Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

GB's cheap Chinese nuclear plant -v- solar

124»

Comments

  • #92
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Gas has been used for far longer than oil has
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Isaac_de_Rivaz
    François Isaac de Rivaz (Paris, December 19, 1752 – Sion, July 30, 1828) was an inventor and a politician. He invented a hydrogen powered internal combustion engine with electric ignition and described it in a French patent published in 1807. In 1808 he fitted it into a primitive working vehicle - 'the world's first internal combustion powered automobile'
    The speed records for cars a century later is interesting as the first ones were set by electric cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record

    The main advantage of oil is that it stores a lot of energy for it's weight/volume. And don't forget that almost all cars use electric starter motors.

    Give me a coherent economic explanation of why it is necessary to provide such massive subsidies for nuclear, bearing in mind that you keep telling us it’s wonderfully cheap?
    In fairness SeanW has started admitting that's it's not cheap.

    But still claims it's worth paying for. Even though any benefit on the CO2 side from a new build won't appear for a generation or more by the time the thing is completed and the carbon used in construction is accounted for.

    And again investing in nuclear means diverting funds from renewables, hobbling the competition.


  • #93
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Markcheese wrote: »
    If your wind turbines are spinning (and the wind forecast is good) the system needs x amount of spinning reserve - (I assume not the entire amount being produced )
    I assume if the winds not predicted to blow much ,the plants that would have been spinning reserve are now producing - but would also need other plants spinning ?
    Which is grand if your talking summer, low demand across the system - but what about around Xmas -and massive demand - how much extra installed capacity is there in the system (including wind) to cope with a calm day at peak demand -
    Please read this.
    http://www.eirgrid.com/media/OperationalConstraintsUpdateVersion1_22_February_2015.pdf


    Been done to death. We've reasonably accurate wind predictions 5 days out and the Operation Constraint listed above mean that backup has to kick in within 5 seconds to cover 75% of the loss. It takes more than 5 seconds for a weather front to move across a single wind farm, never mind a whole country so there's plenty of warning of drops in wind.

    And any drop in wind is more than covered by the requirement to provide backup of the largest single generator on the grid.

    No drop in wind would come close to having a transformer outage at Moneypoint. And even that would be minor compared to the effect of a nuke tripping out and staying off line for days/months/years/forever as has happened many, many times. And the requirements of large inertia generators to provide frequency control in or around the main cities. ( Read the pdf :) ) And in the future adding more sensors and software will mean that the wind conditions at each farm and each turbine can be factored in to help predict what will happen downwind.

    On a grid designed to handle major generators going offline at the drop of a hat a predicted dip in renewables is easily handled.


  • #94
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Is this forum meant for debate or some kind of Eamon Ryan fanpage??
    Ahem. Let's try to keep this civilised and not resort to low brow comments like this one. That goes for everyone.


  • #95
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Far cheaper and more effective to put money into energy saving measures and or converting existing peat/coal stations to gas or sustaineable biomass(forestry/agri waste).
    No reason why we can’t do the above and invest in renewables - it’s not a zero-sum game.
    Birdnuts wrote: »
    The government dances to the wind industries tune in this country far too much and evidence from Germany and elsewhere strongly suggests wind is a rather ineffective and expensive way to reduce emmissions. Wind power needs far more back up too as it is totally non-dispatcheable at time of peak demand, so building ever more across the country, including areas like the midlands makes no sense at all.

    http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and
    Most of the assumptions in the paper on which that article is based are ridiculous:
    So what was inaccurate about Dr. Frank’s key assumptions? In his calculations, U.S. solar and wind power are one-third to one-half less productive than they actually were during 2008–13. His calculations assumed that solar power is little more productive on sunny afternoons than its annual average, even though its strong near-coincidence with peak loads is, as he agreed elsewhere, a major source of its value. He assumed solar and wind power capital costs are twice those documented in the 2012–13 U.S. mar­ket­place (and falling fast). Conversely, he assumed com­bined-cycle gas plants are twice as productive as they were in 2008–13, but did not count methane leakage (which offsets carbon savings) and gas-price volatility (which increases risk and hence cost). He assumed that new nuclear power has half its actual market price per MWh, a construc­tion time roughly half the world average over the past decade, and U.S. operating costs one-fifth what the Nuclear Energy Institute says was the average in 2012. With data like these, his conclusions weren’t surprising—just wrong.
    http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2014/09/03-sorry-wrong-numbers


  • #96
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    New research carrying out a statistical analysis of risk of nuclear accidents. Main findings:

    With the current model and in terms of dollar losses, there is a 50% chance that :
    (i) a Fukushima event (or larger) occurs in the next 50 years,
    (ii) a Chernobyl event (or larger) occurs in the next 27 years and
    (iii) a TMI event (or larger) occurs in the next 10 years.
    Further, smaller but still expensive (≥ 20 MM 2013 USD) incidents will occur with a frequency of about one per year.
    Finally, we find that the INES scale is inconsistent in terms of both damage and NAMS (radiation release) values. For the damage values to be consistent, the Fukushima disaster would need to be between an INES level of 10 and 11, rather than the maximum level of 7.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,729 ✭✭✭SeanW


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Gas has been used for far longer than oil has, but oil was still the preferred choice for automobiles because it’s liquid.
    There may have been good reason to embrace oil back in the day, but now its a case of inertia, any alternative having to face a "chicken and egg" scenario. But if we had to stop or dramatically reduce the use of oil for whatever reason, we could reengineer the national fleet of cars to use gas, many cars can be converted to LPG operation, there's a crowd that will offer to convert a car for €800. The main problem, again, is the chicken and egg scenario. The use of car gas is at artisan levels, in part or whole because there are not many LPG fuelling stations, so a gas powered car is not very useful, while every other street has a fuel station selling oil distillates.

    The point is that fundamentally gas is useful in transport (and the Sierra Club and T. Boone Pickens both advocate doing this extensively) - as well as electricity, home heating, cooking as well as a feedstock in some chemical processes - and to claim that the use of gas for any reason does not have an extreme opportunity cost (the foregone option to use it for something else) is something I consider to be both troubling and bizarre.
    You’re quick to dismiss advocates of renewable energy as “environmental lefties”,
    As I said, I see, and am challenging, what I consider to be a common viewpoint, shared by numerous individuals, groups and entities.
    but the reality is your own support for nuclear seems to be based on little more than personal beliefs.
    Granted, when I see a country with sod all natural resources going 90%+ non-fossil, I believe that's worth looking at. When I see a nuclear plant able to directly replace coal, I believe that's a good idea. Though as you claim these may be "little more than personal beliefs."

    Wasting gas on an industrial scale, making people pay 40cents a kilowatt hour for electricity and accepting the many other very severe downsides (international grid stability, industrial scale killing of birds and bats in windmills just to name a few) to using weather based non-hydro renewables may be the greatest thing since sliced bread. But such a view IMHO is much more open to a charge of being "personal beliefs."
    100% more expensive than the going rate is “not that bad”?!? Are you kidding? Why is it more expensive at all? You keep telling us nuclear is amazing, yet here we have a situation where the operators of a new facility have to be guaranteed twice the going rate, adjusted for inflation, to convince them to build the facility.
    At Hinkley C there are a few things going on:
    1. The 4.5p/kwh price is largely from fossil fuels. These are very cheap, especially coal, because any fool can stuff a load of coal into a boiler and sell power for relatively low rates.
    2. As the German and Danish experience is showing, low power costs, e.g. 4-5p/kwh have nothing to do with renewables. For someone who advocates copying the Germans and the Danes to complain about how expensive nuclear is, strikes me as being somewhat bizarre.
    3. Hinkley C will have to cover all it's own costs. When the UK gov announced the scheme years ago, it was made clear that the plant would have to cover ALL of its own costs, consturction, operation and decommissioning. I don't know if waste disposal was included in that, but I would speculate this is also included in an all-in price.
    4. Unlike fossil fuel generators, nuclear plant waste is solid, not gaseous, so it must be handled by the nuclear facility where as fossil fuel operators get to spew their wastes into the air.

      This is another factor making the costs of fossil fuels (the backbone of the UK wholesale rate) and nuclear very problematic - the cost of waste disposal is levelled onto the public with fossil fuels constituting a massive public risk and health subsidy, the same cost is internalised for nuclear.
    You keep citing Denmark and Germany as support for your argument that renewables are substantially more expensive to support than nuclear. Ignoring for a moment that retail prices for electricity are heavily influenced by factors other than wholesale prices,
    They're following the Green agenda, spending everyones money on windmills and solar panels. That's why their costs are comparable with Samoa, Niue, the Cook Islands and suchlike places.
    explain to me why the operators of a nuclear plant in the UK are being guaranteed twice the going rate for power produced at a time when subsidies for renewables are largely being phased out?
    This is fictional. So long as there is any kind of support or mandate for renewables, it will add cost. If there is for example a requirement to use X% renewables, then that amount will have to be used regardless of how much it costs or what affect it has on the proper functioning of the grid.

    So in theory the "subsidies" might be phased out (and I'm skeptical even of this) but if renewables are expensive and problematic the utilites have no choice but to pay for it and pass on the cost.
    Stop avoiding the question. Give me a coherent economic explanation of why it is necessary to provide such massive subsidies for nuclear, bearing in mind that you keep telling us it’s wonderfully cheap?
    You're comparing a 4p premium for Hinkley C to an absolutely stupid cost of subsidising renewables, and telling me MY plan calls for "massive subsidies?" Seriously?
    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Of course France doesn't need Gas.
    THANK YOU!!! :D;):D;):D:p
    The GWe of their Hydro is 40% that of nuclear.
    Which also explains why France is able to benefit from masses of oversupply of German import electricity, when, as I showed earlier, the same masses of dumped electricity have threatened to overpower and crash the grids of Germany's Eastern neighbors.

    By highlighting the use of hydropower in France and posting that piece from the head of the EdF about how France is benefitting from the same subsidies German imports that are imperiling Germany's other neighbors, you've shown the logical bankruptcy of your own argument.

    You can only benefit from even subsidised renewable power when you have, oh, say, 10% hydro. Like France. Otherwise its an extreme danger. By the way I have no idea where you got your 40% figure from, my chart shows 10.2% hydro and 76.6% nuclear for France in 2012. Where on Earth did you get 40% from?
    AND they have neighbours who will happily import and export to load balance. Yes they get 75% of power from nuclear but there is a whole continent underpinning it.
    France exports power to all of its neighbors except Germany.

    Oh and their grid is not too inflexible as a recent French law on night time illumination has shown. Nutshell, non-residential buildings are now required to turn off lights after the last worker leaves the building and shopfronts etc must have their lights off by 1AM.

    Traditionally, the challenge is the exact opposite - to keep power demand up during the night (and down during the day) so as to keep demand as even as possible throughout a 24h period. Yet the French, with all their horrible inflexible nuclear, expect turning off the lights at night to have a positive effect? What's going there?
    So if we had nuclear the central heating wouldn't have failed ??
    Never said that. But we did have to draw 8kwh from the grid and I'm sure we weren't the only ones.

    This happened at a time when the country was in a severe anti-cyclone.
    Excluding Renewables, Interconnectors and pumped storage, how much dispatchable generation do we have on this Island ?
    Don't know, don't massively care. Point is, when you introduce renewables, you have to cover wildly divergent cases:
    1. Minimal draw on the grid, massive production from windmills and solar panels (e.g. a breezy sunny day when everyone decides to go to the beach)
    2. Massive draw on the grid, no production or even a drain from windmills and solar panels. (E.g. Christmas Eve 2010)
    To be reliable and logically sound, your plan has to ensure that there will always be the ability to respond to both cases, preferably at sane costs and preferably also with a dramatically reduced CO2 footprint. As a bonus, such a plan should also avoid the many downsides associated with "green" power.


    An opinion piece from 2013 vs. fact that 15GW just dropped off the grid last month and didn't cause problems. For me evidence based wins every time.
    I've shown very clearly the damage being done both in Germany and its Eastern neighbors. You've just said "oh gee we survived the solar eclipse" :confused:
    The "instructions" come from the changes in the 50Hz mains frequency. No network control or connection needed. Simply reduce demand if freq slows down. http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/#all/frequency
    As for the cost , you can get microcontroller boards with ADC and USB posted to your door for €1.40. Buying in bulk is a lot cheaper
    So how to do you all the immersions and electric heaters in the country fitted with these things? How long could an end user expect their heater to be down for? Seconds? Minutes? Longer?
    I'm tired of posting links where nuclear plants have gone off line without warning for extended periods.
    Then don't bother because you're not proving anything. Power plants fail! Stop the presses! You might as well be highlighting that the sun rises in the East or that the sky is blue!
    djpbarry wrote: »
    What’s the difference between “green taxes” and “subsidies”? Are they not the same thing?
    So you admit that German and Danish electricity prices are for renewable subsidies?
    And aren’t they paying for the upfront capital costs of wind power, or “pylon sprawl” as you call it? So aren’t those three things essentially one thing? And don’t those costs essentially disappear once the generation capacity is installed?
    No they don't - these things will all have to be rebuilt in time. And each time, the money used may have to be borrowed at interest. You don't just spend X billion on renewables and energy grids, they have to be maintained and eventually replaced.
    New research carrying out a statistical analysis of risk of nuclear accidents. Main findings:

    With the current model and in terms of dollar losses, there is a 50% chance that :
    (i) a Fukushima event (or larger) occurs in the next 50 years,
    (ii) a Chernobyl event (or larger) occurs in the next 27 years and
    (iii) a TMI event (or larger) occurs in the next 10 years.
    Further, smaller but still expensive (≥ 20 MM 2013 USD) incidents will occur with a frequency of about one per year.
    That's a little bizarre, considering that Chernobyl was a far worse event than Fukushima. Your research predicts a bad (or larger) accident occurs with in 50 years, but a catastrophic (or larger) occurs with 27 years? Where is the logic behind this?

    Remember that Chernobyl can be effectively discounted because the manner in which it was designed and run by the Soviet Union means that it really wasn't an "accident" at all, more like recklessness verging on intent. The way the Soviets ran their nuclear programme was the general equivalent of getting into car, off your head on drugs, and then proceeding to run every red light for a hundred miles. It's some claim to believe this is likely to happen again within 27 years, when it's already been more than that since 1986 and Fukushima was the closest thing to a repeat and it was nowhere in the same league.
    Fukushima was built in the 1960s and was even older than Chernobyl.
    TMI showed that even semi-modern Western style safety systems work - the reactor melted down at least in part but there was no need for any permanent evacuation.


  • #98
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    But if we had to stop or dramatically reduce the use of oil for whatever reason, we could reengineer the national fleet of cars to use gas, many cars can be converted to LPG operation,
    ...
    The main problem, again, is the chicken and egg scenario. The use of car gas is at artisan levels, in part or whole because there are not many LPG fuelling stations, so a gas powered car is not very useful, while every other street has a fuel station selling oil distillates.
    LPG, like diesel is an oil distillate. And like diesel it's price is determined by demand and tax. LNG, Petrol and diesel can to some extent be cracked/re-formed to each other in a refinery. All are variations on (CH2)n , the differences in CO2 emissions are determined more by the engine cycle otto/atkinson/diesel/ccgt than the fuel itself.

    Natural gas, is a totally different beast, not easily liquifyable and having much lower emissions as it's CH4
    Granted, when I see a country with sod all natural resources going 90%+ non-fossil, I believe that's worth looking at. When I see a nuclear plant able to directly replace coal, I believe that's a good idea. Though as you claim these may be "little more than personal beliefs."
    Renewables here have replaced Oil for power generation. And produce more than coal.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_St._Vrain_Generating_Station This was a nuclear power station. It was converted to gas in 1989. And it used thorium. It pretty much sums up all the "new nuclear technology" / "only because gas is cheap today" arguments.

    Wasting gas on an industrial scale, making people pay 40cents a kilowatt hour for electricity and accepting the many other very severe downsides (international grid stability, industrial scale killing of birds and bats in windmills just to name a few) to using weather based non-hydro renewables may be the greatest thing since sliced bread. But such a view IMHO is much more open to a charge of being "personal beliefs."
    wtf?
    We pay 20c here.
    At Hinkley C there are a few things going on:
    I hope they include making sure they get the carbon content right in the reactor shield, and that prevent cost overruns.
    [*]Hinkley C will have to cover all it's own costs. When the UK gov announced the scheme years ago, it was made clear that the plant would have to cover ALL of its own costs, consturction, operation and decommissioning. I don't know if waste disposal was included in that, but I would speculate this is also included in an all-in price.
    I've asked you before to guestimate the subsidy to the nearest €10Bn

    Hinkley C will be getting 170m a year in grid support. AFAIK clean up costs are not included (£100Bn + for calder hall/windscale/sellafield/whatever they'll call that site next) the costs don't include grid upgrades or carraige fees, and the electricity price is garanteed for 35 years , not only guaranteed but indexed linked , and one of the inputs in the CPI is the cost of electricity. The UK still doesn't have a long term storage repository and as we all know the enviromental regs will only get more stringent in future.



    Also I see that you are finally begining to understand that nuclear relies on having massive amounts of other dispatchable generators connected to prop it up since it can't load balance,

    compare the Average French demand with the Installed Hydro. And then remember that they import/export to the UK , Germany , Belgium , Spain and Italy.


  • #99
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    The 4.5p/kwh price is largely from fossil fuels. These are very cheap, especially coal, because any fool can stuff a load of coal into a boiler and sell power for relatively low rates.
    As the German and Danish experience is showing, low power costs, e.g. 4-5p/kwh have nothing to do with renewables.
    4-5p/kWh has nothing to do with Denmark or Germany? Why do you continue to insist on comparing apples and oranges?

    You’re also clearly unaware that investors are being scared aware from the German electricity market because wholesale prices are getting so low:
    http://www.dw.de/german-power-giant-rwes-profits-shrink/a-18305030
    SeanW wrote: »
    Hinkley C will have to cover all it's own costs.
    Source?
    SeanW wrote: »
    This is fictional. So long as there is any kind of support or mandate for renewables, it will add cost. If there is for example a requirement to use X% renewables, then that amount will have to be used regardless of how much it costs or what affect it has on the proper functioning of the grid.
    Sources?
    SeanW wrote: »
    So in theory the "subsidies" might be phased out (and I'm skeptical even of this) but if renewables are expensive and problematic the utilites have no choice but to pay for it and pass on the cost.
    Source?
    SeanW wrote: »
    You're comparing a 4p premium for Hinkley C to an absolutely stupid cost of subsidising renewables…
    Source?

    I’m tired of going around in circles. Start producing some solid figures to back up your arguments - pretty much everything you’ve stated above is an assumption.


  • #100
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    Don't know, don't massively care. Point is, when you introduce renewables, you have to cover wildly divergent cases:
    1. Minimal draw on the grid, massive production from windmills and solar panels (e.g. a breezy sunny day when everyone decides to go to the beach)
    2. Massive draw on the grid, no production or even a drain from windmills and solar panels. (E.g. Christmas Eve 2010)
    Peak demand on the grid was two years earlier. A complete non issue as a drop in wind is predictable days out. Reactors in Japan shutdown on the first tremor ie, no warning.


    So how to do you all the immersions and electric heaters in the country fitted with these things? How long could an end user expect their heater to be down for? Seconds? Minutes? Longer?
    Did you see any of my posts about the grid having to respond within 5 seconds to power fluctuations ? , even minutes isn't an issue. And the benefit is that people with these devices would get cheaper leccy.


    Then don't bother because you're not proving anything. Power plants fail! Stop the presses! You might as well be highlighting that the sun rises in the East or that the sky is blue!
    But nuclear fails are faster, harder and longer.
    No they don't - these things will all have to be rebuilt in time. And each time, the money used may have to be borrowed at interest. You don't just spend X billion on renewables and energy grids, they have to be maintained and eventually replaced.
    Been done to death. Cost of refurbing wind turbines at 20 years to extend their life by another 20 years is about 15% of the original cost.
    That's a little bizarre, considering that Chernobyl was a far worse event than Fukushima. Your research predicts a bad (or larger) accident occurs with in 50 years, but a catastrophic (or larger) occurs with 27 years? Where is the logic behind this?
    50:50 says jellyfish will take a plant off line this summer :p

    Logic and nuclear in the same sentence :confused:

    http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303982504576425312941820794
    In 1967, Tepco chopped 25 meters off the 35-meter natural seawall where the reactors were to be located, according to documents filed at the time with Japanese authorities.

    Look into the history of nuclear and there are many , many examples of design and construction problems that are as a result of cost and corner cutting. Find out just how many have had to be taken offline for them. Genius stuff like building earthquake shields the wrong way around. Actually just look at how many are built on top of nuclear fault lines, and not just in Japan ? Most coastal plants will be affected by global warming too.

    The fact that people can make predictions on nuclear incidents shows just how common they are.


  • #101
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    GB now has 7.5GW of solar
    "As in markets like Germany, France and Italy, PV developers and installers in the U.K. try to demonstrate how fast they can build large PV plants, once the paperwork has cleared,” said senior analyst for solar power at IHS, Josefin Berg. "In fact, some of these projects received their permits as late as early February of this year."


    http://focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201504270010.aspx
    Taipei, April 27 (CNA) One of the two reactors at Taiwan's third nuclear power plant was shut down early Monday after a fire broke out in the plant's non-nuclear zone, Taiwan Power Company (Taipower) said.

    ...
    At present, only three of the six nuclear reactors at the three nuclear power plants are in operation.

    The No. 1 reactor at the first nuclear power plant has been out of service since Dec. 28 due to a component failure, while the No. 1 reactor at the second nuclear power plant has been shut down since April 24 for routine maintenance


    Other unplanned outages in April
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-nrc-inpects-calvert-cliffs-20150413-story.html
    http://triblive.com/business/headlines/8179437-74/pump-power-shut
    http://www.timesherald.com/general-news/20150415/limerick-nuclear-reactor-shutdown-starts-with-a-hiccup
    http://www.yournuclearnews.com/xcel+energy+%3A++operators+safely+shut+down+unit+2+at+prairie+island+nuclear+plant_114673.html
    http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150416000837


    also A shutdown at New Brunswick’s Point Lepreau nuclear generating station was extended to allow for more repairs.
    http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1335296/point-lepreau-shutdown-extended-for-work/ http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/media/media_release/2015/04-21-15-EN_PLNGSUpdate.html



    http://plymouth.wickedlocal.com/article/20150305/NEWS/150309065
    Pilgrim was no sooner coming back online when winter storm Neptune hit on Valentine’s Day. This time, Entergy shut down Pilgrim as a “precautionary” measure – an explicit acknowledgement that public safety would be at risk if there was another emergency at Pilgrim. Pilgrim was offline for three days, taking an additional five days during restart to reach full power. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) spokesman Neil Sheehan reported that during the restart Entergy was “working through some non-safety related, balance-of-plant equipment problems. These are new issues and not problems from the 1/27 storm. Such issues are not unusual following two shutdowns and start-ups in a short period of time.”
    "taking an additional five days during restart to reach full power." :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,729 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    GB now has 7.5GW of solar
    Great. Vast quantities of money spent on power plants that produce power when its least needed - summer days. It might be different if we had a large demand for air conditioning, but the American and Spanish experience suggests that even this is questionable.
    Other unplanned outages in April
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-nrc-inpects-calvert-cliffs-20150413-story.html
    http://triblive.com/business/headlines/8179437-74/pump-power-shut
    http://www.timesherald.com/general-news/20150415/limerick-nuclear-reactor-shutdown-starts-with-a-hiccup
    http://www.yournuclearnews.com/xcel+energy+%3A++operators+safely+shut+down+unit+2+at+prairie+island+nuclear+plant_114673.html
    http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150416000837


    also A shutdown at New Brunswick’s Point Lepreau nuclear generating station was extended to allow for more repairs.
    http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1335296/point-lepreau-shutdown-extended-for-work/ http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/media/media_release/2015/04-21-15-EN_PLNGSUpdate.html



    http://plymouth.wickedlocal.com/article/20150305/NEWS/150309065"taking an additional five days during restart to reach full power." :eek:
    Power plants in large countries fail! Stop the presses!
    You’re also clearly unaware that investors are being scared aware from the German electricity market because wholesale prices are getting so low:
    http://www.dw.de/german-power-giant-rwes-profits-shrink/a-18305030
    Oh I am well aware of it. I am also aware of what are by now logic defying contradictions permeating your shared positions, between each other, between yourselves and other environmentalists, and the facts, like water through a strainer.

    Yes, having wholesale prices that are violently unstable and can plummet as low as -€100MW per kwh (that's right you generate power and have to pay €100 a kilowatt hour to get it taken off your hands). That kind of thing does indeed tend to scare power plant builders away, and I am fully aware that this could be a real phenomenon and the harm it could do.

    Contradiction 1:
    But wait a second: hasn't Capt'nMidnight spent this entire thread reassuring us all that installed thermal plant will never be a problem? That there will always be a market for renewables backup and there will never be a shortage of installed traditional plant? That if we ever again have a crisis like Xmas 2010 we can all put on our electric radiators and other electric heaters and not have to worry about being bankrupted or crashing the grid?

    How will that be if we take everyone's money in subsidies for counterproductive renewables and leave no business case for traditional plant, who might spend more time paying grid managers to waste their power than helping in such a crisis?

    Contradicition 2:
    And why are you quoting the wholesale price in Germany when it has nothing whatsoever to do with what people pay on their electricity bills? Actually, it has a negative relationship: People are paying stupid levels of money in renewables subsidies so that the government can foul up the wholesale market.
    compare the Average French demand with the Installed Hydro. And then remember that they import/export to the UK , Germany , Belgium , Spain and Italy.
    Ah yes, France.
    Contradiction 3:

    I keep being told by the Captain that France requires the co-operation of the rest of the continent. In particular, I've been told that France relies on the rest of the continent taking its night time surplus. If so, then why did France just place restrictive laws on night time lighting? Surely if France had the traditional utility problems of night time - keeeping demand high so as to avoid a fall-off in demand requring too much output reduction from the baseline, then such a law would have been deeply counter-productive and totally ill-advised. What's going on? I'm being told one thing here, but the French legislature is saying the exact opposite! BTW, Captn'Midnight has yet to explain the 40% figure for French hydro. What on Earth is going on over in the Fifth Republic? Your posts on this matter - were they to be taken seriously - would confuse any rational person confronted with the facts.

    Contradiction 4:
    The oppportunity cost of gas. I keep being told that my assertions about the opportunity cost of using gas for power are not based in reality, that it isn't really useful for much other than "energy." Leaving aside that I consider this to be absurd to the point of incredibility, considering how varied our energy needs are and how large the problem is, this claim is in direct contradiction to the Sierra Club who agree with T. Boone Pickens that gas (whether CNG or LNG or LPG or whatever) would be better used in transport than in power plants. Again, what the Hell is going on?
    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    LPG, like diesel is an oil distillate. And like diesel it's price is determined by demand and tax.
    Contradiction 5:
    Then how come Wikipedia says the exact opposite?
    According to 2010–12 estimates, proven world reserves of natural gas, from which most LPG is derived, stand at 300 trillion cubic meters (10,600 trillion cubic feet). Added to the LPG derived from cracking crude oil, this amounts to a major energy source that is virtually untapped and has massive potential.
    Natural gas, is a totally different beast, not easily liquifyable and having much lower emissions as it's CH4
    Well I've just seen evidence to the contrary regarding the liquidification of gas, plus there is also the option of compressing natural gas to make CNG.
    Hinkley C will be getting 170m a year in grid support. AFAIK clean up costs are not included
    My understanding, from the press reports at the time the policy was first announed, was that the government intended the operator to pay for decommissioning, in what would be a deviation from previous practice. Though that was a long time ago, my understanding may be out of date on that specific point.
    Also I see that you are finally begining to understand that nuclear relies on having massive amounts of other dispatchable generators connected to prop it up since it can't load balance,
    No, I don't. Your claims on this have been shown to be logically inconsistent with the facts on a number of key points, like the 40% hydroelectricity in France that doesn't exist, and the 2013 French lighting law, all of which point to a reeality of a grid much more flexible than you would have us believe.

    I really have to ask, has anyone thought about all of this in any meaningful way?


  • #103
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    some of June's crop of unreliable Nuclear power

    Japan restart delayed - but delays are normal for nuclear
    http://www.powermag.com/restart-of-sendai-nuclear-plant-delayed-to-august/

    UK military snafu
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-33051905

    RED WING, Minn. – Operators have safely shut down Unit 2 of the Prairie Island nuclear power plant near Red Wing.
    http://www.startribune.com/operators-shut-down-unit-2-at-prairie-island-nuclear-plant/306431281/

    Hunterston nuclear reactor offline due to seaweed level - Jellyfish are late this year
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-32970794


    Slovenia's only nuclear plant Krsko said today it has initiated a preventive shutdown over technical problems in the system for monitoring the temperature.
    http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/technical-problem-shuts-down-solvenian-nuclear-plant-768695

    Digging here would list more
    http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2015/


    http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/update/2015-06-10/union-raises-fears-over-essex-nuclear-plant/
    "The idea that a Chinese state company will be given a site in the UK, not far from London, where they can use Chinese labour to construct a reactor to be made in China and using Chinese components would in our view constitute economic madness and raises serious safety issues."


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11662889/Faulty-valves-in-new-generation-EPR-nuclear-reactor-pose-meltdown-risk-inspectors-warn.html
    France’s nuclear safety watchdog found “multiple” malfunctioning valves in the Flamanville EPR that could cause its meltdown,


    http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/new-brunswick-s-point-lepreau-nuclear-plant-operating-at-reduced-power-1.2412566
    POINT LEPREAU, N.B. -- New Brunswick's Point Lepreau nuclear plant is operating a reduced power after testing confirmed repairs are needed to reheater components.


    we keep hearing that new generation reactors are better
    http://sandiegofreepress.org/2015/06/nuclear-shutdown-news-may-2015-fire-at-indian-point-plant-in-ny-and-is-it-the-end-for-diablo-canyon/
    “The transformer was supposed to last 40 years. It was 8 years old when it failed.”

    who'd have guessed it ? another (predictable) cost overrun
    http://www.independentmail.com/news/northeast-georgia/southern-co-casts-blame-at-builders-for-nuclear-plant-delay
    Georgia Power, which owns a 46 percent stake in the project, has seen its share of construction costs rise from roughly $6.1 billion to $7.5 billion, according to the company's latest filings. Analysts working for the state's Public Service Commission expect the costs will creep to $8.2 billion or more.
    ...
    Under state law, Georgia Power can charge its customers for the price of the plant unless the state's elected utility regulators block those costs, forcing losses onto shareholders.




    In other news - this dispatchable biomass plant will mean another 1% of our electricity will come from renewables
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0607/706493-biomass-plant-mayo/

    and this could improve efficiency of all thermal plants , including nuclear by a few %
    http://www.gizmag.com/graphene-coated-condensers-power-plant-efficiency/37804/

    More competitors - note this will cost more than nuclear because they are starting the learning curve, and nuclear has hundreds of reactors and 70 years of military subsidies to bring costs down
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-33053003
    The building of a £1bn tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay has been given the go-ahead by the UK government.
    Tidal Lagoon Power (TLP) says it will now negotiate how much subsidy will be paid for the energy.


  • #104
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    The TLP one will be interesting - the projected cost has already gone up significantly since it was first mooted - there is also the possible issue of silting and dredging costs inside the lagoons - and while the power produced is totally predictable - and to some extant dispatch can be delayed - it can't be entirely synced to demand .
    But if the system works there could be vast potential in it -

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #105
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-33053003

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #106
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,729 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    some of June's crop of unreliable Nuclear power

    ...

    UK military snafu
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-33051905
    Yes, because military nuclear installations working with submarines submarines are comparable with civilian reactors for energy production. Your list also included transformer failures, which if my basic engineering is accurate, is something that can happen not only in other power plant types, but indeed anywhere in the electricity distribution system.
    More competitors - note this will cost more than nuclear because they are starting the learning curve, and nuclear has hundreds of reactors and 70 years of military subsidies to bring costs down
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-33053003
    The building of a £1bn tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay has been given the go-ahead by the UK government.
    Tidal Lagoon Power (TLP) says it will now negotiate how much subsidy will be paid for the energy.
    I can think of another reason why it requires subsidies, it's huge! It will require pouring gigatonnes of concrete into the sea, and there are other environmental effects to consider, such as the effect it will have on aquatic life. It will be somewhat controllable though, or at least produce according to some kind of pattern, which does make it 1,000,000 times better than wind or solar.

    In any case, I can see you've decided on a strategy for dealing with the issues I raised in my previous post :rolleyes:

    Would you be so kind as to address the 5 glaring holes in your arguments that I outlined in the post above yours? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95312812&postcount=102


  • #107
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    Would you be so kind as to address the 5 glaring holes in your arguments that I outlined in the post above yours?
    Ahem.


  • #108
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    Yes, because military nuclear installations working with submarines submarines are comparable with civilian reactors for energy production.
    The key differences are that the military aren't under the same cost pressures. For example they've been using small compact reactors since 1955 of the sort that still haven't been commercialised.

    Your list also included transformer failures, which if my basic engineering is accurate, is something that can happen not only in other power plant types, but indeed anywhere in the electricity distribution system.
    yes, but it doesn't. Nuclear power plants only supply 11% of the global electricity but seem to be responsible for a disproportionate number of failures. Fossil Fuel and Hydro plants of similar sizes don't seem to fail as often. There's also the added gotcha where some plants rely on the transformer to provide cooling power. One reactor in Japan lost all local backups and 4 out of 5 grid links.

    I can think of another reason why it requires subsidies, it's huge! It will require pouring gigatonnes of concrete into the sea, and there are other environmental effects to consider, such as the effect it will have on aquatic life.
    Globally those effects would be less than climate change. Concrete is relatively inert. And given the cost it's not going to be anything close to "gigatonnes". you can compare the cost to the $20Bn Japan spent on reprocessing/breeders to get one hour of grid generation. Or the cost increases in the EPR reactors that are currently being delayed.

    Let's not forget that every nuclear power station that's not completed produces a lot of carbon dioxide, and there are lots of them. Proper nuclear economics must take into account the % of construction failures and fixes from all causes.

    And of course Nuclear has been getting subsidies from the Military since the 1940's, and fossil fuel is worse.
    It will be somewhat controllable though, or at least produce according to some kind of pattern, which does make it 1,000,000 times better than wind or solar.
    Or nuclear which just isn't reliable. Tidal means lots of redundancy you only loose some power if a turbine fails. Nuclear can be all or nothing. And the nothing can last for years.


  • #109
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    Contradiction 1:
    But wait a second: hasn't Capt'nMidnight spent this entire thread reassuring us all that installed thermal plant will never be a problem? That there will always be a market for renewables backup and there will never be a shortage of installed traditional plant? That if we ever again have a crisis like Xmas 2010 we can all put on our electric radiators and other electric heaters and not have to worry about being bankrupted or crashing the grid?
    Please stop spreading FUD

    peak demand was 5,080MW
    please let our readers know what you think our installed capacity was then or admit you are just scaremongering.

    I think I see where your confusion lies. It would take over a decade to build nuclear plant so by the time you realise you need extra power it's too late. Gas plants could be built in a few years, if we didn't already have more than enough.

    BTW if we had nuclear plant we'd have needed running reserve of at least one full nuclear plant over and above.

    Contradicition 2:
    And why are you quoting the wholesale price in Germany when it has nothing whatsoever to do with what people pay on their electricity bills? Actually, it has a negative relationship: People are paying stupid levels of money in renewables subsidies so that the government can foul up the wholesale market.
    Been done to death.
    It would be nice if electric companies passed on the the wholesale rate to customers. Doesn't happen anywhere , quit pretending it does.



    Contradiction 3:
    Captn'Midnight has yet to explain the 40% figure for French hydro.
    I'll repost the link from the original post again - you may have been confused because it came from world-nuclear.org
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/
    Generating capacity for Hydro is 25.4 GWe hydro which is 40.2% of Nuclear's 63.2 GWe generating capacity.





    Contradiction 4:
    The oppportunity cost of gas.
    Remind us what % of vehicles on the road use Natural gas ?
    Perhaps you are getting confused with LPG which a very different animal and is easily converted to a liquid.

    LNG can't be compressed to a liquid above it's supercritical temp of -82.6c
    it's physics



    Contradiction 5:
    Then how come Wikipedia says the exact opposite?
    Again I refere you to the difference between LPG and LNG.

    No, I don't. Your claims on this have been shown to be logically inconsistent with the facts on a number of key points, like the 40% hydroelectricity in France that doesn't exist, and the 2013 French lighting law, all of which point to a reeality of a grid much more flexible than you would have us believe.

    I really have to ask, has anyone thought about all of this in any meaningful way?
    I keep pointing out that our grid has a response time in seconds. If there are any nuclear plants that can react that quickly , especially after Xenon poisoning please let us know.

    Remind us of what % of peak demand the lighting law applies to ?


  • #110
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,729 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Please stop spreading FUD

    peak demand was 5,080MW
    please let our readers know what you think our installed capacity was then or admit you are just scaremongering.
    I don't care what installed capacity was then because it was clearly adequate. My question relates to the future.

    Djpbarry made the argument that builders of traditional thermal plants were running scared from Germany because the "wholesale price" was so "low." Ignoring of course that the German market is so fubarred with green subsidies that it's a worthless guide to costs, and that the "wholesale price" is violently unstable and goes deep into negative values. And that it costs industry a fortune in damage to industrial processes and UPS/APC type mitigating soluitions.

    But you want to spend everyone's money on windmills and solar panels that we know mainly produce power when it's least needed and will all be worse than useless in an anti-cyclone that would see a surge in demand.

    Say, 20 years down the line, can you guarantee that there will be plenty of backup plant to deal with a crisis like Christmas 2010? If so, by what means do you suggest such a guarantee would be in place?
    Been done to death.
    It would be nice if electric companies passed on the the wholesale rate to customers. Doesn't happen anywhere , quit pretending it does.
    :D You're seriously telling me that the fact that Germany and Denmark have the most expensive electricity in Europe and both are in the Top 10 globally has nothing to do with thousands of green tax schemes and is only because of horrible evil greedy power companies keeping all the money ...

    Electricity-prices-europe.jpg

    Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. :D
    Remind us what % of vehicles on the road use Natural gas ?
    Gas (of any mixture) is not used on the road in any great volume because it has last movers disadvantage. In fact I think that with the stupid levels of regulation on oil based cars these days, any kind of gas would offer not only cheaper fuel, but similar savings again on maintenance on modern cars. Not to mention environmental benefits for everyone.

    But it's a chicken and egg scenario in terms of fuel supply stations and the like. I maintain that wasting gas in power plants is just that - waste.
    Again I refere you to the difference between LPG and LNG.
    LPG, natural gas etc are made of similar kinds of stuff and LPG type fuels are often created as the by-product of both natural gas and oil production.

    It's not just Wikipedia that says LPG is closely related to natural gas, I have other sources:
    http://www.explainthatstuff.com/lpg.html
    About two thirds of the LPG people use is extracted directly from the Earth in the same way as ordinary natural gas. The rest is manufactured indirectly from petroleum (crude oil) drilled from the Earth in wells in the usual way.

    http://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/about-energy/what-is-lpg.html
    LPG is produced during oil refining or is extracted during the natural gas production process. If you release LPG, gas is emitted.
    Though I will grant you that if you read my second link, you will find that LPG is somewhat more tightly defined than natural gas (which can comprise of a somewhat wider variety of substances).
    I keep pointing out that our grid has a response time in seconds. If there are any nuclear plants that can react that quickly , especially after Xenon poisoning please let us know.
    I could say the same about every other plant type - again thank you for proving my point. Only a certain type of gas plant can respond to sudden failures elsewhere. By the same token, if Moneypoint suddenly failed, how fast could you make the wind blow harder over the windmills or the sun shine more over the solar panels? How fast could you ramp up another coal-fired power plant? Seconds? Didn't think so.

    BTW I'm not suggesting building an EPR or similar in Ireland, at least not without multiple links to the UK and a single energy market between both islands.
    Remind us of what % of peak demand the lighting law applies to ?
    None - which is exactly my point. Earlier you claimed that France's nuclear programme only works because the rest of the continent takes its night time surplus. If that's true, then why did they just enact night time lighting laws that would make that troublesome surplus even larger than it already is? Is the system more flexible than you'd have us believe?


  • #111
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    I don't care what installed capacity was then because it was clearly adequate. My question relates to the future.
    TBH I didn't look it up because I know you would ignore the truth.


    Say, 20 years down the line, can you guarantee that there will be plenty of backup plant to deal with a crisis like Christmas 2010? If so, by what means do you suggest such a guarantee would be in place?
    Seriously just go away and read Eirgrids documents on that.


    Gas (of any mixture) is not used on the road in any great volume because it has last movers disadvantage.
    You are still missing the point. NATURAL gas is a very different animal to LPG. LPG gets used when the price is right as evidenced by many taxi's back in the day.

    Natural gas is more akin to hydrogen in the difficulty of storing the stuff. Hydrogen cars have been around since 1807. Not a typo. It even had electric ignition. Over 200 years later the aren't used because gases which have a low critical temperature aren't easy to store.


    By the same token, if Moneypoint suddenly failed, how fast could you make the wind blow harder over the windmills or the sun shine more over the solar panels? How fast could you ramp up another coal-fired power plant? Seconds? Didn't think so.
    Seriously just go away and read Eirgrids documents on that.

    If a generator in Moneypoint failed they have to restore 75% of the power within 5 seconds. And 100% of the power within 90 seconds.

    Again a reminder these times aren't minutes or hours. They are in seconds. Nuclear power just couldn't respond. In fact the nuclear model of all your eggs in one basket means that spinning reserve in the UK will be sized on the Hinkley C plant, but the cost will have to be borne by all generators.


    Asking for wind or sunshine on demand is like asking for a nuclear reactor's unplanned outage to magically fix itself. Except of course you can usually forecast wind. Nuclear outages can happen suddenly and last for years. This is why both renewables and nuclear need to be backed up by rapidly despatchable sources like hydro or gas. Except of course that renewables don't need 35 years of subsidies.




    BTW I'm not suggesting building an EPR or similar in Ireland, at least not without multiple links to the UK and a single energy market between both islands.
    Of course not, no one has built an EPR yet, nevermind on time or on budget. And the constant drip drip of bad news from the construction doesn't inspire confidence.
    None - which is exactly my point. Earlier you claimed that France's nuclear programme only works because the rest of the continent takes its night time surplus. If that's true, then why did they just enact night time lighting laws that would make that troublesome surplus even larger than it already is? Is the system more flexible than you'd have us believe?
    I'd say there's a bit of Greenwashing in the mix.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    _Tombstone_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,006 ✭✭✭_Tombstone_


    The Way Humans Get Electricity Is About to Change Forever


  • #113
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    _Tombstone_ wrote: »
    The Way Humans Get Electricity Is About to Change Forever

    Oh great " the climate is still screwed" .

    I wonder does that article take any account of electric cars ? And battery technology - ( if domestic rooftop solar is the big thing - and your electric car is at your work place all day - it'll need charging by night - which could come from the grid I know , )

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #114
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,627 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    _Tombstone_ wrote: »
    The Way Humans Get Electricity Is About to Change Forever

    I'd be very wary of such predictions. Most have fallen flat on there face like the one about $200 oil by 2010.


  • #115
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    I'd be very wary of such predictions. Most have fallen flat on there face like the one about $200 oil by 2010.

    I thought the 2010 predictions were for ( horror) $100 a barrel - which got upped pretty quick when oil hit $100.
    Still you'd still want to be wary of predictions - as well as their funding -

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #116
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,661 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    Your list also included transformer failures, which if my basic engineering is accurate, is something that can happen not only in other power plant types, but indeed anywhere in the electricity distribution system.
    One problem with nuclear is that there are so many safety systems in place that reactors can be very easily tripped by things that wouldn't phase other plants.

    Like when Homer Simpson pushes the wrong button or doesn't know what the button does because he hasn't ready the manual. Turning a small easily manageable problem into a big one is a nuclear staple.

    http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/indian-point/2015/06/16/indian-point-reactor-shut/28797213/
    The shutdown occurred at 7:20 p.m., after Consolidated Edison asked Indian Point operators to open an electrical breaker so that workers could safely remove a large Mylar balloon that got tangled in wires leading to the Millwood substation south of the plant.

    Soon after that breaker was opened, a second breaker opened, resulting an an automatic shutdown of the reactor, according to Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ...
    Indian Point supplies about 25 percent of the power used by Westchester County and New York City.


Advertisement