Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Warwick-Watcher

Energy Shortage Cancelled In Uk

Recommended Posts

Reprieve for Magnox plant

By Andrew Bounds

Published: June 11 2009 03:00 | Last updated: June 11 2009 03:00

A second ageing Magnox nuclear plant has had its life extended, preserving over 1,000 jobs and easing fears of looming electricity shortages.

Magnox North, operator of Wylfa power station on Anglesey, has been granted approval to continue generating electricity until at least December 2010, past its planned closure date of March 2010.

Last year the operator also received approval to prolong generation at Oldbury in Gloucestershire.

So, as I expected the government has come to its senses and all these old nuke stations, along with our beloved filthy coal fired ones will, unexpectedly be kept running for years to come. One in the eye for the green mob :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magnox North, operator of Wylfa power station on Anglesey, has been granted approval to continue generating electricity until at least December 2010, past its planned closure date of March 2010.

Whoa, we held back the coming stone age for a whole 10 month!!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook
Whoa, we held back the coming stone age for a whole 10 month!!! :lol:

:lol::lol:

F*ck me...you've got to laugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoa, we held back the coming stone age for a whole 10 month!!! :lol:

Quite.

It would be interesting to hear how the nuclear fuel cycle that supports these plants would counternance any useful extensions in service life. It's not like you can dig magnox fuel rods out of the ground and tip the spent fuel into landfill afterwards.

Edited by daiking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow we're saved :lol:

Shame about all the other Nukes going off line and the other stations required to close under the LCPD (Large Combustion Plant Directive).

2015 ish we're in trouble for about 2-3 years before the new Nukes and CCS (Carbon Capture ans Sequestration) Coal get sorted

Buy candles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never actually understood/seen an explanation why exactly these nuke stations need to be shutdown after what seems a relatively short working lifetime? In the VERY long term, sure I can understand that there are additional safety issues not encountered eleswhere, but do coal powered stations also have specific legal lifetimes allocated to them too when they commence working?

Edited by anonguest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoa, we held back the coming stone age for a whole 10 month!!! :lol:

Hey, at least it'll allow for one more consumerist xmas ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reactors are lifed as the radiation has serious effects on the materials its built from over time. A major failure in the primary cooling circuit would be bad and could do a Chernobyl quite easily in some reactor types.

Its like metal fatigue in aircraft, if you keep on flying them, sooner or latter the wing will fall off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, buy shares in EDF, because we'll simply import more power from France...

Yep, and at what price, when they'll know there's no other option?

EDF and the French government are gearing up to have plenty available to squeeze us by pushing microgeneration especially solar. I watched a French TV programme the other night showing many hundreds of installations per month going up on peoples rooftops in Southern France, plus some more serious-sized commercial installations. They're paying 6 times more for the solar power than the house-owners pay for their grid power, subsidised by the French government, so the people are jumping at the deal.

The French are cunning - this is one area they can get away with subsidising a "national champion" because it's OK to subsidise renewable energy. They'll be bleeding the UK dry by 2020, and well, who can blame them if we're so stupid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richcrashman is correct.

Most of our UK nuclear reactors are not the sort where failure of the primary coolant circuit would cause a major accident. However, the health of the concrete pressure vessel providing primary containment and loss of graphite from the core itself are life limiting.

Unfortunately many UK politicians seem to think that we will just extend the operational life for 10 years as they have in the US for the pressurised water reactors.

By 2015 they will have found out they were wrong !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richcrashman is correct.

Most of our UK nuclear reactors are not the sort where failure of the primary coolant circuit would cause a major accident. However, the health of the concrete pressure vessel providing primary containment and loss of graphite from the core itself are life limiting.

Unfortunately many UK politicians seem to think that we will just extend the operational life for 10 years as they have in the US for the pressurised water reactors.

By 2015 they will have found out they were wrong !!

Graphite oxidation is a huge issue at Oldbury, probably due to a bad reactor gas chemistry regime over the years. Apparantly it's like swiss cheese.

I think the reason that these reactor lifetimes have been extended is down to the fuel processing problems at Sellafield. A huge bottleneck has occurred what with Bradwell, Dungeness and Hinkley stopping generation within a relatively close time frame.

Dungeness was designed for a 20 year lifespan so reaching 40 was a hell of an achievement.

Obtaining a safety case in order to extend a reactors life time is no easy task. The NII thankfully tend to be quite a pessimistic bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might as well have said "Energy shortage cancelled in the UK"

I'm heating my home by setting fire to my farts. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an article I wrote on the British nuclear industry a while ago:

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3486

UK_nuclear_cliff_line.png

Their lifetimes are determined by the number of full power hours and the associated material damage caused by the radiation. Unplanned shutdowns can postpone the decommission date as can operating at reduced output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reprieve for Magnox plant

By Andrew Bounds

Published: June 11 2009 03:00 | Last updated: June 11 2009 03:00

A second ageing Magnox nuclear plant has had its life extended, preserving over 1,000 jobs and easing fears of looming electricity shortages.

Magnox North, operator of Wylfa power station on Anglesey, has been granted approval to continue generating electricity until at least December 2010, past its planned closure date of March 2010.

Last year the operator also received approval to prolong generation at Oldbury in Gloucestershire.

So, as I expected the government has come to its senses and all these old nuke stations, along with our beloved filthy coal fired ones will, unexpectedly be kept running for years to come. One in the eye for the green mob :P

+1

theres no other workable option for the govt. they can also combine an increase in NP with some greener and tidal means in addition to the coming nuclear plants.

and thats just the way it is. the greenies want their cake baked and they want to reheat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+1

theres no other workable option for the govt. they can also combine an increase in NP with some greener and tidal means in addition to the coming nuclear plants.

and thats just the way it is. the greenies want their cake baked and they want to reheat it.

Urm? workable option? Extending the life of existing plant beyond 2020 is not workable, they'll break. Building new nuclear plant before 2020 is not workable due to lack of ability to built, due to lack of financing, due to public opposition. An increase is totally impossible even over a 15 year timescale, as there isn't even the capacity to replace the old plant...

I fail to see how you consider nuclear the only workable option. Why do you discount increased coal burn, increased gas burn but don't discount nuclear due to the build timescales and financing requirements?

I think the most likely (workable?) is to manage with 20% less electricity in the UK in 2020. After that comes increased coal burn. Increased nuclear contribution in 2020 isn't workable at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shame about all the other Nukes going off line and the other stations required to close under the LCPD (Large Combustion Plant Directive).

2015 ish we're in trouble for about 2-3 years before the new Nukes and CCS (Carbon Capture ans Sequestration) Coal get sorted

You mean ones that will take 10 years to bild, haven't been started yet, and which they are bogged down in planning arguments over since no-one want them in the back yard but they want them *nearby* so they can work there???

I suspect the project will run late. Oh wait, it already is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Urm? workable option? Extending the life of existing plant beyond 2020 is not workable, they'll break. Building new nuclear plant before 2020 is not workable due to lack of ability to built, due to lack of financing, due to public opposition. An increase is totally impossible even over a 15 year timescale, as there isn't even the capacity to replace the old plant...

I fail to see how you consider nuclear the only workable option. Why do you discount increased coal burn, increased gas burn but don't discount nuclear due to the build timescales and financing requirements?

I think the most likely (workable?) is to manage with 20% less electricity in the UK in 2020. After that comes increased coal burn. Increased nuclear contribution in 2020 isn't workable at all.

i mean on top of life extension they have to bite the bullet and begin building new plants. pronto.

and the greenies, well they want all the heat and power, but are being unrealistic about where its going to come from. to the point of ignorance.

i have no doubts that nuclear is the only option and pretty soon they will have to expand the network of plants.

at least until greener energies develop. we cant have an energy gap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i mean on top of life extension they have to bite the bullet and begin building new plants. pronto.

and the greenies, well they want all the heat and power, but are being unrealistic about where its going to come from. to the point of ignorance.

i have no doubts that nuclear is the only option and pretty soon they will have to expand the network of plants.

at least until greener energies develop. we cant have an energy gap.

I agree, but these nuke plants take at least a decade to build. We are going to be at the mercy of Russia for gas in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i mean on top of life extension they have to bite the bullet and begin building new plants. pronto.

and the greenies, well they want all the heat and power, but are being unrealistic about where its going to come from. to the point of ignorance.

i have no doubts that nuclear is the only option and pretty soon they will have to expand the network of plants.

at least until greener energies develop. we cant have an energy gap.

If it comes to a choice between pleasing the warmies and haveing no power I reckon that emergency legislation would appear to overcome the objections to new nuclear stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an interesting article a few weeks ago. It would seem that companies like Westing House etc have been busy working on Nuke in a box designs.

The reactor is supplied sealed and ready to plumb up. They were looking at these as a way of offering developing countries nuclear power capabilities without the need for reprocessing (new Nuke in a box delivered when old one exhausted).

Perhaps there are plans to use something like this to shorten build times or as an intrim?

I think most politicians understanding of Nuclear enery is "LOOK MAGIC FIRE"!! lol

I'd guess on a nice Magnesium / Graphite fire as a result of a major failure in a magnox plant. Some of the older Magnox plants had some of the gas circuit outside the shield and i guess these would have possed more of a threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work on the diagrammatic breakdown clv101.

Just to add to what should be a huge sense of urgency by UK citizens (though not apparently our politicians who are too busy manoeuvring for the next election) there are doomy stories about our oil and gas supplies like:

BP's grim warning over North Sea oil

Just 1.54m barrels [per day] of oil were produced in 2008, compared with a peak of 2.9m in 1999, and continued declines will leave output at its weakest since 1978.

The North Sea is a mature and declining province,' said Hayward. 'It will decline for sure at 5% per year, and if the investment doesn't go in - and this year it is not going in - it will probably decline at a faster rate.'

Edit to add [per day].

Edited by newp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read an interesting article a few weeks ago. It would seem that companies like Westing House etc have been busy working on Nuke in a box designs.

The reactor is supplied sealed and ready to plumb up. They were looking at these as a way of offering developing countries nuclear power capabilities without the need for reprocessing (new Nuke in a box delivered when old one exhausted).

Basically they will be the same thing as the US and Russian governments have been sticking in sattelites for a decade or two. The russians supposedly heavily use them in remote arctic regions as well.

One was supposed to have come up on ebay a few years back.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/03/fr...ergy_generator/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical Bleeding-Heart Greenie: "We want energy that won't produce greenhouse gases, and we want it now!

Scientist: "Okay, how about wind and wave power?"

Typical Bleeding-Heart Greenie: "Ooh couldn't have that, it'd harm the environment and spoil the view and kill all the birds!"

Scientist: "Okay, well... nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases, and the waste can be safely buried. Modern reactors are incredibly safe."

Typical Bleeding-Heart Greenie: "Nooo! Radiation beams will kill us all, and the nuclear bombs will kill us and give us mutant babies. Noooo!"

Scientist: "Okay, how about we research Fusion power more? That uses water as fuel, and is completely clean with no radiation or radioactive waste."

Typical Bleeding-Heart Greenie: "Noo, messing around with that stuff will kill us all just like CERN, we need to get back to nature, science is dangerous"

You can't f**king win with an environmentalist.

They're not all as thick as sh*t, but most of them are. The amount of times I've tried to argue a sensible case for nuclear power as the only reasonable, clean source of power for the near future an encountered a brick wall of ignorance is unbelieveable.

If we end up in the dark and have to turn the skies into black soot with our coal reserves, you know who to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i mean on top of life extension they have to bite the bullet and begin building new plants. pronto.

and the greenies, well they want all the heat and power, but are being unrealistic about where its going to come from. to the point of ignorance.

i have no doubts that nuclear is the only option and pretty soon they will have to expand the network of plants.

at least until greener energies develop. we cant have an energy gap.

I'm no Bleeding-Heart Greenie... I'm a scientist with a physics degree. I can't agree with you that nuclear is the only option. I simply don't see it as an option. In the UK I see NO WAY for nuclear new build to even compensate for the ESSENTIAL decommission of the old equipment. This isn't a green argument it's a technical and financial argument. Nuclear can not address the energy gap, we need something to either increase production or decrease consumption within the 5-10 year timescale. Everything else should be ignored. If we started building 4-6 new nuclear reactors today we make worse the problem due to the large amount of energy and capital their construction would consume for the next decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.