Hinckley C

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

Posted by duncan webster on 08/06/2021 17:31:22:

Posted by J Hancock on 08/06/2021 10:48:55:

Time to buy a portable generator ?

News today EDF closing Dungeness B , now, seven years before planned.

But, Hinkley C will be up and running in 2026 .

Bets anyone ?

Actually 13 years after its initial design life, so not too bad really. Started generating in 1983. Why don't we just build some more AGRs, we know they work, we have built 7 of them, there is a current safety case, need I go on? Put them next to the existing ones and re-use the turbines, condensers, cooling towers etc, and keep the experienced workforce in a job

Very valid point Duncan!!

[Roger BParticipant @rogerb61624]

The problem is that the gas cooled reactors are much bigger than the water cooled ones and require more materials and end up with more activated materials to deal with at decommissioning.

There is a benefit that melting of the cores in case of accidents is less likely due to the lower energy density but where is the sensible balence ???!!!

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by Roger B on 08/06/2021 20:00:14:

The problem is that the gas cooled reactors are much bigger than the water cooled ones and require more materials and end up with more activated materials to deal with at decommissioning.

There is a benefit that melting of the cores in case of accidents is less likely due to the lower energy density but where is the sensible balence ???!!!

Ah but according to a lecture I attended some years ago, AGRs are more thermally efficient, and have higher fuel burn up. PWRs were developed for submarines, where small size matters. The AGR pressure vessel is post stressed concrete, and you can change the reinforcing bars should you ever need to. If reactors were built in their final repository, decommissioning would be a lot easier, defuel, which is straightforward, back fill the reactor with lightweight concrete, lock the door and walk away.

The build problems of Dungeness were not repeated on the other AGRs, probably because they were built by different companies.

Edited By duncan webster on 08/06/2021 21:35:48

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

Like DW , I too have always wondered why new reactors weren't built directly behind the old ones.

Steam pipe to existing turbines , job done.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Does that not constrain the output of the reactor to the capacitty of the existing turbine hall amongst other things?

regards Martin

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by J Hancock on 09/06/2021 09:18:17:

Like DW , I too have always wondered why new reactors weren't built directly behind the old ones.

Steam pipe to existing turbines , job done.

My guess is there are several reasons including:

• the need to keep high-pressure high-volume steam pipes as short as possible for safety and thermal efficiency.
• matching the output of the reactor (steam volume and temperature) to the turbines. (Steam Turbines are designed to work with the particular temperature, pressure and volume of steam produced by the boiler, which depends on the heat source. Chances are turbines designed for one type of reactor won't perform efficiently with another and efficiency is vital. Coal steam turbines and nuclear steam turbines are completely incompatible because coal steam is much hotter.)
• The existing turbines and generators are also approaching end-of-life. It doesn't make sense to spend billions on a new reactor, run it for a few years, and then have take it off-line for 5 years to replace the turbines, generators, and switch gear.

Cost overruns on public projects are an enduring problem in the UK. The problem persists after responsibility was transferred from Civil Servants to the private sector and now the EU can't be blamed either!

Hinkley C's build is going reasonably to plan but there's a nest of wasps in the ointment. The price agreed for Hinckley C electricity when the contract was signed is two or three times higher than other sources, and is set to cost at least 4 times more than renewable energy, which is rapidly becoming more available in bursts.

Nuclear electricity is only economic when the power station runs flat out 24×7, and customers won't want to buy Hinckley C power when cheaper is available, which will be a good part of most days.  Irrespective of any technical problems, the total cost of Hinckley depends fundamentally on sorting out how it's electricity is sold and paid for. A secondary problem is who owns the risk. It's become fashionable for governments to believe they can transfer risk to commercial partners. Unfortunately the consequences of failure can never be transferred: the customer always suffers, either by not getting what he wanted or by the endeavour costing more in time and money than expected.

As Hinkley is a public project, and it's purpose is to fill an energy gap that's too difficult for commercial providers to meet, I guess it will have to be subsidised, but I don't think that's a bad thing.

I'm afraid there are no shortcuts. Major projects have to be thought out and managed carefully end to end. Really difficult with long-term projects like Hinkley C which have to predict energy requirements 15 to 50 years into the future at a time when the cost of failing fossil fuels and the economic impact of climate change are both guesswork. It could all be wrong! Nonetheless, it's hard to think of an alternative.

Dave

 

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 09/06/2021 11:05:56

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

A massively complicated subject but suffice to say, by the time 'we' came to the time to renew 'our' nuclear power plant, it wasn't 'ours' anymore.

Worse, the baton had been handed over to people who had no technical knowledge to sign the 'new' future deals.

One hard winter…………is all we need.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 09/06/2021 11:01:53:

Posted by J Hancock on 09/06/2021 09:18:17:

Like DW , I too have always wondered why new reactors weren't built directly behind the old ones.

Steam pipe to existing turbines , job done.

My guess is there are several reasons including:

• the need to keep high-pressure high-volume steam pipes as short as possible for safety and thermal efficiency.
• matching the output of the reactor (steam volume and temperature) to the turbines. (Steam Turbines are designed to work with the particular temperature, pressure and volume of steam produced by the boiler, which depends on the heat source. Chances are turbines designed for one type of reactor won't perform efficiently with another and efficiency is vital. Coal steam turbines and nuclear steam turbines are completely incompatible because coal steam is much hotter.)
• The existing turbines and generators are also approaching end-of-life. It doesn't make sense to spend billions on a new reactor, run it for a few years, and then have take it off-line for 5 years to replace the turbines, generators, and switch gear.

Cost overruns on public projects are an enduring problem in the UK. The problem persists after responsibility was transferred from Civil Servants to the private sector and now the EU can't be blamed either!

Hinkley C's build is going reasonably to plan but there's a nest of wasps in the ointment. The price agreed for Hinckley C electricity when the contract was signed is two or three times higher than other sources, and is set to cost at least 4 times more than renewable energy, which is rapidly becoming more available in bursts.

Nuclear electricity is only economic when the power station runs flat out 24×7, and customers won't want to buy Hinckley C power when cheaper is available, which will be a good part of most days. Irrespective of any technical problems, the total cost of Hinckley depends fundamentally on sorting out how it's electricity is sold and paid for. A secondary problem is who owns the risk. It's become fashionable for governments to believe they can transfer risk to commercial partners. Unfortunately the consequences of failure can never be transferred: the customer always suffers, either by not getting what he wanted or by the endeavour costing more in time and money than expected.

As Hinkley is a public project, and it's purpose is to fill an energy gap that's too difficult for commercial providers to meet, I guess it will have to be subsidised, but I don't think that's a bad thing.

I'm afraid there are no shortcuts. Major projects have to be thought out and managed carefully end to end. Really difficult with long-term projects like Hinkley C which have to predict energy requirements 15 to 50 years into the future at a time when the cost of failing fossil fuels and the economic impact of climate change are both guesswork. It could all be wrong! Nonetheless, it's hard to think of an alternative.

Dave

 

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 09/06/2021 11:05:56

Nuclear electricity is only economic when the power station runs flat out 24×7, and customers won't want to buy Hinckley C power when cheaper is available, which will be a good part of most days.

Well it's an interesting question. Maybe not exactly a correct statement, with the cost of the fuel as a negligible factor running at reduced output actually doesn't save anything which is why Nuclear plants are always run flat out. I'm not sure of the intricacies of the negotiated supply contract but with the demise of coal something has to handle the base load when solar and wind are accounted for which are rarely going to be 100% of capacity over a day night cycle so it's either back to gas turbine systems which are CO2 unfreindly or the nuclear plants. I think that current nukes sell for whatever they can get regardless. I would expect the government to pick up the tab for the discrepancy just to get the thing built and keep the lights on and save on emmissions. Do we have anyone more clued up than me to give a difinitive answer.?

regards Martin

 

 

Edited By Martin Kyte on 09/06/2021 12:44:43

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

The government has already agreed the payments for the leccy produced, for the next thirty five years.

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

I think a relevant factor of nuclear electricity is the fact that it cannot be switched on line at the click of a switch, it takes a long period to run up from a standstill compared to Gas, Solar, Wind or Hydro and the National grid needs sources of electricity that can be instant to meet surges in demand. Consequently Nuclear electricity is used as a base of supply, always running at full output and there 24 hours a day, a bonus is that when running the costs of producing Nuclear Electricity are more or less constant over the life of the reactor. Dave W

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

The story behind this decision would be most interesting to know.

The station was taken out of service in 2018 , £100,000,000 + spent on repairs/upgrades and due back in service this August.

Something ? was found in re-commissioning that forced this decision to be made.

The problem now comes when existing stations require taking off-line with no 'spare' capacity.

Think ourselves 'lucky' , the Belgian Government brought Tirlemont back on line, over-riding official safety concerns because they couldn't afford the gas bill.

[RRMBKParticipant @rrmbk]

For as long as there are short term, greed driven profiteers who can cheaply install a gas turbine on top of a newly fracked gas well, then Nuclear power will always be on the back foot. Also, what private sector organisation in their right mind would take on the liabaility of a nuclear waste legacy when the government has no stake in the enterprise and could make draconian laws about the liability for dealing with legacy waste at any point in the future generation lifecycle.

Untill government buys into a stake in Nuclear power stations nothing will move forward. Witness the failure of perfectly good and feasible replacement plants at both Wylfa and Trawsfynydd, both of which in general had strong local public support; but failed due to lack of Political support and Government stakeholder funding.

Solar, Hydro and Wind are doing great things to alleviate fossil fuel reliance, and we are beginning to see some benefit from tidal power but they can never be a total solution.

How would you feel when you are undergoing a heart transplant operation, about having your life support system supplied only by hydro,wind and solar? As the operation is happening on a winters day, dry with overcast high pressure and no wind and the upland moor streams feeding the hydro reservoir are frozen over; not too happy would be my response!

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

News today of what may be a serious problem with Taishan ( EDF's Hinkley C IN China ).

Don't install that heat pump yet.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Posted by J Hancock on 14/06/2021 16:37:20:

News today of what may be a serious problem with Taishan ( EDF's Hinkley C IN China ).

Don't install that heat pump yet.

It is even more important, if that is the case?

Ground source if possible, of course.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Posted by J Hancock on 14/06/2021 16:37:20:

News today of what may be a serious problem with Taishan ( EDF's Hinkley C IN China ).

Like with the Russians…. reactor issues

I don't think they've even got nuclear subs properly sussed out yet, the Russkies stopped helping in the 50s/60s and they've had development issues

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

NDIY , No Sireee , like Charlton Heston , they will have to prise my Baxi gas boiler off the wall over my cold dead body.

[Roger BParticipant @rogerb61624]

The problem at Taishan 1 appears to be within normal operational parameters:

**LINK**

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

' Problem resolu.'

Forget Hinkley C, Sizewell, ITER and the rest.

Bezos is building a fusion reactor in Oxford and all for £400m.

It's 'Game on' again.

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

Oh dear , another 1GW nuclear generation has just gone .

All over for Hinkley B ,by Aug 1st.

That's another 4GW of gas we need to burn .

[10ba12baParticipant @10ba12ba]

Anyone got a treadle lathe for sale ??

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

A politician's headstone

"It seemed a good idea at the time"

Especially if you don't know and listen to those with their own agenda.

All our utilities seem to be owned some oversea company

Tidal power has advantages:; predictable, and no problems decomissioning.

Wonder what happened to the Peter Brotherhood air turbine (Driven by waves displacing air in tapered conduit ) that rotates in the same direction irrespective of the direction of flow?

That would drive a DC generator feeding an inverter to put AC into the grid.

Howard

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by J Hancock on 08/07/2022 15:31:13:

Oh dear , another 1GW nuclear generation has just gone .

All over for Hinkley B ,by Aug 1st.

That's another 4GW of gas we need to burn .

Just to be pedantic (who me) the efficiency of CCGT is typically 60% so to replace 1GW the CCGT station has to burn 1.67GW worth of gas.

I strongly suspect that the reason for closure is that the expense of renewing the safety case didn't justify it, and they probably didn't have time between the cost of gas skyrocketing and the planned closure. Just arbitrarily changing the expiry date on the existing safety case would make a bit of a mockery of the whole thing, although I doubt it's going to fail any time soon.

[Harry WilkesParticipant @harrywilkes58467]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 04/06/2021 14:03:38:

Posted by J Hancock on 03/06/2021 12:52:54:

Remember it well , we used to tell the relatives we were living in Cabbagewater , they only came once and understood why the name !

I note that Port Talbot still smells sulphurous, but not as bad as it used to be.

There are now living trees on the hills north of the motorway, when I was a boy they were covered in dead trees.

Neil

Sulphurous smell blade the blast furnaces

H

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Posted by J Hancock on 08/07/2022 15:31:13:

Oh dear , another 1GW nuclear generation has just gone .

All over for Hinkley B ,by Aug 1st.

That's another 4GW of gas we need to burn .

Sorry, but this poster is soooo biassed! Idiotic claims, such as his (above), need to be called out.

CCGT generating stations are around 60% efficient. I agree with Duncan that to generate each GW actually requires 1.7GW of gas energy. Claiming it imeans burning another 4GW of gas is, frankly, ridiculous.

There is, of course, the possibility that the figures, quoted above, have been passed on to someone who knows absolutely nowt about electricity production – and then passed on as gospel. There are a lot around, like that. Either way, he needs to be totally ignored.

If the nuclear generation was needed to be replaced with less efficient OCGT generation it would mean burning 2.5GW of gas. Even with system losses, the amount of gas is never going to be 4GW energy/GW power output. Even coal-fired generation far exceeds the sort of efficiency he is suggesting (coal is much on a par with OCGT – but with longer start/stop times and needing to be used at full power continuously for best efficiency).

I expect the demise of the Hinkley B is simply economics. It is neither a simple fix nor a cheap one, with any nuclear installation.

 

Edited By not done it yet on 09/07/2022 07:32:23

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

I pay 7p/Kwh for gas, 28p/ Kwh for electricity.

Why is that ?

[Author]

Posts