Hinckley C

[Mark RandParticipant @markrand96270]

Apart from the generation efficiency, there are also a vast amount more capital and operation costs in generating and distributing electricity compared with distributing gas.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Posted by J Hancock on 09/07/2022 10:02:21:

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

Why is that ?

Do tell us what connection there is between retail energy charges and prices paid by generators. It should be obvious to most that retail prices include costs and profits for all the intermediaries in the industry.

That ration of 1:4 bears no relation, whatsoever, to your previous ridiculous claim.

You are clearly not aware of things like energy grades. Electricity is a much higher grade of energy than thermal. Or perhaps you run your lathe on gas?

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by not done it yet on 09/07/2022 22:16:51:

.

You are clearly not aware of things like energy grades. Electricity is a much higher grade of energy than thermal.

I started reading this: https://academic.oup.com/ooenergy/article/doi/10.1093/ooenergy/oiac001/6552326

https://academic.oup.com/ooenergy/article/doi/10.1093/ooenergy/oiac001/6552326

But soon got lost

Can you offer a description of Energy Grades in something approaching Plain English

[ pretty please ]

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 09/07/2022 22:57:38

[DiodeDickParticipant @diodedick]

The reason for the permanent shutdown of Hinkley B and Hunterston B in Scotland is cracking of the core graphite, per my post of January, this year. Expected cracking of the cores at Heysham and Torness is the reason for their earlier than hoped shutdown. Close monitoring of the cores by remote inspection confirmed that the actual life core life was longer than the original design case.

I whole-heartedly agree that building more AGR's should have started when the supply chain was still in place, but as usual, political cowardice reigned.

Regarding the final resting place of the cores, and much worse, the contents of the High Active Debris Vaults at each station, the sensible option is to leave it where it is! The reactor and central block shielding was more than sufficient to contain the radiation from the reactors at full power, so they are more than adequate to shield a de-fuelled one.The existing Planning Consents (not site licence) requires the complete removal of all materials from site. This boils down to smashing it all to bits, transporting it away and burying it in a different hole in the ground, which is absurd. I guess the real plan was that by the time (many, many years hence) it was due to happen, every one would have forgotten the original promise.

If new stations had been built adjacent to the existing stations, a skilled work force would have been available and the securities site have been extended.

I fear for my grand-children's future

Dick

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

That was until recently the plan. All the fuel and easily recoverable debris to be removed to safe storage, then leave the pressure vessel in place for 150 years by which time activity levels wil have dropped to man accessible levels. Reactor pressure vessel on early magnox stations is inches thick steel inside concrete shielding more than a metre thick (can't remember exact figures) later ones are thick reinforced concrete, so they ain't going anywhere. However decommissioning techniques have improved so much with experience that NDA are looking at much shorter timescales

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Can you offer a description of Energy Grades in something approaching Plain English

Why don’t you just look up the meaning, instead? It is simplicity, nothing difficult or complicated.

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

Apologies for 'exaggerating ' the likely necessity of burning more gas to make up for losing another 'nuke'

before time.

As said before , running these 'creaking gates' flat out will do nothing towards increasing their remaining life.

QED

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by J Hancock on 10/07/2022 11:35:07:

…

As said before , running these 'creaking gates' flat out will do nothing towards increasing their remaining life.

QED

Not QED?

No point in increasing their remaining life once Nuclear Power Stations become 'creaking gates'. Although somewhat costly per unit, Nuclear is valuable as a way of satisfying the base-load, but reactors are a dreadfully expensive way of generating electricity if they are run below design capacity.

The 'common sense' approach to patch, mend and stretch doesn't work because Nuclear is an all or nothing technology that can't be kept going on the cheap.

Coal power stations are similar: although the fuel is cheap, the conversion efficiency is low and obtaining the necessary economies of scale mean a coal power station's infrastructure and operating costs are high. They too cost a fortune to run below capacity and to mothball. Not quite as painful to run sub-optimally as Nuclear, but bad enough – no-one wants to pick up the bill.

Natural Gas is good provided it's available. Cheap, relatively clean, easily scaled up or down and individual units are able to react quickly to varying demand. Unfortunately high risk when the gas is supplied from abroad by someone who sees the west as an enemy and/or demand exceeds supply. Both are a problem as I write.

Green sources are mostly independent of foreign imports and delightfully cheap but unreliable. Wonderful when Mother Nature cooperates, big problem whenshe doesn't. Green energy is harder to manage unless better ways of storing electricity are found.

The optimum mix is hard to predict, but my feeling is it will be a combination of Nuclear and Green plus advanced storage systems

Dave

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by not done it yet on 10/07/2022 07:20:12:

Can you offer a description of Energy Grades in something approaching Plain English

Why don’t you just look up the meaning, instead? It is simplicity, nothing difficult or complicated.

.

I tried that … and good ol’ Google gave me pages of irrelevant hits

As you obviously know what you mean by the term, I thought it might be easier to ask

… I should have known better.

MichaelG.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 10/07/2022 14:40:09:

Posted by not done it yet on 10/07/2022 07:20:12:

Can you offer a description of Energy Grades in something approaching Plain English

Why don’t you just look up the meaning, instead? It is simplicity, nothing difficult or complicated.

.

I tried that … and good ol’ Google gave me pages of irrelevant hits

As you obviously know what you mean by the term, I thought it might be easier to ask

… I should have known better.

MichaelG.

You mean you can’t find the meaning of ‘grade’. Absolutely astounding!

[Harry WilkesParticipant @harrywilkes58467]

Not done it yet who's put the sand in your underpants

H

[Tony Pratt 1Participant @tonypratt1]

Just Googled 'energy grades' top one came up with A to F for buildings, is that correct NDIY? Have a nice day. Seriously, no one is impressed with smart Alecs, if someone asks a question, why not answer it, we were all there once.

Tony

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

To avoid further unpleasantness here's my take on it. Burning gas produces heat. Converting heat to shaft power is inefficient, the higher the temperature the more efficient, but with current materials about 60% efficient at best. It's actually the temperature difference between highest and lowest, but we are stuck with the lower temperature, air or river used to condense the steam in a CCGT. Converting from shaft power to electricity and vice versa is very efficient with big motors or generators, and converting from shaft power or electricity to heat is 100% efficient. Thus shaft and electric are referred to as high grade, heat is lower, and the cooler the heat the lower it gets.

There are no daft questions, only daft or rude answers. This might be a daft answer, but I hope it's not rude

Edited By duncan webster on 10/07/2022 19:03:48

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by duncan webster on 10/07/2022 19:02:53:

.

There are no daft questions, only daft or rude answers. This might be a daft answer, but I hope it's not rude

.

Thank you, Duncan … very civil

MichaelG,.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

I tried again … and amongst all the ‘noise’ found this:

**LINK**

https://www.issuesofsustainability.org/helpndoc-content/TheGradingofanEnergySource.html

MichaelG.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Well, Low Grade energy has high entropy, and High Grade energy has low entropy. If only I understood entropy …

It's like being back at school; still don't know what nine sevens are!

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Don't worry, nobody understands entropy, just remember that like the national debt it always increases

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

Entropy always increases in a closed system. What happens in an unbounded system is still a very much open question.

But then obscure physical problems really have no place in this discussion.

Andrew.

[JAParticipant @ja]

CCGT with a thermal efficiency of 60% – just look who is claiming it. 20 years ago a near similar cycle with modern materials, high pressures and an HP turbine entry temperature of around 1800K I remember gave a value of 40%. For comparison, the last generation CEGB coal fired power stations were about 30%.

And I know what entropy is. It is anything but an obscure physical problem. It is a major reality in all our lives.

JA

Edited By JA on 12/07/2022 18:48:47

[David NobleParticipant @davidnoble71990]

Posted by Andrew Tinsley on 12/07/2022 16:17:29:

But then obscure physical problems really have no place in this discussion.

Andrew.

That made me smile.

David

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

Hello JA,

I think you got the wrong end of the stick! I fully agree that entropy is a very important factor in our lives. The obscure point was, "does entropy increase in an unbounded system" (think cosmology). As a physicist I have long believed that entropy doesn't increase in an unbounded system. I am happy to say that some of the younger generation of physicists would agree with me. It is good to have like minded thinkers!

Andrew.

[JAParticipant @ja]

Posted by Andrew Tinsley on 12/07/2022 19:17:40:

Hello JA,

I think you got the wrong end of the stick! I fully agree that entropy is a very important factor in our lives. The obscure point was, "does entropy increase in an unbounded system" (think cosmology). As a physicist I have long believed that entropy doesn't increase in an unbounded system. I am happy to say that some of the younger generation of physicists would agree with me. It is good to have like minded thinkers!

Andrew.

Andrew

I don’t think I made the claim. Thinking about it I believe entropy can only exist in an enclosed system. I find astrophysics very confusing so I leave others to think about it. It is not even a good creation myth.

JA

I read your “obscure physical problem” as referring to entropy in general.

Edited By JA on 12/07/2022 19:55:47

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Posted by JA on 12/07/2022 18:45:54:

CCGT with a thermal efficiency of 60% – just look who is claiming it. 20 years ago a near similar cycle with modern materials, high pressures and an HP turbine entry temperature of around 1800K I remember gave a value of 40%. For comparison, the last generation CEGB coal fired power stations were about 30%.

And I know what entropy is. It is anything but an obscure physical problem. It is a major reality in all our lives.

JA

Edited By JA on 12/07/2022 18:48:47

Are you suggesting someone is making false claims re efficiency? Lying, even?

You need to look up the thermodynamics which restrict the efficiency of super-heated steam under pressure. It is that which limits the efficiency of any steam installation.

The closed circuit generating stations recuperate energy from the reduced pressure gas flow which has historically been dissipated in cooling towers (at coal-fired power stations). That accounts for the elevated efficiency values. OCGT generation is clearly (to those that understand the differences) is much lower, at around the same as coal-fired stations – but the do have advantages, all the same – faster, cheaper installation and less CO2 emissions per unit of generation, along with rapid start-up when required to generate (can be on-line in about 10 minutes in some situations, I believe

Look it all up. It is quite simple basic Physics, really – but a specialised area. Perhaps think here that many aeroplanes use jet engines for propulsion – but clearly the hot exhaust gases are immediately lost. Ever seen the temperature of exhausts when a military jet turns on the after-burners?

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

Hello JA,

My apologies for not making my input clear enough. I was strictly referring to unbound systems.I do agree that it is a difficult subject. I have worked on the problem off and on since my undergraduate days, well over 50 years ago and I still have difficulty in nailing the answer. But most of my results point to the belief that the Second Law is not obeyed for unbounded systems.

Andrew.

[A SmithParticipant @asmith78105]

I think Flanders and Swan provided a good introduction to entropy, and set it to music!

[Author]

Posts