For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14
By Bill McCarthy
#1882534
It’s a bit nippy today and the hundreds of wind turbines in the county, and offshore, have not turned a blade, right when we need them.
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882537
Bill McCarthy wrote:It’s a bit nippy today and the hundreds of wind turbines in the county, and offshore, have not turned a blade, right when we need them.


I cant like this, but it highlights the problem nicely and shows that a mix of power generation is the solution.

LowNSlow1 wrote:10% is coming across from Europe on the interlinks.
And this will be French Nuclear. Which is getting old and in need of replacement.

Regards, SD..
eltonioni liked this
By Bill McCarthy
#1882541
There is only one PWR (pressurised water reactor) in the U.K. - SIzewell B, and that is getting on a bit now. PWRs , as they get old they suffer from neutron embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessel and build up of cobalt 90 and CRUD which is highly radioactive, making routine maintenance very difficult and limiting.
User avatar
By OCB
#1882675
Bill McCarthy wrote:There is only one PWR (pressurised water reactor) in the U.K. - SIzewell B, and that is getting on a bit now. PWRs , as they get old they suffer from neutron embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessel and build up of cobalt 90 and CRUD which is highly radioactive, making routine maintenance very difficult and limiting.


AGR v PWR - compare and contrast in 90 seconds, without a single um/ah/erm etc.

Not a joke, a party game I had to answer in the late 80s.

I shouldn’t have tried to be technically correct, but just replied “no difference- we are all f c k d if either goes “boom”” :roll:
By Bill McCarthy
#1882713
The PWR is the more likely to cause trouble - they can go prompt critical, melt through the pressure vessel on total loss of flow and are dependant on “never fail” backup systems.
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882725
I remember a large outcry when Sizewell B was planned as a PWR, as they were deemed to be less safe, giving the example of Three Mile Island.
By LowNSlow1
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882758
PWR was cheaper to build than Magnox.

Unfortunately EDF et al seem to be unable to start up the current generation of PWR's cunningly known as the European Pressurised Reactors. Even their flagship unit at Flammanville which was supposed to start up in 2012 at a cost of 3.3 billion Euro is now forecast to start in 2022 at an estimated cost of 19.1 billion Euro. Bargain!!

The two EPR's that did start up in China have since been shutdown. Good luck with starting Hinckley Point C EDF.......
By LowNSlow1
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882759
Bill McC, MAGNOX/AGR are very much not the same as PWR reactors. The basic similarity is that they use Uranium to heat water to produce steam. How they do that is very different. https://nucleus-new.iaea.org/sites/graphiteknowledgebase/wiki/Guide_to_Graphite/Other%20Designs%20of%20Nuclear%20Power%20Stations.aspx

The AGR reactors had the advantage of being able to refuel on the run which was very useful in maintaining output. They were also very good at producing weapons grade uranium. There were some who said the fact that Sizewell A produced electricity was quite accidental....
johnm liked this
By Bill McCarthy
#1882761
When we talk of billions it rolls of the tongue nowadays - just where did the £37 billion go in the track and trace, in just a few weeks. That’s about three power stations.
By LowNSlow1
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882773
Bill McC it was Test and Trace not Track and Trace unlike the rest of the world. The Test part was 85% of the budget and, arguably, this is why we have more cases than most countries because we did far more testing.

The £37 billion was the total budget for 2 years and it wasn't spent "in just a few weeks"

Amazingly for any Government project it was actually underspent by £8.7 billion compared to it's budget.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmpubacc/182/report.html
By LowNSlow1
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882780
FD, I did and I agree with your comment. I think it was a classic case of somebody had a good idea and then money was thrown at it even when it was shown not to be well executed. There were lots of tests done though!

My post was just to point out that the commonly held belief that the Track and Trace system spent £37 billion is completely wrong and that the Test and Trace system has come in under budget albeit a vast budget to start off with.
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882818
Any one else remember the fuss about testing in the UK a year or more ago?

Media : You arent testing enough!!!
Govt : we will do (huge amount of) tests per day by next month.
Media : Not a chance!!!
Govt : Chucks money at it, makes target...
Media : You spent how much? What a waste!!

And in my view it wouldnt have mattered which flavour of govt there was, there would have been the same fuss...

Regards, SD..
Sooty25, rdfb liked this
User avatar
By OCB
#1882835
skydriller wrote:Any one else remember the fuss about testing in the UK a year or more ago?

Media : You arent testing enough!!!
Govt : we will do (huge amount of) tests per day by next month.
Media : Not a chance!!!
Govt : Chucks money at it, makes target...
Media : You spent how much? What a waste!!

And in my view it wouldnt have mattered which flavour of govt there was, there would have been the same fuss...

Regards, SD..


Exactly- and folks should be just as wary of what comes out of the meedja as they do the guvmint.

“Trust no-one” used to be the mantra of the tinfoil hat brigade, but ….
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14