Where will the electricity come from?

[danielnez1]

EPR is a disaster.

AP1000 and ESBWR are where the future is, combined with a fast fission reactor. (Which they already have in commercial service in Russia).

Granite as fuel.

I'd like to see a return to Gas cooled reactors, fiascos and AGR design flaws aside they do offer some good safety advantages particularly in the event of loss of coolant incidents.

 

[merlodlliw]

As an employee of the power industry - I can safely tell you that in the grand scheme of the National Grid - trains only use a tiny amount of electricity compared with other areas of industry or residential use.

The only problem that could be caused with electrification is local grid power transmission (where the connecting power supply comes from a local power company and not straight off the super grid). However even this is easily fixed by installing being transformers (sub-stations).

National Rail have a Electrical Control Office in certain areas which manage power consumption across its networks but TBH it doesen't even register on National Grid countrol systems even when close to capacity.

You may know the answer to this, I was told when Anglesey Aluminium was running a few years back, it consumed more power than all the electric trains
including 3rd rail;in an area from the Midlands to Glasgow & Edinburgh & was National Grids biggest customer. Off topic I know

 

[LexyBoy]

You may know the answer to this, I was told when Anglesey Aluminium was running a few years back, it consumed more power than all the electric trains
including 3rd rail;in an area from the Midlands to Glasgow & Edinburgh & was National Grids biggest customer. Off topic I know

And this is why aluminium is produced almost exclusively where electricity is cheap - usually hydro, in some cases with dams built exclusively for the aluminium smelters.

It takes ~15 MWh to produce 1 tonne of aluminium. The maximum power output of a Pendolino is 5.1 MW, so a Pendo could operate at full power for three hours and only use as much electricity as producing 1 tonne of aluminium (a cube of ~70 cm on a side). In reality I'd think the average power consumption would be much lower, especially taking into account regenerative braking - and most electric trains are commuter units which use much less power as well.

 

[WatcherZero]

Drax is one of the cleanest coal power stations in the world, and also one of the most efficent as it can burn the stuff that nowhere else can thanks to it's FGD systems (Flue Gas Desuphurisation) it can burn waste products from the petrochemical industry in it's oil injectors and higher sulphur content woods within the pulverised coal mixture (It burns wood and coal) meaning that it's using waste products in the boilers, FGD also means being able to use lower quality coal and still be well within the SOx output requirements.

The company behind Drax has cut the number of power stations it will convert to use bio pellets alongside coal from 6 to 3 because of the cut in subsidies.

 

[142094]

Drax were also looking at growing some biomass on the land they own, along with some wind turbines. Every little helps I suppose.

 

[merlodlliw]

Drax were also looking at growing some biomass on the land they own, along with some wind turbines. Every little helps I suppose.

So are a lot of Company's, but it takes years to grow softwood, broad leaf takes longer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The company behind Drax has cut the number of power stations it will convert to use bio pellets alongside coal from 6 to 3 because of the cut in subsidies.

and we have unlimited supplies of coal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And this is why aluminium is produced almost exclusively where electricity is cheap - usually hydro, in some cases with dams built exclusively for the aluminium smelters.

It takes ~15 MWh to produce 1 tonne of aluminium. The maximum power output of a Pendolino is 5.1 MW, so a Pendo could operate at full power for three hours and only use as much electricity as producing 1 tonne of aluminium (a cube of ~70 cm on a side). In reality I'd think the average power consumption would be much lower, especially taking into account regenerative braking - and most electric trains are commuter units which use much less power as well.

Thanks for the chapter & Verse interesting,Anglesey Al shut down due to the loss of cheap elec from next door at Wylfa,.

 

[142094]

So are a lot of Company's, but it takes years to grow softwood, broad leaf takes longer.

Wasn't wood that they were going for, it was miscanthus. Only problem they have with biomass is the fact it spontaneously combusts from time to time in their holding area.

 

[ex-railwayman]

The thing is though, Cottam and West Burton power stations in Notts are run by EDF, who also operate eight nuclear power stations in the UK, so, they not only own their Electricity company they also run the plants that produce the electricity in the first place, and they've been exporting electricity to Belgium and Holland for the last 10 years, according to my mate who works for them in Bristol, don't worry we have that much electricity in the UK we sell it on the continent, getting HS1 won't make much difference, EDF wouldn't allow their market share to plummet, neither would any of the other major energy companies, NPower, EON, SWALEC, ScottishPower, Powergen, etc, etc, and there are lots of other newer companies that you can obtain your utilities from, Sainsburys, Virgin, Tesco, LloydsTSB, and I think the Co-Op is joining soon as well, to name a few.

Cheerz. ex-railwayman

 

[HSTEd]

Thanks for the chapter & Verse interesting,Anglesey Al shut down due to the loss of cheap elec from next door at Wylfa,.

Indeed, this was because Magnox Electric, which runs Wylfa, is publicly owned and provided reduced price electricity to Anglesey Aluminium to account for the fact they used electricity almost when the grid wants them to.

This fell foul of EU regs on state aid.

 

[WatcherZero]

Wasn't wood that they were going for, it was miscanthus. Only problem they have with biomass is the fact it spontaneously combusts from time to time in their holding area.

While its carbon neutral it doesnt burn as hot as coal so you can only burn about a third biomass to two thirds coal before you lose too much efficency. Which of course adds the cost of two different inputs and supply chains rather than simply storing coal.

 

[mailman]

Be interesting to see if electricity usage has fallen during the recession, with the inevitable cut backs and companies going under.

I have no doubt that energy use has dropped. However, the energy companies counter act this by raising their prices so in effect, even though we are using less we eventually still end up paying more!

But the original question is a very good one...where is all this extra energy going to come from? Windmills? mirrors? ground unicorn horn?

As long as the powers that be rely on responding to a non-existant problem (CATASTROPHIC Mann Made Global Warming (tm)) through the pointless expansion of windmill and mirror sites we are all eventually going to be screwed through increased prices!

God forbid we have another bitter winter!

Mailman

 

[142094]

While its carbon neutral it doesnt burn as hot as coal so you can only burn about a third biomass to two thirds coal before you lose too much efficency. Which of course adds the cost of two different inputs and supply chains rather than simply storing coal.

All the biomass that Drax burns is pelletised and fed into the same crushers as the coal, plus they've invested quite a lot of money into the storage of biomass, both at Drax itself and the port at Goole. Seems to work for them, and they've said they want to increase the use of biomass and related products.

 

[mailman]

Biomass is trees isnt it?

Mailman

 

[eastdyke]

Not just trees!

Latest financials etc. for Drax here:

http://goo.gl/3vT8I

 

[LexyBoy]

Indeed, this was because Magnox Electric, which runs Wylfa, is publicly owned and provided reduced price electricity to Anglesey Aluminium to account for the fact they used electricity almost when the grid wants them to.

This fell foul of EU regs on state aid.

*facepalm* This is exactly the sort of scheme which could help balance load on the network - which is being promoted on a smaller scale with "smart" appliances which try to use electricity when there's less demand.

Biomass is trees isnt it?

Could be trees, bamboo, algae, dolphins... anything which comes from non-fossil biological sources.

 

[John55]

SRD = Spinning Reserve Distribution.

To manage spikes in demand National Grid have to pay for powerstations to sit there generating electricty but not putting it out to the grid so it can be switched in at short notice, "Spinning Reserve". It costs a lot of money to have a power station running just in case it is needed so NG / Gov. have come up with SRD. SRD is also to supliment windfarm supplies when they are not generating to provide a reliable supply.

What SRD actually involves is lots of small generating sites that can be switched on and feeding MW's in to the grid in a matter of seconds "distributed" around the country at strategic locations. These are normally self contained shipping containers with a generator housed inside. These are located in all sorts of places such as distribution depot's, garden centres and adjacent to substations where spare land is cheap to rent by the generating company.

There are quite a few of these sites now and the numbers are set to increase and it may seem strange but are an integral part of the governments "green energy" plans even though they burn fossil fuels!

To be fair though, I think they are "greener" because they are only running when they are needed so not as bad as a whole power station running and not generating.

Hope that explains it a bit better.

Thanks

Fadge

The spinning reserve in a network is used to manage short term demand/supply fluctuations caused by equipment failure or unexpected demand changes (half time in a big football match!).

It isn't a way of generating more power for long term use. Given that traditionally in the UK the spinning reserve was equivalent to the biggest single machine (660MW out of 81750MW) supplying the national grid plus a bit you are talking about 1% of the available generating plant. Now increasing the efficiency of the network is fine but it will not contribute to overall output.

By definition spinning reserve needs to be spinning and synchronised to the grid so however you do it (coal, gas, hydro etc etc) there will be fuel being burned or used up to provide it.

 

[pablo]

Gas is the immediate future. Imported LNG will fill the energy gap. EoN just finished a triple gas fired CHP near here.

 

[mailman]

Not just trees!

BUT it is wood isnt it? I mean lets not kid ourselves here...what the freen lunitics are talking about is cutting trees down for firewood and nothing more.

To me thats just craziness of the highest order! It seems our green friends have no issues with killing off local bird life (windmills) or cutting trees down BUT heaven forbid we dig out that nasty black stuff or drill for gas!

To our green friends it seems that anything is ok, as long as it bankrupts us! :roll:

Mailman

 

[142094]

BUT it is wood isnt it? I mean lets not kid ourselves here...what the freen lunitics are talking about is cutting trees down for firewood and nothing more.

To me thats just craziness of the highest order! It seems our green friends have no issues with killing off local bird life (windmills) or cutting trees down BUT heaven forbid we dig out that nasty black stuff or drill for gas!

To our green friends it seems that anything is ok, as long as it bankrupts us! :roll:

Mailman

You need to go and do a bit more research about biomass. It isn't just wood, and even where wood is used, a lot of it is short rotation coppicing or waste products from trees that would be cut down anyway for the paper and timber industries.

 

[LE Greys]

BUT it is wood isnt it? I mean lets not kid ourselves here...what the freen lunitics are talking about is cutting trees down for firewood and nothing more.

To me thats just craziness of the highest order! It seems our green friends have no issues with killing off local bird life (windmills) or cutting trees down BUT heaven forbid we dig out that nasty black stuff or drill for gas!

To our green friends it seems that anything is ok, as long as it bankrupts us! :roll:

Mailman

As well as what the poster above has said, I can only add that there are big rows over wind farm sites within the environmental movement, not to mention the arguement over the Severn Barrage flooding the estuary and reducing inter-tidal habitat.

The spinning reserve in a network is used to manage short term demand/supply fluctuations caused by equipment failure or unexpected demand changes (half time in a big football match!).

It isn't a way of generating more power for long term use. Given that traditionally in the UK the spinning reserve was equivalent to the biggest single machine (660MW out of 81750MW) supplying the national grid plus a bit you are talking about 1% of the available generating plant. Now increasing the efficiency of the network is fine but it will not contribute to overall output.

By definition spinning reserve needs to be spinning and synchronised to the grid so however you do it (coal, gas, hydro etc etc) there will be fuel being burned or used up to provide it.

Something I discovered during research for a book is that pressurised water reactors can also be self-regulating. A ship or submarine might have to go from stationary to full power in a matter of a minute or so, suddenly increasing steam demand from just enough to turn the generators to full-on flank speed. This makes the temperature in the reactor drop, which increases the neutron flux and speeds up the reaction. The reverse happens if steam demand suddenly falls. Not sure if that works with power reactors, but I should think it's possible.

 

[HSTEd]

Something I discovered during research for a book is that pressurised water reactors can also be self-regulating. A ship or submarine might have to go from stationary to full power in a matter of a minute or so, suddenly increasing steam demand from just enough to turn the generators to full-on flank speed. This makes the temperature in the reactor drop, which increases the neutron flux and speeds up the reaction. The reverse happens if steam demand suddenly falls. Not sure if that works with power reactors, but I should think it's possible.

Indeed, in advanced light water reactors (BWRs and PWRs) the majority of power output control is done by modulating the flow rate from the cooling pumps, the control rods are only used really for shutting down the reactor, starting it up and in emergency control situations.

CANDU 6 type reactors have been built that can keep the reactor at 60% output without generating any external power by dumping steam directly to the condenser, producing just enough electricity to provide its internal loads.

This is extremely useful in blackout situations as a reactor that is shut down is near impossible to start up for about 48 hours due to the phenomenon known as xenon poisoning. But it does burn off fuel at 60% the normal rate, which is a noticeable, if small, expense when your reactor has a thermal output of around 2GW.

As you would have to have a nuclear reactor in place anyway, it would be cheaper to keep the reactor at full rated power, but use the electricity on site for hydrogen electrolysis or similar, since once you have the reactor the cost of producing power versus keeping it on hot standby is about 0.5p/kWh.

You can cut power to the electrolysers in seconds, allowing you to go from zero net output to the full rated output in that time.

 

[MattRobinson]

Nuclear Fission is the way forward- no nasty chemicals (CO2 etc) released into the atmosphere; no nuclear waste which spends an annoying length of time being radioactive (if it had a half life of seconds/minutes/hours, it would be fine because it would only have to be quarantined for those seconds/minutes/hours; if it had a half life of billions of years, it would be fine because there wouldn't be enough radiation at any given time to cause a problem: but current nuclear waste is radioactive for an amount of time which makes it hazardous for a long time); and isn't an eyesore. IMHO, the current supply solutions are a stopgap between the dirty old days of old - where we burned fossil fuels - and the point where fission reactors become feasible.

 

[danielnez1]

Do you mean nuclear fusion?

Fusion plants will likely produce a large amount of radioactively contaminated materials (such as core components) that are subject to neutron bombardment. Fusion is likely to be far safer then a fission plant due to the need for a high degree of precision and control to sustain a chain reaction, any deviation (such as a fault) would stop the process.

Fusion (and Fast reactors) could be used for transmutation, where highly radioactive materials are transformed into less radioactive materials, or reduce the half-life of the materials, making them easier to manage in the long therm.

 

[LE Greys]

Do you mean nuclear fusion?

Fusion plants will likely produce a large amount of radioactively contaminated materials (such as core components) that are subject to neutron bombardment. Fusion is likely to be far safer then a fission plant due to the need for a high degree of precision and control to sustain a chain reaction, any deviation (such as a fault) would stop the process.

Fusion (and Fast reactors) could be used for transmutation, where highly radioactive materials are transformed into less radioactive materials, or reduce the half-life of the materials, making them easier to manage in the long therm.

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that iron and carbon (a.k.a. steel, which I think most reactor components are made from) are stable at various isotopes, so they can tolerate neutron bombardment fairly effectively. However, steel becomes brittle after prolonged neutron bombardment, so it has to be replaced after a certain length of time.

With the transmutation, it strikes me that fusion reactors could produce their own fuel from seawater. Or lithium if tritium is necessary. If there is sufficient heavy water in the seawater, it could be separated by electrolysis (producing lots of free hydrogen in the process) and then fuesed in the reactor. The result would be both electricity and lots of cheap hydrogen for use in cars.

Getting more advanced, my favourite suggestion for fusion reactions was the diesel reactor idea (out of pure hyperbole). This involves storing deuterium by combining it with carbon through hydrogenation and using the resulting petrochemical product (basically neutron-rich diesel) to run small reactors in vehicles. If they get hot enough, they might be able to fuse the carbon as well.

 

[es373]

I would like to see a nuclear power plant built here.

 

[GingerbreadMan]

The quantity of electricity (that the rail industry uses) is not the main issue though is it?

Being as the subject of this thread is "Where will the electricity come from?", Yes it is!

Where is the integrated strategic plan for security of supply to us all?

This is a Government issue and is therefore not in the scope of this forum

A 23 hour a day railway at times of peak electricity demand is no good to anybody is it?

Why not? if there is demand for rail services and 'space' in terms of maintainence - then why not? You have already said that consumption is not an issue with regard to traction or rail use!

In been a while since I studied the NR model, but I believe the National Rail AC grid is almost always on (even when trains are not running) and as such lose the majority of power through heat loss in the cables regardless of how many trains are running.

On a slightly seperate note - we in the power industry would love to build new power stations in the UK. Lots of our existing stations are closing down due to end of life and emission limits and we are losing the unique skill set we need for power generation. But because of the failings of the previous government, we now find ourselves as a nation, in a position where we have an ageing power generation network and no real plans for the future.

 

[MattRobinson]

Do you mean nuclear fusion?

Yes. Oops.

 

[34Short]

Do you mean nuclear fusion?

Fusion plants will likely produce a large amount of radioactively contaminated materials (such as core components) that are subject to neutron bombardment. Fusion is likely to be far safer then a fission plant due to the need for a high degree of precision and control to sustain a chain reaction, any deviation (such as a fault) would stop the process.

Fusion (and Fast reactors) could be used for transmutation, where highly radioactive materials are transformed into less radioactive materials, or reduce the half-life of the materials, making them easier to manage in the long therm.

And I'll just get my Fusion Reactor ready sometime before 2050, like the rest of the industry agree's with...

 

[WatcherZero]

ITER will be operational around 2019 and DEMO will follow around 2033.

 

[HSTEd]

ITER will be operational around 2019.

But DEMO won't be in operation till 2030 at the absolute earliest.

Fast fission is really the answer, but fusion research is a useful scientific endeavour for other reasons.