greenwash' is something different.)

It's a simple fact that the longer we spending p*ssing into the wind and ignoring the elephant in the room (which, it is to be presumed in this mixed metaphor, can piss much greater quantities than us) before deciding that effective action is necessary, the sooner we are very likely to be living in houses almost as cold as caves.

In fact through force of circumstances, I'm already sort of doing it. I'm living in a hostel until I move into my new home next week, where the heating is only on in the morning and evening, regardless of temperature, so you could say that heating is rationed. Last night I had a pullover, a quilt, and two jackets covering me. When I'm in during the day, I usually need two pullovers.

My own home will be warmer, I h>

[Java Jive]

[Java Jive]