On 10/02/2025 10:35, Andy Burns wrote: >><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
Silly question but, why do the media always show pictures of the cooling >towers rather than the flues which might actually emit some CO2?
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
On 2/10/25 10:35, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
There doesn't seem anything intrinsically wrong with that.
The worrying thing I heard the other day, which I don't have a cite for,
is that Labour recently cancelled a planned review/inquiry/analysis of
the holistic costs of different electrical generation scenarios.
On 10/02/2025 10:35, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
Silly question but, why do the media always show pictures of the
cooling towers rather than the flues which might actually emit some CO2?
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
Here you are, With one of the blokes that built it.
Https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/resources/images/9910821.
It doesn't look impressive, given it's not belching smoke or water
vapour like the cooling towers
However it is the tallest chimney in the UK . An up-draught to die for.
Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
�Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace's policy director, said. "We have cheap, clean >power sources available��
And where in the scheme of things are these �cheap, clean power sources�?
I can�t see the effect of them on my energy bills.
On 10/02/2025 in message <[email protected]> Timatmarford wrote:
On 10/02/2025 10:35, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
Silly question but, why do the media always show pictures of the
cooling towers rather than the flues which might actually emit some CO2?
Foe the same reason they always show a picture of the Royal Exchange
when discussing the Bank of England, ignorance.
Pancho wrote:
On 2/10/25 10:35, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
There doesn't seem anything intrinsically wrong with that.
I didn't say it was wrong, they currently cream-in the dubious biomass subsidies at times when solar and wind are operating above their long
term averages.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
On 2/10/25 10:35, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
There doesn't seem anything intrinsically wrong with that.
Obviously, we want Drax when there isn't enough wind or solar, so the
profit it makes during those periods has to cover the fact it isn't
making money when wind and solar are available.
We all know that is the basic economics of having dispatchable
generation stations to cover peak periods.
The worrying thing I heard the other day, which I don't have a cite for,
is that Labour recently cancelled a planned review/inquiry/analysis of
the holistic costs of different electrical generation scenarios.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>Total effing disaster
On 2/10/25 10:35, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
There doesn't seem anything intrinsically wrong with that.
Obviously, we want Drax when there isn't enough wind or solar, so the
profit it makes during those periods has to cover the fact it isn't
making money when wind and solar are available.
We all know that is the basic economics of having dispatchable
generation stations to cover peak periods.
The worrying thing I heard the other day, which I don't have a cite for,
is that Labour recently cancelled a planned review/inquiry/analysis of
the holistic costs of different electrical generation scenarios.
On 10/02/2025 12:51, Pancho wrote:
On 2/10/25 10:35, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
There doesn't seem anything intrinsically wrong with that.
Obviously, we want Drax when there isn't enough wind or solar, so the
profit it makes during those periods has to cover the fact it isn't
making money when wind and solar are available.
We all know that is the basic economics of having dispatchable
generation stations to cover peak periods.
The worrying thing I heard the other day, which I don't have a cite
for, is that Labour recently cancelled a planned review/inquiry/
analysis of the holistic costs of different electrical generation
scenarios.
The question is, what's the effect, practically and economically, of
taking a thermal power plant on and off line, instead of running it throughout and varying the output a little?
On 10 Feb 2025 13:30:46 GMT, Spike <[email protected]> wrote:
Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
”Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace's policy director, said. "We have cheap, clean >>power sources available…”
And where in the scheme of things are these ”cheap, clean power sources”? >>
I can’t see the effect of them on my energy bills.
I note he omitted the word 'reliable'...
On 10/02/2025 12:51, Pancho wrote:
On 2/10/25 10:35, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
There doesn't seem anything intrinsically wrong with that.
Obviously, we want Drax when there isn't enough wind or solar, so the
profit it makes during those periods has to cover the fact it isn't
making money when wind and solar are available.
We all know that is the basic economics of having dispatchable generation
stations to cover peak periods.
The worrying thing I heard the other day, which I don't have a cite for,
is that Labour recently cancelled a planned review/inquiry/analysis of
the holistic costs of different electrical generation scenarios.
The question is, what's the effect, practically and economically, of taking
a thermal power plant on and off line, instead of running it throughout and varying the output a little?
nuclear don't have that problem as I recall.
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the time.
On 11/02/2025 09:16, mm0fmf wrote:
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the time.
Some of them didn't and don't.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf
On 10/02/2025 23:01, SteveW wrote:
On 10/02/2025 12:51, Pancho wrote:
On 2/10/25 10:35, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
There doesn't seem anything intrinsically wrong with that.
Obviously, we want Drax when there isn't enough wind or solar, so the
profit it makes during those periods has to cover the fact it isn't
making money when wind and solar are available.
We all know that is the basic economics of having dispatchable generation >> stations to cover peak periods.
The worrying thing I heard the other day, which I don't have a cite for, >> is that Labour recently cancelled a planned review/inquiry/analysis of
the holistic costs of different electrical generation scenarios.
The question is, what's the effect, practically and economically, of taking a thermal power plant on and off line, instead of running it throughout and varying the output a little?
Note that Drax has 6 boilers and turbines, so 'a little' is probably 17%.
On 10/02/2025 12:51, Pancho wrote:
On 2/10/25 10:35, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
There doesn't seem anything intrinsically wrong with that.
Obviously, we want Drax when there isn't enough wind or solar, so the
profit it makes during those periods has to cover the fact it isn't
making money when wind and solar are available.
We all know that is the basic economics of having dispatchable
generation stations to cover peak periods.
The worrying thing I heard the other day, which I don't have a cite
for, is that Labour recently cancelled a planned
review/inquiry/analysis of the holistic costs of different electrical
generation scenarios.
The question is, what's the effect, practically and economically, of
taking a thermal power plant on and off line, instead of running it throughout and varying the output a little?
Nick Finnigan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 23:01, SteveW wrote:
On 10/02/2025 12:51, Pancho wrote:
On 2/10/25 10:35, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
There doesn't seem anything intrinsically wrong with that.
Obviously, we want Drax when there isn't enough wind or solar, so
the profit it makes during those periods has to cover the fact it
isn't making money when wind and solar are available.
We all know that is the basic economics of having dispatchable
generation stations to cover peak periods.
The worrying thing I heard the other day, which I don't have a cite
for, is that Labour recently cancelled a planned
review/inquiry/analysis of the holistic costs of different
electrical generation scenarios.
The question is, what's the effect, practically and economically, of taking a thermal power plant on and off line, instead of running it throughout and varying the output a little?
Note that Drax has 6 boilers and turbines, so 'a little' is probably
17%.
This is not new - we've been using coal plants as backup reserve for
several years now.
I would guess (but I don't know) that the periods being talked about is
of the order of days/weeks, not hours. In other words, the forecast says we're going to have a dunkelflaute next week, so crank up the boiler. It runs for two weeks and then goes back to 'idle'.
The other question is what 'idle' means. Can you keep the boilers on 'simmer', up to temp but not producing much steam? Then you throw some
more logs on the stove ahead of when you need the steam. I don't know
what the losses of an idling thermal plant are, but surface area to
volume suggests you can retain heat in a large boiler for a long time.
(such happened with steam locomotives, on a much smaller scale)
I'd guess that all this has been thoroughly tested during the years that
coal plants were used during the winter only and, since Drax is really a
coal plant wearing a green hat, it's no different.
Theo
The other question is what 'idle' means. Can you keep the boilers on >'simmer', up to temp but not producing much steam? Then you throw some more >logs on the stove ahead of when you need the steam. I don't know what the >losses of an idling thermal plant are, but surface area to volume suggests >you can retain heat in a large boiler for a long time. (such happened with >steam locomotives, on a much smaller scale)
In article <gSD*[email protected]>, Theo <[email protected]> wrote:
Nick Finnigan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/02/2025 23:01, SteveW wrote:
On 10/02/2025 12:51, Pancho wrote:
On 2/10/25 10:35, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
There doesn't seem anything intrinsically wrong with that.
Obviously, we want Drax when there isn't enough wind or solar, so
the profit it makes during those periods has to cover the fact it
isn't making money when wind and solar are available.
We all know that is the basic economics of having dispatchable
generation stations to cover peak periods.
The worrying thing I heard the other day, which I don't have a cite
for, is that Labour recently cancelled a planned
review/inquiry/analysis of the holistic costs of different
electrical generation scenarios.
The question is, what's the effect, practically and economically, of
taking a thermal power plant on and off line, instead of running it
throughout and varying the output a little?
Note that Drax has 6 boilers and turbines, so 'a little' is probably
17%.
This is not new - we've been using coal plants as backup reserve for
several years now.
I would guess (but I don't know) that the periods being talked about is
of the order of days/weeks, not hours. In other words, the forecast says
we're going to have a dunkelflaute next week, so crank up the boiler. It
runs for two weeks and then goes back to 'idle'.
The other question is what 'idle' means. Can you keep the boilers on
'simmer', up to temp but not producing much steam? Then you throw some
more logs on the stove ahead of when you need the steam. I don't know
what the losses of an idling thermal plant are, but surface area to
volume suggests you can retain heat in a large boiler for a long time.
(such happened with steam locomotives, on a much smaller scale)
I'd guess that all this has been thoroughly tested during the years that
coal plants were used during the winter only and, since Drax is really a
coal plant wearing a green hat, it's no different.
Theo
As a student, I 'worked' in a coal fired power station in 1959. I seem to remeber it took 4 days to get a set up to temperature. It's only hydro
power that has an ON/OFF switch.
In message <[email protected]>, Chris Hogg <[email protected]> writes
On 10 Feb 2025 13:30:46 GMT, Spike <[email protected]> wrote:
Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
”Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace's policy director, said. "We have cheap, >>clean power sources available…”
And where in the scheme of things are these ”cheap, clean power >>sources”?
I can’t see the effect of them on my energy bills.
I note he omitted the word 'reliable'...
Cheap, clean, reliable - pick two.
I had a colleague at work, who believed in something he called "an
existence theory". If something was possible, it would have been done already.
In message <gSD*[email protected]>, Theo <[email protected]> writes
The other question is what 'idle' means. Can you keep the boilers on >'simmer', up to temp but not producing much steam? Then you throw some more >logs on the stove ahead of when you need the steam. I don't know what the >losses of an idling thermal plant are, but surface area to volume suggests >you can retain heat in a large boiler for a long time. (such happened with >steam locomotives, on a much smaller scale)
The other issue is what does this do to the boiler. Keeping the boiler
at working temperature means that it is subject to certain constant
stresses, warming it up and cooling it down on a regular (FSVO) basis is quite likely to be a bad thing for it, meaning that the maintenance load
on it increases in the long run. It could be that the payment structure covers that adequately.
Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
In message <gSD*[email protected]>, Theo
<[email protected]> writes
The other question is what 'idle' means. Can you keep the boilers on
'simmer', up to temp but not producing much steam? Then you throw some more
logs on the stove ahead of when you need the steam. I don't know what the >> >losses of an idling thermal plant are, but surface area to volume suggests >> >you can retain heat in a large boiler for a long time. (such happened with >> >steam locomotives, on a much smaller scale)
The other issue is what does this do to the boiler. Keeping the boiler
at working temperature means that it is subject to certain constant
stresses, warming it up and cooling it down on a regular (FSVO) basis is
quite likely to be a bad thing for it, meaning that the maintenance load
on it increases in the long run. It could be that the payment structure
covers that adequately.
I'm assuming they're not swinging the boiler temperature very much. When >it's 'idling' it's at say 98C, when it's producing steam it's at 100C. The >more wood they throw at it the more steam them make, but it stays at 100C >(unless they run out of water). OK it's high pressure steam so probably not >100C at 1atm, but at whatever working pressure/temperature they use.
You'd only drop the temperature during the summer when you know it's not >going to be needed, or during scheduled maintenance. That would reduce the >number of cycles to a handful per year. Of course that depends on the
losses when 'idling' being low enough to keep it on tickover.
Because you aren't heating it from cold, perhaps the time to raise it from >98C to 100C wouldn't take massively long (hours not days)?
Theo
On 11 Feb 2025 18:01:21 +0000 (GMT), Theo
<[email protected]> wrote:
Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
In message <gSD*[email protected]>, Theo
<[email protected]> writes
The other question is what 'idle' means. Can you keep the boilers on
'simmer', up to temp but not producing much steam? Then you throw some more
logs on the stove ahead of when you need the steam. I don't know what the >>>> losses of an idling thermal plant are, but surface area to volume suggests >>>> you can retain heat in a large boiler for a long time. (such happened with
steam locomotives, on a much smaller scale)
The other issue is what does this do to the boiler. Keeping the boiler
at working temperature means that it is subject to certain constant
stresses, warming it up and cooling it down on a regular (FSVO) basis is >>> quite likely to be a bad thing for it, meaning that the maintenance load >>> on it increases in the long run. It could be that the payment structure
covers that adequately.
I'm assuming they're not swinging the boiler temperature very much. When
it's 'idling' it's at say 98C, when it's producing steam it's at 100C. The >> more wood they throw at it the more steam them make, but it stays at 100C
(unless they run out of water). OK it's high pressure steam so probably not >> 100C at 1atm, but at whatever working pressure/temperature they use.
You'd only drop the temperature during the summer when you know it's not
going to be needed, or during scheduled maintenance. That would reduce the >> number of cycles to a handful per year. Of course that depends on the
losses when 'idling' being low enough to keep it on tickover.
Because you aren't heating it from cold, perhaps the time to raise it from >> 98C to 100C wouldn't take massively long (hours not days)?
Theo
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I would assume that steam in all
modern fossil-fuel-burning power stations was highly superheated and supercritical, and much hotter than just above the BP of water,
somewhere around 500 to 600°C.
A problem with rapid fluctuations in temperature, as would be the case
if Drax were running in true rapid on-off mode would be the refractory brickwork in the vicinity of the burners in the boiler. Slow run up
and run down allows gentler and more uniform expansion and contraction
of the brickwork, putting much less stress on it, less spalling and
longer lasting.
The company I used to work for has a Proteus gas turbine for
emergencies. It only took a few minutes (about five IIRC) to go from
start to full generation, and everyone within half a mile knew about
it!
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I would assume that steam in all
modern fossil-fuel-burning power stations was highly superheated and supercritical, and much hotter than just above the BP of water,
somewhere around 500 to 600°C.
On 11/02/2025 09:51, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/02/2025 09:16, mm0fmf wrote:
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the time.
Some of them didn't and don't.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-
following-e.pdf
Cheers for that. It does refer to modern designs and I am doubting that applies to the UK's AGR fleet which will be mid-60s early 70s designs.
Looking at the gridwatch data the UK nuclear fleet appears to run at
what looks to be continuous output.
On 11 Feb 2025 18:01:21 +0000 (GMT), Theo
<[email protected]> wrote:
Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
In message <gSD*[email protected]>, Theo
<[email protected]> writes
The other question is what 'idle' means. Can you keep the boilers on
'simmer', up to temp but not producing much steam? Then you throw some more
logs on the stove ahead of when you need the steam. I don't know what the >>>> losses of an idling thermal plant are, but surface area to volume suggests >>>> you can retain heat in a large boiler for a long time. (such happened with
steam locomotives, on a much smaller scale)
The other issue is what does this do to the boiler. Keeping the boiler
at working temperature means that it is subject to certain constant
stresses, warming it up and cooling it down on a regular (FSVO) basis is >>> quite likely to be a bad thing for it, meaning that the maintenance load >>> on it increases in the long run. It could be that the payment structure
covers that adequately.
I'm assuming they're not swinging the boiler temperature very much. When
it's 'idling' it's at say 98C, when it's producing steam it's at 100C. The >> more wood they throw at it the more steam them make, but it stays at 100C
(unless they run out of water). OK it's high pressure steam so probably not >> 100C at 1atm, but at whatever working pressure/temperature they use.
You'd only drop the temperature during the summer when you know it's not
going to be needed, or during scheduled maintenance. That would reduce the >> number of cycles to a handful per year. Of course that depends on the
losses when 'idling' being low enough to keep it on tickover.
Because you aren't heating it from cold, perhaps the time to raise it from >> 98C to 100C wouldn't take massively long (hours not days)?
Theo
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I would assume that steam in all
modern fossil-fuel-burning power stations was highly superheated and supercritical, and much hotter than just above the BP of water,
somewhere around 500 to 600°C.
A problem with rapid fluctuations in temperature, as would be the case
if Drax were running in true rapid on-off mode would be the refractory brickwork in the vicinity of the burners in the boiler. Slow run up
and run down allows gentler and more uniform expansion and contraction
of the brickwork, putting much less stress on it, less spalling and
longer lasting.
Yes, because that's how you get efficiency, which IIRC is calculated as:
1 - (T-cold)/(T-hot)
All measured in K. The T-cold is going to be as close to 100C (373K) as they >can manage, the temperature of the steam as it exits the low-pressure turbine. >T-hot is the steam temp as it enters the high-pressure turbine. So you can get >close to 60%.
Then you shove the steam into a cooling tower.
On 11 Feb 2025 at 19:44:39 GMT, "Chris Hogg" <[email protected]> wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I would assume that steam in all
modern fossil-fuel-burning power stations was highly superheated and
supercritical, and much hotter than just above the BP of water,
somewhere around 500 to 600°C.
Yes, because that's how you get efficiency, which IIRC is calculated as:
1 - (T-cold)/(T-hot)
All measured in K. The T-cold is going to be as close to 100C (373K) as they can manage, the temperature of the steam as it exits the low-pressure turbine.
T-hot is the steam temp as it enters the high-pressure turbine. So you can get
close to 60%.
Then you shove the steam into a cooling tower.
Tim Streater <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11 Feb 2025 at 19:44:39 GMT, "Chris Hogg" <[email protected]> wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I would assume that steam in all
modern fossil-fuel-burning power stations was highly superheated and
supercritical, and much hotter than just above the BP of water,
somewhere around 500 to 600°C.
Yes, because that's how you get efficiency, which IIRC is calculated as:
1 - (T-cold)/(T-hot)
All measured in K. The T-cold is going to be as close to 100C (373K) as they
can manage, the temperature of the steam as it exits the low-pressure turbine.
T-hot is the steam temp as it enters the high-pressure turbine. So you can get
close to 60%.
Then you shove the steam into a cooling tower.
Another critical thing is to avoid water droplets in the steam, as they damage the turbine blades, so that’s another reason for T-hot being so high.
Tim Streater <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11 Feb 2025 at 19:44:39 GMT, "Chris Hogg" <[email protected]> wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I would assume that steam in all
modern fossil-fuel-burning power stations was highly superheated and
supercritical, and much hotter than just above the BP of water,
somewhere around 500 to 600°C.
Yes, because that's how you get efficiency, which IIRC is calculated as:
1 - (T-cold)/(T-hot)
All measured in K. The T-cold is going to be as close to 100C (373K) as they >> can manage, the temperature of the steam as it exits the low-pressure turbine.
T-hot is the steam temp as it enters the high-pressure turbine. So you can get
close to 60%.
Then you shove the steam into a cooling tower.
Another critical thing is to avoid water droplets in the steam, as they damage the turbine blades, so that’s another reason for T-hot being so high.
On 10/02/2025 12:51, Pancho wrote:
On 2/10/25 10:35, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
There doesn't seem anything intrinsically wrong with that.
Obviously, we want Drax when there isn't enough wind or solar, so the
profit it makes during those periods has to cover the fact it isn't
making money when wind and solar are available.
We all know that is the basic economics of having dispatchable
generation stations to cover peak periods.
The worrying thing I heard the other day, which I don't have a cite
for, is that Labour recently cancelled a planned
review/inquiry/analysis of the holistic costs of different electrical
generation scenarios.
The question is, what's the effect, practically and economically, of
taking a thermal power plant on and off line, instead of running it throughout and varying the output a little?
In general, the interview is just basic stuff, rather than anything
profound. FWIW, she agrees with my assertion that we should build
traditional big Nuclear Stations rather than SMR, so obviously I like
her 🙂.
On 11/02/2025 09:16, mm0fmf wrote:France runs freshly fuelled reactors in load following until Xenon
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the time.
Some of them didn't and don't.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf
On 10/02/2025 23:01, SteveW wrote:
On 10/02/2025 12:51, Pancho wrote:
On 2/10/25 10:35, Andy Burns wrote:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o>
There doesn't seem anything intrinsically wrong with that.
Obviously, we want Drax when there isn't enough wind or solar, so the
profit it makes during those periods has to cover the fact it isn't
making money when wind and solar are available.
We all know that is the basic economics of having dispatchable
generation stations to cover peak periods.
The worrying thing I heard the other day, which I don't have a cite
for, is that Labour recently cancelled a planned
review/inquiry/analysis of the holistic costs of different electrical
generation scenarios.
The question is, what's the effect, practically and economically, of
taking a thermal power plant on and off line, instead of running it
throughout and varying the output a little?
Note that Drax has 6 boilers and turbines, so 'a little' is probably 17%.
On 11/02/2025 09:51, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/02/2025 09:16, mm0fmf wrote:
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the time.
Some of them didn't and don't.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf
Cheers for that. It does refer to modern designs and I am doubting that applies to the UK's AGR fleet which will be mid-60s early 70s designs.
Looking at the gridwatch data the UK nuclear fleet appears to run at
what looks to be continuous output.
On 11/02/2025 00:44, Pancho wrote:
In general, the interview is just basic stuff, rather than anything profound. FWIW, she agrees with my assertion that we should build traditional big Nuclear Stations rather than SMR, so obviously I like
her #.
All other things being equal, yes we should BUT all other things are not equal
The politics and planning of getting big power stations built adds
massive amounts to the cost and they cannot be built close to where
demand is. This adds infrastructure cost and massive pylons across the landscape.
--
mm0fmf wrote:
Looking at the gridwatch data the UK nuclear fleet appears to run at
what looks to be continuous output.
Which is ideal - lots of nukes, constant power, make it cheap when
demand is low
On 11/02/2025 09:51, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/02/2025 09:16, mm0fmf wrote:France runs freshly fuelled reactors in load following until Xenon
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the time.
Some of them didn't and don't.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf
poisoning makes it tricky
You can modulate coal/wood boilers down but it isn't particularlyWhat does Gridwatch show for Biomass overnight?
efficient. Drax like nuclear is run as baseload
On 12/02/2025 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/02/2025 09:51, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/02/2025 09:16, mm0fmf wrote:France runs freshly fuelled reactors in load following until Xenon
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the time.
Some of them didn't and don't.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf
poisoning makes it tricky
When does that happen ?
In article <voickn$2c5fs$[email protected]>,
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 00:44, Pancho wrote:
In general, the interview is just basic stuff, rather than anything
profound. FWIW, she agrees with my assertion that we should build
traditional big Nuclear Stations rather than SMR, so obviously I like
her #.
All other things being equal, yes we should BUT all other things are not
equal
The politics and planning of getting big power stations built adds
massive amounts to the cost and they cannot be built close to where
demand is. This adds infrastructure cost and massive pylons across the
landscape.
We used to build them where they were needed: Battersea, Bankside & Lot's Road in Central London for a start.
--
SteveW wrote:
mm0fmf wrote:
Looking at the gridwatch data the UK nuclear fleet appears to run at
what looks to be continuous output.
Which is ideal - lots of nukes, constant power, make it cheap when
demand is low
I was watching an interview with a chap (probably a nobody) who is
proposing that Germany could recommission some of their nukes for under €1bn each
<https://youtu.be/UWMPBfQZFsk?t=1232>
He also says the early German PWRs could ramp-up/down at about 12% of capacity per minute, and be run as "peaker" plants
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neckarwestheim_Nuclear_Power_Plant>
On 12/02/2025 15:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:It runs flat out mostly, looks like power is reduced at around midnight
What does Gridwatch show for Biomass overnight?
You can modulate coal/wood boilers down but it isn't particularly
efficient. Drax like nuclear is run as baseload
On 12/02/2025 22:55, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/02/2025 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:When does what happen?
On 11/02/2025 09:51, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/02/2025 09:16, mm0fmf wrote:France runs freshly fuelled reactors in load following until Xenon
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the time.
Some of them didn't and don't.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf
poisoning makes it tricky
When does that happen ?
On 13/02/2025 09:27, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 13/02/2025 04:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/2025 22:55, Nick Finnigan wrote:'Xenon poisoning makes it tricky' to run 'reactors in load following'.
On 12/02/2025 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:When does what happen?
On 11/02/2025 09:51, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/02/2025 09:16, mm0fmf wrote:France runs freshly fuelled reactors in load following until Xenon
Some of them didn't and don't.
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the time. >>>>>>
https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf
poisoning makes it tricky
When does that happen ?
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/0203_Pouret_Nuttall.pdf
That's where I got the info from
And elsewhere, but I cant remember the source.
On 13/02/2025 04:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/2025 22:55, Nick Finnigan wrote:'Xenon poisoning makes it tricky' to run 'reactors in load following'.
On 12/02/2025 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:When does what happen?
On 11/02/2025 09:51, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/02/2025 09:16, mm0fmf wrote:France runs freshly fuelled reactors in load following until Xenon
Some of them didn't and don't.
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the time. >>>>>
https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf
poisoning makes it tricky
When does that happen ?
On 13/02/2025 10:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/2025 09:27, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 13/02/2025 04:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/0203_Pouret_Nuttall.pdf
On 12/02/2025 22:55, Nick Finnigan wrote:'Xenon poisoning makes it tricky' to run 'reactors in load following'. >>
On 12/02/2025 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:When does what happen?
On 11/02/2025 09:51, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/02/2025 09:16, mm0fmf wrote:France runs freshly fuelled reactors in load following until Xenon >>>>>> poisoning makes it tricky
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the >>>>>>>> time.
Some of them didn't and don't.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf
When does that happen ?
That's where I got the info from
And elsewhere, but I cant remember the source.
Yes, that mentions Xenon poisoning, extra control rods, transients
when moving the control rods, but nothing about 'freshly fuelled' or
'until'.
On 13/02/2025 10:52, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 13/02/2025 10:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Yup. It might have been something by Kathryn Porter TBH
On 13/02/2025 09:27, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 13/02/2025 04:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/2025 22:55, Nick Finnigan wrote:'Xenon poisoning makes it tricky' to run 'reactors in load
On 12/02/2025 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:When does what happen?
On 11/02/2025 09:51, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 11/02/2025 09:16, mm0fmf wrote:France runs freshly fuelled reactors in load following until
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the >>>>>>>>> time.
Some of them didn't and don't.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf
Xenon poisoning makes it tricky
When does that happen ?
following'.
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/0203_Pouret_Nuttall.pdf
That's where I got the info from
And elsewhere, but I cant remember the source.
Yes, that mentions Xenon poisoning, extra control rods, transients
when moving the control rods, but nothing about 'freshly fuelled' or
'until'.
2 Load following is completely possible.
3 Load following is very uneconomic. The marginal cost of the fuel used
to run the reactor is so low that nothing is saved by turning it down or
off and it may well suffer increased wear.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
2 Load following is completely possible.
3 Load following is very uneconomic. The marginal cost of the fuel
used to run the reactor is so low that nothing is saved by turning it
down or off and it may well suffer increased wear.
The reason it was done in Germany was that the plants had been given a
limit of TWh, which they hoped could be extended if they waited for a
change of government, so they wanted to keep them running, but then
Merkel and Fukushima happened.
In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
2 Load following is completely possible.
3 Load following is very uneconomic. The marginal cost of the fuel used
to run the reactor is so low that nothing is saved by turning it down or >>> off and it may well suffer increased wear.
The reason it was done in Germany was that the plants had been given a#
limit of TWh, which they hoped could be extended if they waited for a
change of government, so they wanted to keep them running, but then
Merkel and Fukushima happened.
and Tsunami occur in inland Germany
The Natural Philosopher wrote:#
2 Load following is completely possible.
3 Load following is very uneconomic. The marginal cost of the fuel used
to run the reactor is so low that nothing is saved by turning it down or off and it may well suffer increased wear.
The reason it was done in Germany was that the plants had been given a
limit of TWh, which they hoped could be extended if they waited for a
change of government, so they wanted to keep them running, but then
Merkel and Fukushima happened.
In article <voickn$2c5fs$[email protected]>,
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 00:44, Pancho wrote:
In general, the interview is just basic stuff, rather than anything
profound. FWIW, she agrees with my assertion that we should build
traditional big Nuclear Stations rather than SMR, so obviously I like
her #.
All other things being equal, yes we should BUT all other things are not
equal
The politics and planning of getting big power stations built adds
massive amounts to the cost and they cannot be built close to where
demand is. This adds infrastructure cost and massive pylons across the
landscape.
We used to build them where they were needed: Battersea, Bankside & Lot's Road in Central London for a start.
--
I'm assuming they're not swinging the boiler temperature very much. When it's 'idling' it's at say 98C, when it's producing steam it's at 100C.
The more wood they throw at it the more steam them make, but it stays at
100C (unless they run out of water). OK it's high pressure steam so
probably not 100C at 1atm, but at whatever working pressure/temperature
they use.
You'd only drop the temperature during the summer when you know it's not going to be needed, or during scheduled maintenance. That would reduce
the number of cycles to a handful per year. Of course that depends on the losses when 'idling' being low enough to keep it on tickover.
Because you aren't heating it from cold, perhaps the time to raise it from 98C to 100C wouldn't take massively long (hours not days)?
Yes, because that's how you get efficiency, which IIRC is calculated as:
1 - (T-cold)/(T-hot)
All measured in K. The T-cold is going to be as close to 100C (373K) as
they can manage, the temperature of the steam as it exits the low-pressure turbine. T-hot is the steam temp as it enters the high-pressure turbine.
So you can get close to 60%.
Then you shove the steam into a cooling tower.
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the time.
Yes, I remember back in the 1960s on a school 'industrial tour' we visited one of the main turbine generator manufacturers and they showed us blades that had been perforated by water droplets.
On 12/02/2025 17:00, charles wrote:
In article <voickn$2c5fs$[email protected]>,That was before Mr Tesla 'invented' AC power distribution allowing
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 00:44, Pancho wrote:
In general, the interview is just basic stuff, rather than anything
profound. FWIW, she agrees with my assertion that we should build
traditional big Nuclear Stations rather than SMR, so obviously I like
her #.
All other things being equal, yes we should BUT all other things are not >>> equal
The politics and planning of getting big power stations built adds
massive amounts to the cost and they cannot be built close to where
demand is. This adds infrastructure cost and massive pylons across the
landscape.
We used to build them where they were needed: Battersea, Bankside & Lot's
Road in Central London for a start.
--
them to be located away from where the electrons are needed.
mm0fmf <[email protected]> wrote:
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the time.If you look at the frenc hversion of gridwatch, the french often modulate their nuclear ouput down overnight, but only about the amount that we produce, about a tenth of their's. A problem of being mostly nuclear.
On 14/02/2025 01:45, me9 wrote:
mm0fmf <[email protected]> wrote:I failed to add I was talking about the UK reactors which do seem to run
It's one of the reasons they run reactors at full tilt all the time.If you look at the frenc hversion of gridwatch, the french often modulate
their nuclear ouput down overnight, but only about the amount that we
produce, about a tenth of their's. A problem of being mostly nuclear.
at almost constant load.
On 13/02/2025 22:19, Andrew wrote:
On 12/02/2025 17:00, charles wrote:Your grasp of electrics is somewhat quaint, to say the least.
In article <voickn$2c5fs$[email protected]>,That was before Mr Tesla 'invented' AC power distribution allowing
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 00:44, Pancho wrote:
In general, the interview is just basic stuff, rather than anything
profound. FWIW, she agrees with my assertion that we should build
traditional big Nuclear Stations rather than SMR, so obviously I like >>>>> her #.
All other things being equal, yes we should BUT all other things are
not
equal
The politics and planning of getting big power stations built adds
massive amounts to the cost and they cannot be built close to where
demand is. This adds infrastructure cost and massive pylons across the >>>> landscape.
We used to build them where they were needed: Battersea, Bankside &
Lot's
Road in Central London for a start.
--
them to be located away from where the electrons are needed.
Battersea power station was first built in 1929
Tesla's AC machines were built in the late 1880s.
Long distance power transmission costs money. That fact has nothing to
do with whether it's AC or DC.
In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
2 Load following is completely possible.
3 Load following is very uneconomic. The marginal cost of the fuel used
to run the reactor is so low that nothing is saved by turning it down or >>> off and it may well suffer increased wear.
The reason it was done in Germany was that the plants had been given a#
limit of TWh, which they hoped could be extended if they waited for a
change of government, so they wanted to keep them running, but then
Merkel and Fukushima happened.
and Tsunami occur in inland Germany
On 13/02/2025 17:45, charles wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:#
2 Load following is completely possible.
3 Load following is very uneconomic. The marginal cost of the fuel used >>>> to run the reactor is so low that nothing is saved by turning it down or >>>> off and it may well suffer increased wear.
The reason it was done in Germany was that the plants had been given a
limit of TWh, which they hoped could be extended if they waited for a
change of government, so they wanted to keep them running, but then
Merkel and Fukushima happened.
and Tsunami occur in inland Germany
Well they did have some pretty catastrophic flooding after
freak, biblical rain not too long ago.
Like Hinckley suffered about 400 years ago.
That was before Mr Tesla 'invented' AC power distribution allowingYour grasp of electrics is somewhat quaint, to say the least.
them to be located away from where the electrons are needed.
Battersea power station was first built in 1929
Tesla's AC machines were built in the late 1880s.
Long distance power transmission costs money. That fact has nothing
to do with whether it's AC or DC.
You must be heading for dementia then.
Long distance AC transmission was actually *possible* ~100
years ago, unlike long distance DC transmission which has
now only become possible in the 'modern' era
On 14/02/2025 03:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/2025 22:19, Andrew wrote:
On 12/02/2025 17:00, charles wrote:Your grasp of electrics is somewhat quaint, to say the least.
In article <voickn$2c5fs$[email protected]>,That was before Mr Tesla 'invented' AC power distribution allowing
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 00:44, Pancho wrote:
In general, the interview is just basic stuff, rather than anything >>>>>> profound. FWIW, she agrees with my assertion that we should build
traditional big Nuclear Stations rather than SMR, so obviously I like >>>>>> her #.
All other things being equal, yes we should BUT all other things
are not
equal
The politics and planning of getting big power stations built adds
massive amounts to the cost and they cannot be built close to where
demand is. This adds infrastructure cost and massive pylons across the >>>>> landscape.
We used to build them where they were needed: Battersea, Bankside &
Lot's
Road in Central London for a start.
--
them to be located away from where the electrons are needed.
Battersea power station was first built in 1929
Tesla's AC machines were built in the late 1880s.
Long distance power transmission costs money. That fact has nothing
to do with whether it's AC or DC.
You must be heading for dementia then.
Long distance AC transmission was actually *possible* ~100
years ago, unlike long distance DC transmission which has
now only become possible in the 'modern' era
You must be heading for dementia then.Your grasp of electrics is somewhat quaint, to say the least.We used to build them where they were needed: Battersea, Bankside &That was before Mr Tesla 'invented' AC power distribution allowing
Lot's Road in Central London for a start.
--
them to be located away from where the electrons are needed.
Battersea power station was first built in 1929 Tesla's AC machines
were built in the late 1880s.
Long distance power transmission costs money. That fact has nothing to
do with whether it's AC or DC.
Long distance AC transmission was actually *possible* ~100 years ago,
unlike long distance DC transmission which has now only become possible
in the 'modern' era
Pretoria gets to play with a million
volts.
On 14/02/2025 11:59, Andrew wrote:
On 14/02/2025 03:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/2025 22:19, Andrew wrote:
On 12/02/2025 17:00, charles wrote:Your grasp of electrics is somewhat quaint, to say the least.
In article <voickn$2c5fs$[email protected]>,That was before Mr Tesla 'invented' AC power distribution allowing
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 00:44, Pancho wrote:
In general, the interview is just basic stuff, rather than anything >>>>>>> profound. FWIW, she agrees with my assertion that we should build >>>>>>> traditional big Nuclear Stations rather than SMR, so obviously I >>>>>>> like
her #.
All other things being equal, yes we should BUT all other things
are not
equal
The politics and planning of getting big power stations built adds >>>>>> massive amounts to the cost and they cannot be built close to where >>>>>> demand is. This adds infrastructure cost and massive pylons across >>>>>> the
landscape.
We used to build them where they were needed: Battersea, Bankside &
Lot's
Road in Central London for a start.
--
them to be located away from where the electrons are needed.
Battersea power station was first built in 1929
Tesla's AC machines were built in the late 1880s.
Long distance power transmission costs money. That fact has nothing
to do with whether it's AC or DC.
You must be heading for dementia then.
Long distance AC transmission was actually *possible* ~100
years ago, unlike long distance DC transmission which has
now only become possible in the 'modern' era
Don't be silly. Long distance DC transmissions has always been *possible*.
But that is irrelevant., You said that the switch to AC caused power
stations to be remotely located. I showed how stupid a statement that
was, since Battersea was built 40 years or more AFTER AC was common
place, right inside London.
Because it was cost effective to do it. Demand and generation not
separated by massive cables
On 14/02/2025 13:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/02/2025 11:59, Andrew wrote:
On 14/02/2025 03:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/2025 22:19, Andrew wrote:
On 12/02/2025 17:00, charles wrote:Your grasp of electrics is somewhat quaint, to say the least.
In article <voickn$2c5fs$[email protected]>,That was before Mr Tesla 'invented' AC power distribution allowing
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 00:44, Pancho wrote:
In general, the interview is just basic stuff, rather than anything >>>>>>>> profound. FWIW, she agrees with my assertion that we should build >>>>>>>> traditional big Nuclear Stations rather than SMR, so obviously I >>>>>>>> like
her #.
All other things being equal, yes we should BUT all other things >>>>>>> are not
equal
The politics and planning of getting big power stations built adds >>>>>>> massive amounts to the cost and they cannot be built close to where >>>>>>> demand is. This adds infrastructure cost and massive pylons
across the
landscape.
We used to build them where they were needed: Battersea, Bankside
& Lot's
Road in Central London for a start.
--
them to be located away from where the electrons are needed.
Battersea power station was first built in 1929
Tesla's AC machines were built in the late 1880s.
Long distance power transmission costs money. That fact has nothing
to do with whether it's AC or DC.
You must be heading for dementia then.
Long distance AC transmission was actually *possible* ~100
years ago, unlike long distance DC transmission which has
now only become possible in the 'modern' era
Don't be silly. Long distance DC transmissions has always been
*possible*.
But that is irrelevant., You said that the switch to AC caused power
stations to be remotely located. I showed how stupid a statement that
was, since Battersea was built 40 years or more AFTER AC was common
place, right inside London.
Because it was cost effective to do it. Demand and generation not
separated by massive cables
I was browsing in Currys yesterday for a DECT phone and I failed
to see any fridges, cookers, washing m/c's, air-fryers, microwaves,
or electric heaters that only ran on DC. I wonder why ?.
On 16/02/2025 19:26, Andrew wrote:
On 14/02/2025 13:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Because only a stupid fucking idiot would persist in trying to win an argument he lost 6 posts back
On 14/02/2025 11:59, Andrew wrote:
On 14/02/2025 03:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/02/2025 22:19, Andrew wrote:
On 12/02/2025 17:00, charles wrote:Your grasp of electrics is somewhat quaint, to say the least.
In article <voickn$2c5fs$[email protected]>,That was before Mr Tesla 'invented' AC power distribution allowing >>>>>> them to be located away from where the electrons are needed.
The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 00:44, Pancho wrote:
In general, the interview is just basic stuff, rather than
anything
profound. FWIW, she agrees with my assertion that we should build >>>>>>>>> traditional big Nuclear Stations rather than SMR, so obviously >>>>>>>>> I like
her #.
All other things being equal, yes we should BUT all other things >>>>>>>> are not
equal
The politics and planning of getting big power stations built adds >>>>>>>> massive amounts to the cost and they cannot be built close to where >>>>>>>> demand is. This adds infrastructure cost and massive pylons
across the
landscape.
We used to build them where they were needed: Battersea, Bankside >>>>>>> & Lot's
Road in Central London for a start.
--
Battersea power station was first built in 1929
Tesla's AC machines were built in the late 1880s.
Long distance power transmission costs money. That fact has
nothing to do with whether it's AC or DC.
You must be heading for dementia then.
Long distance AC transmission was actually *possible* ~100
years ago, unlike long distance DC transmission which has
now only become possible in the 'modern' era
Don't be silly. Long distance DC transmissions has always been
*possible*.
But that is irrelevant., You said that the switch to AC caused power
stations to be remotely located. I showed how stupid a statement that
was, since Battersea was built 40 years or more AFTER AC was common
place, right inside London.
Because it was cost effective to do it. Demand and generation not
separated by massive cables
I was browsing in Currys yesterday for a DECT phone and I failed
to see any fridges, cookers, washing m/c's, air-fryers, microwaves,
or electric heaters that only ran on DC. I wonder why ?.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 18:27:16 |
| Calls: | 12,103 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,081 |