Wind turbines

[m100]

Like I said "none of them in the UK have exceeded their safe working life and carried on operating"

If you want to take that up with the HSE Nuclear Directorate then I'm sure they'd love to hear from you

A great many energy related assets, not just nuclear are operating past their original design life, some of that such as that associated with nuclear stations is based on very sound engineering data in the light of practical experience and associated with constant health monitoring. The coal and oil power stations are on the basis of work the asset until it drops to bits - especially those that have effectively opted out of the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive.

Take a typical power station like Ferrybridge in Yokshire, or Radcliffe in Nottinghamshire or Fiddlers Ferry in Lancashire. Three power stations in total capable of generating 6000MW for around about 90% of the year, each burning coal, each took around 8 years to build from breaking the ground to commercial operation. But that was back in the 1960's and early 70's when we had a construction industry and heavy engineering industry that could do all that and much more besides.

Now build 6000 1MW wind turbines plus the same again in conventional generation in less than five years. Or build an interconnector with Europe three times bigger than the biggest existing one. That's the scale of the problem. The R&D spend in the energy sector is less than 10% what it was 25 years ago despite the appaent pressing problem of CO2 emmisions, there have been many years of underinvestment in electricity generation, with many years of short term and soem would view bad investment in gas generation. We've had the decimation of the coal industry, the heavy engineering sector, the wholesale export of gas for a decade or more resulting in our unhealthy and dangerous dependence on imported gas and then the distraction of wind turbines when what we should have been building two or three decades ago was a number of very large scale tidal generation schemes and nuclear generation that can operate alongside tidal generations large but extremely predicable swings in output. Then we'd have a country with near zero CO2 emissions from power stations, a century of gas or more in reserve to use for heating our homes, With North Sea oil and locally mined coal as feedstock for both the chemical industry and vehicle fuels.

What we have is a country that should be independent in energy increasingly relying on tinpot states to keep our lights on yet the solution proposed is a bloody wind turbine that is about as reliable as the gas supply from the Russians to the Ukranians.

Just as well we have the recession otherwise we'd be completely knackered.

 

[Hivemaker.]

Consumption of more baked beans springs to mind
Should solve all the quiescent problems with the Wind Turbines

John Wilkinson

Yes John, i rekon wind turbines are definately the way to go,powered by baked beans. The attractive looking wind turbines and hydro power could supply all the power needed....and with no pollution,think they need to crack on and erect as many wind turbines as possible.

 

[freckledbeck]

Documents reveal hidden fears over Britain's nuclear plantsUnexplained cracks in reactor cores increase likelihood of accident, say government inspectors
(1)Tweet this
John Vidal and Ian Sample The Guardian, Wednesday 5 July 2006 Article history
Revelations of safety concerns at Britain's AGR power stations come at a crucial time for the nuclear industry, with results of the government's energy review due in the next fortnight. Photograph: Martin Argles

Government nuclear inspectors have raised serious questions over the safety of Britain's ageing atomic power stations, some of which have developed major cracks in their reactor cores, documents reveal today.

The safety assessments, obtained under Freedom of Information legislation, show the Nuclear Safety Directorate (NSD) has issued warnings over the deterioration of reactor cores at Hinkley Point B in Somerset and other British nuclear plants. The directorate also criticises British Energy, which operates 13 advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactors including Hinkley.

According to the papers, the company does not know the extent of the damage to the reactor cores, cannot monitor their deterioration and does not fully understand why cracking has occurred. They reveal that in June last year, the NSD said it was faced with "significant regulatory issues ... for all operating AGR reactors".

The NSD's most recent safety assessment of Hinkley, completed in April, warns that its continued operation is likely to increase the risk of an accident. While the NSD says it does not believe that there is any immediate radiation danger to the public, it says there is a possibility of serious faults developing that would force the long term or permanent closure of other nuclear plants of the same design.

"While I do not believe that a large release [of radiation] is a likely scenario, some lesser event ... is, I believe, inevitable at some stage if a vigilant precautionary approach is not adopted. There is an an increased likelihood of increased risk should we agree to continued operation," says the inspector.

The documents show the NSD wants more frequent and more probing inspections of the reactor cores at all Britain's AGR plants. These inspections require the reactors to be shut down for weeks. The premature closing of any nuclear power plant could throw Britain's electricity supplies into chaos. Closure of Hinkley Point would be likely to lead to closure of at least three other nuclear stations built at the same time, which are also known to be suffering from cracks in their cores.

Cracks in the graphite brick cores of ageing reactors have been observed for some time but until now there has been little public knowledge of the extent of the problem. British Energy warned in 2004 that its Hinkley Point B, Hunterston B, Heysham 2 and Torness plants might not be able to be extend their 30-year lives because of cracked bricks, but it gave few details of the extent of the problem.

British Energy is keen to extend the life of its AGR reactors but the papers, obtained by Greenpeace via Stop Hinkley, a local nuclear watchdog group, suggest that unless British Energy improves safety checks, the plants might have to be closed.

The revelations come at a critical point, with the government's energy review expected to be published in the next two weeks and both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown having indicated that a new generation of nuclear power is needed. Yesterday the prime minister told the Commons liaison committee that he had altered his position in favour of nuclear power since the last white paper on energy policy in 2003. "I'll be totally honest with you, I've changed my mind," he said.

However, John Large, an independent nuclear engineer who has advised the government and who reviewed the FoI papers for Greenpeace yesterday said it was "gambling with public safety" to allow Hinkley Point to continue operating. Calling for other AGR stations to be closed, he said: "The reactors should be immediately shut down and remain so until a robust nuclear safety case free of uncertainties has been established".

He accused the NSD of being reluctant to call for the closure of Hinkley Point because of the Mr Blair's stated intention to review nuclear power. "What nuclear installations inspector is going to close a plant down at such a politically critical time?", he asked.

In the papers from June 2005, an inspector concludes of Britain's AGR power stations: "I judge that there is significant uncertainty in the likelihood and consequences for the core safety functionality posed by ... core damage. The assessor needs to assume worst case consequences of ... core damage unless the licensee is able to provide robust arguments."

In a 2004 assessment, the inspector complains about the "lack of clarity" by British Energy, "continued uncertainty" in the prediction of behaviour in reactor cores, and the "lack of progress" made by British Energy in addressing issues in all AGR reactors.

British Energy said yesterday it had provided new evidence to the NSD. "If the health and safety executive [the government body that oversees the NSD] were not confident in the safety of the reactor cores we would not allow the reactors to operate. The assessment report was part of the ongoing regulatory process ... The Nuclear Safety Directorate is monitoring closely British Energy's work on graphite and, where necessary, is influencing the scope and extent of the reactor core inspections that the company carries out.

"British Energy has also been working on methods to monitor the cores whilst the reactors are in service. This will provide added re-assurance on the condition of the cores."

Stephen Tindale , executive director of Greenpeace said: "These documents show the incompetence of the government and British Energy who have known about these cracks yet have refused to do anything about it."

Problem sites

Hinkley Point B, Somerset (switched on 1976)
Known to have core damage

Hartlepool, Cleveland (1983)
Known to have core damage

Hunterston B, Ayrshire (1976)
Known to have core damage

Heysham 1, Lancashire (1983)
Known to have core damage

Dungeness, Kent (1983)
Documents hint that core damage found

Torness, East Lothian (1988)
Documents hint that core damage found

Sounds like the nuclear industry putting profits before safety?

 

[freckledbeck]

Jessica Aldred guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 May 2008 00.01 BST Article history
Sizewell B power station

1934 Nuclear fission is first experimentally achieved by Enrico Fermi.

1956 The Queen opens the first two 65MW dual purpose reactors at Calder Hall at Windscale (later Sellafield). The government says Britain has become "the first station anywhere in the world to produce electricity from atomic energy on a full industrial scale".

1957 The government promises a nuclear power building programme that would achieve 5,000-6,000MW capacity by 1965.

The world's first nuclear power accident occurs at Windscale in west Cumbria, when a fire in the reactor results in a release of radioactivity. The then prime minister, Harold Macmillan, told the cabinet that he was suppressing the report that detailed the full extent of the disaster, defects in organisation and technical shortcomings. The facts were not made public for 30 years.

1960 Government white paper scales back nuclear building plans to 3,000MW, acknowledging that coal generation is 25% cheaper.

1962 Berkeley nuclear power station, situated on the bank of the River Severn, in Gloucestershire, begins generating electricity.

1964 The Government white paper, The Second Nuclear Programme, says 5,000MW of new plants will be built between 1970-76.

This begins the era of advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGR) after other designs are rejected. Minister for power Fred Lee tells the House of Commons: "We have won the jackpot this time - we have the greatest breakthrough of all times."

Magnox reprocessing plant opens at Windscale for the dual purpose of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons and fast-breeder reactor fuel.

1965 Proposed building programme for AGRs increased to 8,000MW.

1966 First AGR construction begins.

1977 Last of seven AGR stations is ordered for Heysham, Lancashire, to complete the 8,000MW programme. The Central Electricity Generating Board describes them as "one of the major blunders of British industrial policy."

1979 Energy secretary David Howell announces 10 new pressurised water reactors (PWR) to be built, calling nuclear power "a cheaper form of electricity generation than any known to man".

1983 Planning inquiry for the first PWR at Sizewell in Suffolk starts, lasting two years.

Government forced to abandon dumping of low and intermediate-level nuclear waste in the Atlantic following pressure from environmental groups.

1986 The world's worst nuclear accident occurs at Chernobyl in Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union.

1987 Plans for Sizewell B approved.

1988 Construction begins on Sizewell B, the first of a family of four PWRs that are planned but later abandoned.

The government decides to privatise electricity production and a "nuclear tax" is proposed.

1989 Magnox reactors are withdrawn from electricity privatisation. The city refuses to buy the older stations because of decommissioning costs and the taxpayer is left with the bill.

AGRs and Sizewell B are withdrawn from privatisation because city investors discover that the cost of generating nuclear power is far greater than that of coal.

1990 Nuclear levy is introduced to cover the difference between the cost of generating nuclear energy and coal, adding 11% to electricity bills.

The cost of building Sizewell B increases from £1.69bn to £2.03bn.

1991 Government announces plans for a nuclear waste repository costing between £2.5bn and £3.5bn that would be completed by 2005.

1992 International Atomic Agency says the building up of vast stocks of plutonium at reprocessing plants poses "a major political and security risk".

1993 It is revealed that the 11% nuclear levy on electricity bills has not been put aside for dealing with decommissioning costs and waste, but spent on building Sizewell B. Economists estimate that the projected income from the levy between 1990-98 will represent a £9.1bn subsidy for the nuclear industry.

1994 Government announces nuclear reviews, one into whether new nuclear stations can be built and the seond into whether the industry can be privatised.

1995 Government decides to make a second attempt to privatise AGRs and the still-to-be-completed Sizewell B.

1996 Sell-off of the newer nuclear stations goes ahead. Despite calls for its cancellation because of delays and cost overruns, Sizewell B opens.

1997 Two nuclear waste stores are to be built at Sellafield, to take intermediate-level waste for the next 50 years. Another 10 are planned for the future.

1998 Deputy prime minister John Prescott signs agreement to progressively reduce concentrations of radioactive substances in the marine environment as a result of emissions from Sellafield.

2000 In February, the British Nuclear Fuels chief executive, John Taylor, resigns over a scandal relating to faked safety records at the Sellafield plant in Cumbria.

2002 Bradwell power station is shut down after 40 years of operation.

2003 The government's 2003 energy white paper highlights the lack of planned new nuclear plants to replace decommissioned ones, but rejects the technology, saying "its current economics make it an unattractive option for new, carbon-free generating capacity".

September 2004 The European commission launches legal action against the government over "unacceptable" failings in dealing with nuclear waste at Sellafield.

May 2005 A leak of highly radioactive nuclear fuel forces the closure of Sellafield's Thorp reprocessing plant.

October 2005 The government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, voices his support for a nuclear power revival, saying there are economic as well as environmental reasons for a new generation of reactors.

November 2005 The then prime minister, Tony Blair, commissions a second white paper on energy policy and confirms that a new generation of nuclear power station's is to be considered. He says nuclear power is once again a serious option because "the facts have changed over the last couple of years".

March 2006 The Sustainable Development Commission warns Tony Blair that there is "no justification" for a new nuclear programme.

April 2006 The government's environment audit committee warns that a new generation of nuclear power stations would not be able to avert a serious energy crisis. The government has become "too focused" on nuclear energy, it says.

May 2006 Tony Blair endorses a new generation of nuclear power stations in a speech to business leaders. He says the issue of a new generation of stations is back on the agenda "with avengeance". He is backed up again by King.

July 2006 The new white paper confirms that nuclear power is back on the agenda. It says a mix of energy supplies is essential and that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution. The review says it will be up to the private sector to cover the costs of investment, decommissioning and storage of nuclear waste.

Major power generators such as E.ON and EDF welcome what they call an "important milestone".

October 2006 Greenpeace launched a court action claiming that the government's consultation was "legally flawed".

February 2007 Greenpeace wins its case and governmen launches a new consultation, which includes plans to treble the amount of electricity from renewable sources and signals a return to the government's nuclear agenda.

A Guardian/ICM poll shows opponents of nuclear energy narrowly outnumber supporters, by 49% to 44%.

November 2007 New prime minister, Gordon Brown, calls for an acceleration of nuclear power in a speech to business leaders.

January 2008 The government announces its nuclear plans. It backs a new generation of nuclear power stations.

March 2008 Britain and France announce a deal to construct a new generation of nuclear power stations and to export the technology around the world. The deal will allow Britain to take advantage of French expertise in building new reactors.

May 2008 Half a million people in the UK hit by power cuts as seven power stations, including Sizewell B, unexpectedly stop working.


June 2008 Government inspectors warn that plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations may be delayed because of a shortage of skilled engineers.

July 2008 In a speech to EU states, Gordon Brown calls for eight new nuclear plants to be built in as part of a 'nuclear renaissance' in the UK.

September 2008 Business secretary John Hutton calls for a 'renaissance in nuclear power' in a speech to parliament.

French energy giant EDF finalises a £12.4bn deal to buy British Energy, which runs eight nuclear sites with land on which new reactors could be built.

January 2009 Gordon Brown backs plans for a new nuclear power station at Sellafield, after the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority agrees to provide land for the building of two new stations adjacent to the old site.

February 2009 Magnox Electric Ltd, the operator of the Bradwell-on-Sea nuclear plant, is found guilty of allowing a radioactive leak to continue at the site for 14 years between 1990 and 2004.

April 2009 The government publishes a list of potential sites for a new generation of nuclear plants.

Reading this impartial nuclear history does nothing to allay my concerns over its safety..... Is it worth the risk, or should we be investing in clean alternatives and trying to reduce our energy consumption?

 

[jimbeekeeper]

Is it worth the risk,

YES!

People take more risks daily.


Oh and you forget that coal stations release more radiation than nuclear in normal opperation.

But there is more natural radiation than man-made

Raddclife station is undegoing a mutimillion pound refitt that will take its efficetcy way beyond any other station in the UK.

But like any generation the major losses are in the transmitting of the power along the lines.

 

[roche]

YES!
But like any generation the major losses are in the transmitting of the power along the lines.

And isn't that a big argument in favour of small scale, local generation?

 

[TBRNoTB]

And as for 400 foot high for a 1MW turbine - get real. Do some maths or get some reliable data before spouting, please

Regards, RAB

Severn Trent are proposing 410 ft 2.5 mw windmills! the 'math' came from their website, thanks.

 

[oliver90owner]

I stand by my comment. Here are your two 'really useful' contributions to the discussion.

3200 1 MW 400 ft high wind turbines

proposing 410 ft 2.5 mw windmills

ONlY a factor of 250% difference in the size; No numbers stated when actually supposedly quoting from their website.

You conveniently state a number off the top of your head in post #7 - err and how many are Severn Trent applying for permission to erect? Bet it's not the 3200 you were spouting about in your previous post!!!!

You are simply misusing simple data in a simple way to try to influence simple people to take your simple line of NIMBY.

Don't cherry pick information, misuse information and exaggerate; do get your facts at least somewhere near right; supply all the relevant facts. That should basically reduce your input to near zero on this particular thread, methinks, as it appears, from your contributions thus far, that your future posts on this subject may need some pre-thought.....BTW, I do hope they build those two x 1600MW turbines in your garden!

I rest my case QED and all that. Thanks and

 

[jimbeekeeper]

And isn't that a big argument in favour of small scale, local generation?

No becuase factors of scale still dictate losses, the are worse on small scale.

And then the NIMBY kicks in.

 

[roche]

No becuase factors of scale still dictate losses, the are worse on small scale.

Do you mean the losses in the distribution network, or the losses in generation?

 

[victor meldrew]

YES!

People take more risks daily.


Oh and you forget that coal stations release more radiation than nuclear in normal opperation.

But there is more natural radiation than man-made

Raddclife station is undegoing a mutimillion pound refitt that will take its efficetcy way beyond any other station in the UK.

But like any generation the major losses are in the transmitting of the power along the lines.

I was irradiated (70 runcons) over A 10 month period 1959/1960.
I suffered radiation sickness at the time (denied @the time .Said it was nervousness due to being shouted at )
Still I'm in my 73rd year have 3 kids 8 grand kids and 4 and a half great grand kids . All perfectly healthy thus far ( Another generation to go before the biblical all clear I suppose )

John Wilkinson

 

[shonabee]

An aside re: NIMBY-ism. Round our way, most windfarm sites have a scheme whereby the local community receive a certain proportion of the (audited, gross) profit from the windfarm. This obviously takes a while to kick in, but is really significant amount of £££ (or according to local paper it is!). The cash is spent on community stuff: so football pitch, village hall, subsidy for village shop, old folks trips, cheltered housing projects.... etc etc. It certainly challenges the notion that all anti-windfarm-feelings are NIMBYism. Some folk are still anti-windfarm despite the financial "carrot", others (but not as many as you might expect) see the ££ and therefore love the idea, others like the idea regardless of personal financial gain.

 

[barratt_sab]

Where were you, John? (assuming you are at liberty to say)

1959/60 sounds like Calder, Windscale, Chapelcross, Springfields, Capenhurst, Risley, Harwell, Dounreay or one of the weapons sites.

I spent time at several of the above civil sites, but many years later (late 1980s).

 

[victor meldrew]

Where were you, John? (assuming you are at liberty to say)

1959/60 sounds like Calder, Windscale, Chapelcross, Springfields, Capenhurst, Risley, Harwell, Dounreay or one of the weapons sites.

I spent time at several of the above civil sites, but many years later (late 1980s).

None of these places RAF St.Athan .
Less than 4 ' from where I was working ,engines from the aircraft that had been deliberately flown through the mushroom clouds at Christmas Island were being de-contaminated !!
The condensate from a tank used to boil engine parts was pooling around my feet. The problem was fixed !
A white dustbin complete with radiation hazard symbols was place under the bend in the leaking stack pipe , as it filled it was simply tipped into the airfield drains .
I did ask what was considered to be a safe dose ? "nobody knows" was the reply .

John Wilkinson

 

[barratt_sab]

Yuck.

Sounds like I was lucky by comparison, although a friend once fell over in an active trench and had to defecate in a Tupperware box every day for two weeks...

Glad to see that you are still alive and posting.

 

[Tom Bick]

None of these places RAF St.Athan .
Less than 4 ' from where I was working ,engines from the aircraft that had been deliberately flown through the mushroom clouds at Christmas Island were being de-contaminated !!
The condensate from a tank used to boil engine parts was pooling around my feet. The problem was fixed !
A white dustbin complete with radiation hazard symbols was place under the bend in the leaking stack pipe , as it filled it was simply tipped into the airfield drains .
I did ask what was considered to be a safe dose ? "nobody knows" was the reply .

John Wilkinson

John I have a good friend who was on one of the ships in the Pacific during the atomic bomb tests a sort of gunny pig on the deck of the ship his stories at that time are quite something and similar to your experiences.
My conclusion is they just did not quite know what they were doing

 

[m100]

But like any generation the major losses are in the transmitting of the power along the lines.

Considerably more goes up the stack, and out to cooling water (60%) than gets lost in the entire transmission and distribution network (6%)

The only real advantage of distributed generation is that the waste heat can be used for local heating and cooling but often neither is required and it just goes to waste, or in some countries they use it to keep the pavements in the city clear of snow and ice.

The cast majority of centralised generation operates with a thermal efficiency in the high 30's, with some gas fired station hitting mid 50's. Of course with all that waste heat you can always utilise it as low grade process heat in industry...or grow tomatoes with it.

 

[victor meldrew]

John I have a good friend who was on one of the ships in the Pacific during the atomic bomb tests a sort of gunny pig on the deck of the ship his stories at that time are quite something and similar to your experiences.
My conclusion is they just did not quite know what they were doing

My theory is they knew more than they cracked on to know!
Guinea pigs indeed

John Wilkinson

 

[m100]

Raddclife station is undegoing a mutimillion pound refitt that will take its efficetcy way beyond any other station in the UK.

Last I heard it was only a government sponsored technical study http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file52025.pdf and not going ahead (EON's website for instance has absolutely nothing on any current or prospective refit)

But regardless a supercritical refit or new build will only give a 44-45% thermal efficiency (see page 10 in the above report) a quite significant improvement from around 35 - 37% for the steam conditions that are near standard across all 500 and 660MW units used in the UK, but some closed cycle gas turbines have been achieving mid 40's in the UK for well over a decade. On the plus side the fuel source for a coal fired plant might be from more stable regimes than gas from Russia, Libya or Algeria.

To date the only commercial scale power generating supercritical boiler in the UK was at Drakelow C back in the 1960's. It was converted back to subcritical operation after a few years as the metallurgy and control systems at the time were very sadly lacking. A plan to refit a part of Ferrybridge C with supercritical boilers has also been abandoned as being more expensive than building a complete new plant from scratch elsewhere on the site.

Kingsnorth 5 & 6 which were going to be new build supercritical units were knocked on the head until 2016 at the earliest. The blame has to fall on Greenpeace (again) They hate anything to do with coal.

 

[TBRNoTB]

I stand by my comment. Here are your two 'really useful' contributions to the discussion.

3200 1 MW 400 ft high wind turbines

proposing 410 ft 2.5 mw windmills

ONlY a factor of 250% difference in the size; No numbers stated when actually supposedly quoting from their website.

You conveniently state a number off the top of your head in post #7 - err and how many are Severn Trent applying for permission to erect? Bet it's not the 3200 you were spouting about in your previous post!!!!

You are simply misusing simple data in a simple way to try to influence simple people to take your simple line of NIMBY.

Don't cherry pick information, misuse information and exaggerate; do get your facts at least somewhere near right; supply all the relevant facts. That should basically reduce your input to near zero on this particular thread, methinks, as it appears, from your contributions thus far, that your future posts on this subject may need some pre-thought.....BTW, I do hope they build those two x 1600MW turbines in your garden!

I rest my case QED and all that. Thanks and

Methinks something has hit home! Look on 7 Trents website find "to blade tip" I did not quote how many, that is your assumption. Please try and not have a nasty tone to your posts as it lowers the tone of the conversation.