Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

And the gearboxes between the sails and the drive shaft keeps on failing,quite a job replacing that gearbox at sea.
KudosDave

Absolutely Dave, and very often the sea conditions mean a helicopter landing of the two engineers into turbine housing. That's very hazardous and adds greatly to the maintenence costs. As I posted earlier, once all the wind generation long term costs are fully realised, the enthusiasm for this method will rapidly wane.

The Americans were the first into wind generation long ago since they have so many ideal sites in the USA. But their best sites only achieve 26% utilisation and the worst average 13%. That means the costs are for less than 20% of supply time need.
.

 

[Croxden]

And the gearboxes between the sails and the drive shaft keeps on failing,quite a job replacing that gearbox at sea.
KudosDave

I'm sure I read somewhere they use a NuVinci type gears on the turbines.

 

[oldgroaner]

As I've implied, I won't argue on "What if" propositions, since anything is possible, so such arguments are never ending.

This is another Brexit type situation, people are either for or against nuclear power and the two will never agree, so discussion is pointless. That is especially so since we are committed to nuclear stations, not just Hinkley Point but new second generation at other sites too.



But we haven't got them yet, and wishful thinking won't keep the lights on. Another thing that's being forgotten is Brexit. If we leave the EU we will have to quickly get manufacturing again to survive so will need a big increase in generation soon.
.

I might add that we haven't got the new reactors yet have we? and the Government will turn to Gas with CCS systems if an urgent turn up of generation is required, and conveniently forget about Carbon targets.

 

[tillson]

I don't believe that we have any alternative to nuclear power generation if we are to keep pace with growing electricity demands. I don't believe the forecasts that our consumption of electricity will fall. We have a growing population and the number electric vehicles is very slowly starting to increase.

I don't like the idea of nuclear power for the reasons of legacy problems for future generation of people, the terrorist target they present and the consequences of an accident. These factors are enhanced when we ask other nations to finance and build the facilities. This type of power station, like most things, relies on sophisticated & automated fail safe control systems. Generally they are just that, fail safe. But the computer code that drives all of this will be unfathomably complex and only fully understood by the supplier. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that malicious code could be embedded into the control software, sitting dormant until relationships change or a reason to activate it presenting itself. Such is the complexity of the control software, we would never know of the presence of such a potential threat until it was activated. This could range from shutting the plant down, to sending it into a melt-down scenario.

My opinion is that as much as I dislike it, we need nuclear power generation. But, we must at least fund it ourselves. I don't think we have the skills to design and build such a thing any longer. We might be up to supplying a few bacon butty vans to feed the foreign workers who do have the skills though.

 

[D8ve]

Almost agreed with you tilson except I think we have engineeres here who can design the stuff.

 

[tillson]

An now for some good news! The Met Police seem to have put an end to terrorism. They have re-classified it as a mental health issue. I feel much safer now.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

EDF wouldn't be persisting unless the potential benefits weren't going to be very rewarding, so I'm happy to bear with them to see what results.
.

This is the key bit... BENEFITS THEM..... not the UK, not the UK consumers, we'd be tied into a hugely expensive commitment to buy electricity from them. This money could be much better invested on more sustainable technology, not committing us to supporting a French / Chinese investment. If it was that good an idea, why isn't the UK funding it? Its only going to provide 7% of the countries, needs a we've cut demand by quite a bit in the UK over recent years.

Electricity consumption per capita, in 2005 was 6,270 kWh, and by 2013 it was reduced to 5,407 kWh.

https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=eg_use_elec_kh_pc&idim=country:GBR:DEU:RUS&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_use_elec_kh_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:GBR&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

(now I appreciate population growth means that total demand isn't decreasing, but it does show that it is possible to decrease demand per person and per household, so we just have to keep this up and there will be no need for Hinkly)

So we are heading in the right direction. I don't think anyone would argue wind is the solution, but its part of the solution. If the amount of money that was currently sunk into the nuclear money pit was invested in other forms of energy generation and storage there simply wouldn't be an issue. The problem is there is whole industry dedicated to nuclear and they are a very powerful lobby group, who are not only aggressively pushing their case, they also very actively campaign against anything they see as threatening their existence.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

An now for some good news! The Met Police seem to have put an end to terrorism. They have re-classified it as a mental health issue. I feel much safer now.

I'm actually happy with this. Clearly the desire to murder people in the name of an imaginary friend, is a mental health issue.

So if we start calling it a mental health issue it removes all the "glory" from the action and therefore defeats the point.

People with a need to fight over pointless things can then go back to football hooliganism, or join the army and get paid for it.

 

[trex]

My opinion is that as much as I dislike it, we need nuclear power generation.

according to Greenpeace, we don't need Hinkley C and should look at alternative renewables. I used to see nuclear power as a good thing but have gradually changed my view since Fukushima. These huge installations do not reduce the carbon footprint and are a menace to us all. We should be less obsessed with reducing CO2 and concentrate on reducing pollution.

 

[Croxden]

What would the cost be to provide all suitable homes with solar panels and a battery to give a continual availability of electricity?

Houses with solar can't use all they generate and sell the surplus to the grid.

This can't be more expensive the a nuclear power station, just looks ugly.

A better option in my opinion, any thoughts?

 

[oldgroaner]

I don't believe that we have any alternative to nuclear power generation if we are to keep pace with growing electricity demands. I don't believe the forecasts that our consumption of electricity will fall. We have a growing population and the number electric vehicles is very slowly starting to increase.

I don't like the idea of nuclear power for the reasons of legacy problems for future generation of people, the terrorist target they present and the consequences of an accident. These factors are enhanced when we ask other nations to finance and build the facilities. This type of power station, like most things, relies on sophisticated & automated fail safe control systems. Generally they are just that, fail safe. But the computer code that drives all of this will be unfathomably complex and only fully understood by the supplier. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that malicious code could be embedded into the control software, sitting dormant until relationships change or a reason to activate it presenting itself. Such is the complexity of the control software, we would never know of the presence of such a potential threat until it was activated. This could range from shutting the plant down, to sending it into a melt-down scenario.

My opinion is that as much as I dislike it, we need nuclear power generation. But, we must at least fund it ourselves. I don't think we have the skills to design and build such a thing any longer. We might be up to supplying a few bacon butty vans to feed the foreign workers who do have the skills though.

I partially agree, certainly if we must do this, we cannot trust anyone else anywhere near either the code or the hardware.

 

[flecc]

Electricity consumption per capita, in 2005 was 6,270 kWh, and by 2013 it was reduced to 5,407 kWh.- - - - -(now I appreciate population growth means that total demand isn't decreasing, but it does show that it is possible to decrease demand per person and per household

But that's historic in these fast changing times. As I remarked recently, the spread of electric cars and especially rechargeable hybrids will reverse this. Three years ago the rechargeable hybrids didn't exist, but they are now a very fast growing sector of the car market.

I'm far from entirely happy about the Hinkley Point scheme and I very much doubt the politicians are, but they are between a rock and a hard place. I remain strongly in favour of proven second generation nuclear and we are committed to that as well in some locations.

For over thirty years I've been hearing anti-nuclear people saying what you've said about putting money into getting other sources instead, but still these other sources don't appear. If they potentially existed and were so promising, the money would have been found and they would have been here now. But they aren't.

Such other sources as have been proposed usually amount to no more than wishful thinking. A bit like carbon capture, at best great ideas but after research effort shown to be impractical. Believe me I'd love to be proved wrong, but to date there's no signs that is going to happen in the generation field.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

This Brexit thing is triggering some very interesting issues
"The National Trust has called for complete reform of the British farm subsidy system after Brexit, by ending payments for owning land and only rewarding farmers who improve the environment and help wildlife."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/04/national-trust-calls-for-complete-reform-of-british-farm-subsidies

I wonder what sort of reception that proposal will get from the landed Gentry!

 

[oldtom]

A better option in my opinion, any thoughts?

My feelings exactly Croxden! I really believe we haven't gone anywhere near far enough down the road of solar and tidal power. As a former nuclear power station engineer, I admire the technology and the safety measures built into those stations created by largely, (not entirely true), British science and engineering.

Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee future security and safety so if we can find other ways of producing sufficient power to satisfy present and estimated future needs, we really should. Regardless of which form of energy production is used, there are by-products and emissions somewhere in the production chain - we simply cannot avoid it. With nuclear power generation though, the dangers as recorded in Japan, the USA and Russia are manifestly greater and long-lasting.

There are no easy answers but one does wonder about the amount of funding there is going into non-nuclear power generation research, compared to the cost of a chain of new nuclear reactors.

Whatever happened to, 'This new, nuclear power creation will produce electricity so cheaply, it won't be worth metering!'?

Tom

 

[flecc]

according to Greenpeace, we don't need Hinkley C and should look at alternative renewables.

Greenpeace are crackpots. It's base load generation we need and almost no renewables are that. Instead of their continuous negative objections and crackpot suggestions, why don't they tell us what the practical alternatives are?

I used to see nuclear power as a good thing but have gradually changed my view since Fukushima.

Why the hysteria about a tiny one kilometre patch of land? It wasn't a nuclear accident, it was a Tsunami accident that killed over 15,000 people. The nuclear consequence was insignificant and killed no-one. Yet look online for the deaths caused by the tsunami and most of the search engine returns are about the minor nuclear consequence and littered with falsehoods, such is the hysteria.

They built that nuclear installation in the obviously wrong place but no-one will make that mistake again. With all progress we make mistakes, we suffer the consequences and put them right, as we are doing with Fukushima.
.

 

[flecc]

Whatever happened to, 'This new, nuclear power creation will produce electricity so cheaply, it won't be worth metering!'?

That was politicians misreading what engineers said at Calder Hall, which was in fact a nuclear weapon production facility, creating plutonium, and not a power station. They told the politicians that the plant could generate it's own power as an effectively free side product, which for them was true.

However, it remains a fact that the French largely nuclear electricity is the cheapest to produce in Europe, which is why other countries buy it so willingly. That's because they were far sighted enough to do the job properly.
.

 

[flecc]

What would the cost be to provide all suitable homes with solar panels and a battery to give a continual availability of electricity?

Houses with solar can't use all they generate and sell the surplus to the grid.

This can't be more expensive the a nuclear power station, just looks ugly.

A better option in my opinion, any thoughts?

Germany has gone into the solar alternative more than any other nation, but some of their circumstances are more suited to it than ours..Basically it supplies the household in daylight when the energy isn't needed so generates surplus then, but when the households need more power in the evenings and nights baseload generation is still needed, meaning power stations.

Some have suggested having a battery and charger installation in the home as a solution, but the necessary circa 30 kWh lithium battery would cost several thousands of pounds, cause considerable environmental damage in mining the lithium and last only five or six years.
.

 

[flecc]

I'm sure I read somewhere they use a NuVinci type gears on the turbines.

They don't from what I've seen. I've watched a program showing the maintenance engineers oiling and changing the gearboxes and gearbox parts. The turbines drive through a chain of toothed steel gears to increase the turn speed into the generator. The program reported that they regularly suffer gearbox damage, despite their rotation being restricted to a narrow range of wind speeds.

The rotor is stopped mechanically, electrically, or hydraulically in emergencies. Their controller starts up the machine at wind speeds of about 8 to 16 mph and shuts off the machine at about 55 mph. They don't operate at wind speeds above about 55 mph because they can be damaged by high winds.

So less than 50% of the whole range of wind speeds are used. The turbine's maximum rated generation occurs between about 14 and limiting at 25 mph, there being no increase in power gain above 25 mph wind speed. All the extra power of the wind from 25 mph to over 100 mph goes to waste.
.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

The Bank of England (BoE) has voted to cut interest rated to a record 0.25%. This is the first rate cut in seven years.

The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) has voted to:


• Cut interest rates to 0.25%

• Purchase £10 billion of corporate bonds

• Purchase £60 billion of government debt

• The above increases to £435 billion being injected into the economy through an asset purchase programme

The BoE has also slashed its growth forecasts for 2017, from 2.3% to 0.8%.

Sterling plummeted against its major peers following the announcement, falling 1% against the US dollar. It is still fluctuating at time of writing.

 

[flecc]

The Bank of England (BoE) has voted to cut interest rated to a record 0.25%. This is the first rate cut in seven years.

The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) has voted to:


• Cut interest rates to 0.25%

• Purchase £10 billion of corporate bonds

• Purchase £60 billion of government debt

• The above increases to £435 billion being injected into the economy through an asset purchase programme

The BoE has also slashed its growth forecasts for 2017, from 2.3% to 0.8%.

Sterling plummeted against its major peers following the announcement, falling 1% against the US dollar. It is still fluctuating at time of writing.

The huge cost of Brexit continues and grows. The sooner we abandon that ill-based notion, the better.

We aren't just damaging ourselves, we are damaging the world economy.
.