Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 10:55 29 Mar 2024
* Attempted murder charge after man stabbed on train
- Easter getaway begins with flood alerts in place
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningCancelled
09:30 Weymouth to Gloucester
10:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
11:05 Swindon to Westbury
11:29 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
12:17 Westbury to Swindon
12:52 Bedwyn to Newbury
13:15 Swindon to Westbury
14:19 Westbury to Swindon
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
16:23 Westbury to Swindon
17:36 Swindon to Westbury
18:37 Westbury to Swindon
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
21:16 Westbury to Swindon
22:30 Swindon to Westbury
Short Run
06:37 Plymouth to London Paddington
08:35 Plymouth to London Paddington
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
Delayed
06:05 Penzance to London Paddington
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
10:00 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 29, 2024, 10:59:26 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[132] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[56] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[52] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[51] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
[46] Return of the BRUTE?
[32] 2024 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: ...and the GB Power Generation Capability Goes Downhill AgaIn  (Read 12814 times)
SandTEngineer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3485


View Profile
« on: November 13, 2015, 18:04:54 »

Ironbridge power station to close.  Another loss to the GB (Great Britain) power generation capability.  Whereto next:
http://www.shropshirestar.com/shropshire-business/2015/11/13/ironbridge-power-station-to-close-next-week/

Makes you wonder where all the power for these new fangled electric railways is going to come from Roll Eyes Tongue
« Last Edit: November 13, 2015, 18:19:32 by SandTEngineer » Logged
patch38
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 653


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2015, 19:21:42 »

What a shame. Although it's a huge industrial structure, somehow it really fits into the landscape of Buildwas Gorge. It has to be one of the most picturesque power stations in the UK (United Kingdom). I'm not sure that Centre Parcs is a giant step forwards... Undecided
Logged
Timmer
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6293


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2015, 19:28:38 »

Every power station I see closed or blown up, the more concerned I am for the power supply of this nation should we have the mother of all winters over the next few years.

I think this policy of closing coal fired power stations before new alternatives come online is quite frankly insane. But at least we can take comfort that we are conforming to EU» (European Union - about) targets  Roll Eyes
Logged
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18895



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2015, 19:39:33 »

Hinkley C, Now!
Logged

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5398



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2015, 19:46:14 »

Hinkley C, Now!

Wont help in the near term.
IF Hinkley  C does go ahead, then I cant forsee power being produced in less than 10 years, and 15 years might be more realistic.

Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
SandTEngineer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3485


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2015, 19:52:37 »

What a shame. Although it's a huge industrial structure, somehow it really fits into the landscape of Buildwas Gorge. It has to be one of the most picturesque power stations in the UK (United Kingdom). I'm not sure that Centre Parcs is a giant step forwards... Undecided

Indeed as quoted low down in the article linked to:
The power station's famous cooling towers were constructed using concrete with an added red pigment to blend with the colour of the local soil. The station's single 205m high chimney is the fifth tallest chimney in the UK and the tallest structure in Shropshire, being taller than Blackpool Tower and London's BT Tower.
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2015, 18:52:25 »

Hinkley C, Now!

And Hinkley D!

(I just realised what you did there, BN, M!)
Logged

Now, please!
simonw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 589


View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2015, 19:46:19 »

The sad aspect of the decommissioning coal/oil power stations, is that we have not implemented green solutions properly.

At any point in time we are capable of generating upto 12% (approx) of our power from wind, solar etc, but most of the time this power is not used, it is just wasted. In 2008, 5% of our power was green. The National Grid rightly wants to use stable sources of power and not switch in/out expensive sources of power because of a strong on shore breeze for 20 minutes.

The National Grid should have commissioned a 'battery' system to store green power so that it can be used 24x7. The idle solutions would be Hydrogen or Methane gas production and pipe this into the current gas network.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2015, 19:47:59 »

They are increasing the size of the Dinorwic pumped storage scheme if that is what you mean. 
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2015, 21:15:18 »

The sad aspect of the decommissioning coal/oil power stations, is that we have not implemented green solutions properly.

At any point in time we are capable of generating upto 12% (approx) of our power from wind, solar etc, but most of the time this power is not used, it is just wasted. In 2008, 5% of our power was green. The National Grid rightly wants to use stable sources of power and not switch in/out expensive sources of power because of a strong on shore breeze for 20 minutes.

The National Grid should have commissioned a 'battery' system to store green power so that it can be used 24x7. The idle solutions would be Hydrogen or Methane gas production and pipe this into the current gas network.

Er, no. We have erected wind turbines and solar panels with a rating equal to a certain percentage of the country's needs, but we never get that. Even on a windy night such as tonight, wind is generating less than 10% of the electricity, and last winter, when we had high pressure parked over the whole UK (United Kingdom), it produced less than 2% for for several cold days and nights without a break. Keep an eye on Gridwatch, or look at the historic data. Wind is not to be relied upon.

I am not sure how you would use surplus energy to produce methane, which is in any case a powerful greenhouse gas, unless you were fractionally distilling crude oil. If it's methane you want in plentiful quantities, then get fracking - there is plenty to be had in the shale far below the ground. You can start in my back yard if you like, subject to money.

In any case, wind does not often produce surplus power. Nuclear and coal powered plants work flat out, shutting only for maintenance. The reason is that they take a long time to power up from cold, weeks for coal plants, months for nuclear. They provide the base load - the lowest amount of power we can get away with at any time, in the ideal world. Wind adds its variable and unpredictable offering, as does solar, with most of the rest being produced by combined cycle gas turbines. These are the second fastest to kick in, and are very efficient in comparison to older gas plants. They are the industrial equivalent of the condensing combi boiler. The "quick reaction device" is Dinorwig. From cold and stopped, it can produce a sixth of its output within 75 seconds. In practice, compressed air is used to keep the turbines spinning when not in use, so that when Eastenders finishes and a million kettles are switched on, it can go from 0 to 1800Kw in 16 seconds. It can keep this up for a maximum of 6 hours.

As coal plants are decommissioned, base load will not be met by the constant sources of power. As more wind power is installed, more CCGT (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine) stations will be needed to back them up. At present, there are occasions, usually on warm nights, when wind and the nuclear and coal stations combined produce more electricity than the grid needs, and the operators are paid to turn them off if we can't get rid of the excess to other countries. Those instances will reduce in number as coal plants close. The effect of the wind blowing will be as it is now - to slightly reduce the amount of gas we are burning at any time. Solar power is not normally metered - it shows as a slight dip in overall demand in the middle of sunny days.

The way renewable energy has been done has been expensive and wasteful, and has driven production of subsidy payments rather than electricity. The idea was fine, but having a trade in Renewables Obligations Certificates is a sure sign that the original idea has been hijacked for cash. Because of that, all the money has been thrown at wind and solar. Tidal power has been largely forgotten. Fracking has a bad name, almost certainly unwarranted, leading to knee-jerk rules to regulate it. The Eden Project was going to embark on a program to obtain huge quantities of energy from the hot granite rocks below it, the ultimate in green energy, but can't go ahead because they would need to hydraulically fracture the rocks.

One last option that has been overlooked is the use of Thorium, rather than Uranium, as a nuclear fuel. This can't go critical, can't produce plutonium for bombs, and may even let us burn some of our waste. Read this for information. A reactor is already running in Norway, and India is on the way to building its first.

I have known many people who were in favour of wind and solar power, but who are now very much against, on a number of grounds. I know of no-one who was against wind power, but who is now in favour.
Logged

Now, please!
simonw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 589


View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2015, 22:16:06 »

The Sabatier reaction is a well known and proven method to generate methane from Carbon Dioxide and Water.

Any reaction that goes from CO2+2H2O -> CH4+2O2, and then when methane burns from CH4+2O2->CO2+2H2O has no meaningful greenhouse effect and will act as a chemical battery, using energy to create methane, and releasing energy when methane is burnt. The use of hydrogen will have a similar cost, but storage and use of hydrogen will be more complicated and require significant investment. We already have significant methane storage and gas turbine equipment, so that is probably a good reason to go for it.

I agree that Thorium does offer a lot of potential for the future.

I accept that renewable energy sources are expensive, but the days of burning natural coal, oil and gas are coming to an end, and we have to look at producing lots of energy cleanly, and storing it until needed.

Finally, I am no particular fan of any particular form of power generation, but I do dislike the idea of polluting our world whilst we do it.
Logged
chuffed
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1499


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2015, 09:03:22 »

Yet another mini lecture from FT,N who never ceases to amaze me with his pithy,very well argued and constructed, always very readable discourses on a whole range of difficult to understand subjects. I wish I had someone like him when I was at school ! What a superb asset to this forum. Click 'like' if you want to join the FT,N fan club !
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2015, 09:11:33 »

simonw, We agree on almost everything, even if we have differences of opinion over renewable energy. That Sabatier equation looks like the real answer to all the world's problems - we burn methane in air to produce water and CO2, then recombine them to start again in a self-perpetuating circle of clean virtue. In a laboratory, it is sure to work fine, but it ignores the fact that the energy released in burning the methane has to be replaced when doing it the other way around. Add in the inherent inefficiency and the cost of collecting the CO2 from the atmosphere (0.6% by volume), and it becomes less of an ideal. We could easily end up building power plants simply to back up the wind farms erected to produce electricity to power the reaction to save the spare power from wind turbines, then building pipe runs from the gas plants to the gas main to slightly reduce the amount of shale gas being burned at any one moment. I'm no barrack room energy economist, but I can see the pitfalls.

The elephant in the room is that onshore wind power is very popular amongst city dwellers, electricity generators, landowners, and Green activists, and hugely unpopular in the rural communities who have the monstrosities dumped on them. I speak with experience. Offshore wind is unpopular with the fishermen (we still have some) who lose their fishing grounds. Hinkley C is not raising the same hackles amongst the locals, who see work and prosperity, and who have lived next to two reactors for many years without incident.

Yet another mini lecture from FT,N who never ceases to amaze me with his pithy,very well argued and constructed, always very readable discourses on a whole range of difficult to understand subjects. I wish I had someone like him when I was at school ! What a superb asset to this forum. Click 'like' if you want to join the FT,N fan club !

Thank you chuffed - you posted halfway through my second epistle. Education was wasted on me at school, but thankfully enough of it stuck to help me make sense of things I now find fascinating.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2015, 09:18:10 by Four Track, Now! » Logged

Now, please!
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2015, 12:23:13 »

Tidal power has been largely forgotten.
Too true. There has been a prototype tidal turbine sitting by the sea in Pembroke Dock for the past few months, it was supposed to have been deployed in the sea further round the Pembrokeshire coast, but it is rumored one of the cables has a kink in it which has prevented them deploying the device, and the company is broke. Terribly sad.

Quote
Fracking has a bad name, almost certainly unwarranted
We should be moving away from burning fossil fuels, fracking deserves its bad name for that reason. However, I get the feeling that isn't the bad name you are referring to.

Quote
One last option that has been overlooked is the use of Thorium, rather than Uranium, as a nuclear fuel. This can't go critical, can't produce plutonium for bombs, and may even let us burn some of our waste. Read this for information. A reactor is already running in Norway, and India is on the way to building its first.
As with tidal power, it is somewhat disapointing that different models of nuclear power appear to be ignored. I've no idea what the pros and cons of the different concepts are, nor do I understand the differences between them, but as well as your suggestion of Thorium I've heard of things called 'Breeder Reactors' and 'Integral Fast Reactors'.

The Sabatier reaction is a well known and proven method to generate methane from Carbon Dioxide and Water.

Any reaction that goes from CO2+2H2O -> CH4+2O2, and then when methane burns from CH4+2O2->CO2+2H2O has no meaningful greenhouse effect and will act as a chemical battery, using energy to create methane, and releasing energy when methane is burnt. The use of hydrogen will have a similar cost, but storage and use of hydrogen will be more complicated and require significant investment. We already have significant methane storage and gas turbine equipment, so that is probably a good reason to go for it.
That is an interesting suggestion, but I presume there will be losses (ie. when you burn the methane you cannot capture as much energy as you put into make it) You could also do energy storage by building more facilities like Dinorwig, but that would also have losses. Not sure how you choose between such options.

Quote
Finally, I am no particular fan of any particular form of power generation, but I do dislike the idea of polluting our world whilst we do it.
Well said.

The elephant in the room is that onshore wind power is very popular amongst city dwellers, electricity generators, landowners, and Green activists, and hugely unpopular in the rural communities who have the monstrosities dumped on them. I speak with experience.
I live in a rural area and there are 4 or 5 wind turbines in the surrounding area, I don't really mind them at all. Most of them are small ones though, it isn't one of these massive wind farms which bring with them horrid national grid pylons (whatever form of generation we use, I'll always object to those).

Offshore wind is unpopular with the fishermen (we still have some) who lose their fishing grounds. Hinkley C is not raising the same hackles amongst the locals, who see work and prosperity, and who have lived next to two reactors for many years without incident.
I assume the fishermen lose their fishing grounds because their equipment is such that they might damage the undersea power cables, not because the turbines scare/kill the fish? Thus, could they still fish with rod and line? As for Hinkley C, it is not without opposition. I quote an extract from this (lengthy) corrospondance between two enviromentalists, one who was in favour of Hinkley C and one opposed to it.

Quote from: George Monbiot
I would like to thank you for the reason, consideration and decency with which you responded to my initial email. This subject raises intense emotions, and I^ve found that all too often they cloud what should be a rational discussion. All of us in the environment movement have the same overarching goals ^ to protect both the biosphere and the future of humanity ^ and we should be able to discuss them without tearing each other^s eyes out. I just wish that everyone could approach this disagreement in the spirit with which you have handled it.

Your letter provides the most persuasive case against both the Hinkley plant and nuclear power in general that I have ever read. It has persuaded me that the way in which the new power station is being shoved through the planning system is undemocratic, coercive and morally wrong. I now see that ^ on planning grounds ^ your protests are both worthwhile and necessary.

So I would like to retract my flat statement that campaigning against Hinkley C is the wrong thing to do. I would like to replace it with a more nuanced one. On planning grounds it was and is the right thing to do. But where climate change is concerned, the consequences of success would be, to put it mildly, unfortunate.

In fact, since then, George has further shifted his opinion and is now also opposed:
Quote from: George Monbiot
Yes, we are pro-nuclear, but the proposed Hinkley C plant should be scrapped.

One final extract:
Quote from: George Monbiot
The harsh reality is that less nuclear means more gas and coal. Coal burning produces, among other toxic emissions, heavy metals, acid sulphates and particulates, which cause a wide range of heart and lung diseases. Even before you take the impacts of climate change into account, coal is likely to kill more people every week than the Chernobyl disaster has killed since 1986(9). It astonishes me to see people fretting about continuing leaks at Fukushima, which present a tiny health risk even to the Japanese(10), while ignoring the carcinogenic pollutants being sprayed across our own country.

But none of this means that we should accept nuclear power at any cost. And at Hinkley Point the cost is too high.

Nils Pratley warned in the Guardian last week that ^if Hinkley Point^s entire output is tied to the rate of inflation for 40 years, we could be staring at a truly astronomical cost by the end of the contract.^(11) The City analyst he consulted reassured him that ^the government surely can^t be that dumb^. Oh yes? Payment to the operators, the government now tells us, will be ^fully indexed to the Consumer Price Index.^(12) Guaranteed income for corporations, risk assumed by the taxpayer: this deal looks as bad as any private finance initiative contract(13).

That^s not the only respect in which the price is too high. A fundamental principle of all development is that we should know how the story ends. In this case no one has the faintest idea. Cumbria ^ the only local authority which seemed prepared to accept a dump for the nuclear waste from past and future schemes ^ rejected the proposal in January(14). No one should commission a mess without a plan for clearing it up.

But this above all is a wasted opportunity. By the time a European pressurised reactor at Hinkley Point is halfway through its operating life, it will look about as hip as a traction engine.

I understand that, with a project this big and timeframes this long, the government needs to pick a technology, but you would expect it to try to pick a winner. The clunky third-generation power station chosen for Hinkley C already looks outdated, beside the promise of integral fast reactors and liquid fluoride thorium reactors. While other power stations are consuming nuclear waste, Hinkley will be producing it.
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4356


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2015, 19:27:17 »

Makes you wonder where all the power for these new fangled electric railways is going to come from Roll Eyes Tongue

Solar and wind farms  Shocked  with new excuses of cancellations or late run due insufficient sun or wind .............. the future is a stop start service  Grin  Grin
Logged

Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page