On 1 Nov, 20:55, (Steve Firth) wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
These plants may be at the end of their useful lives as generating
stations operating much of the time, but that does not mean they are
at the end of their lives for occasional use. The capital cost of
constructing them should be paid off. Their engineering foibles are
known. Maintenance of them for low running hours should be minimal.
Obviously they can't just be left completely alone, for the cobwebs
to be blown off and them to start when needed, but a gentle system
of maintenance will keep them ready. It is hardly a novel suggestion
that elderly bits of equipment are retained as a reserve, it is done
in all sorts of industries.

That's umm "cobblers" is I think the best description. It shows an
astonishing ignorance of engineering, of the operation and maintenance
of generating plant and of the economics of power generation. As a fail,
it's epic.

You mentioned two power station previously, one nuclear, one coal-fired.
If one wished to pick two examples of types of powerstation that should
only be used for base load generation you couldn't have done better. But
you propose to have them used as "reserve" power generation for which
neither type is suitable.

It's a good job that your previous pronouncements have left you without
credibility on energy matters, because you just blew whatever shred you
were clinging onto far out to sea.

WRT steam boilers. Either you use them or you don't. Mothballing is
possible (there are several theories on the best way) but they still
quitely rot away and require a lot of attention. Using them at
reduced loads causes them to deteriorate at exactly the same speed as
heavy use and, apart from the fuel, the same cost.
Gas turbines don't like being shut down at all, they have to be kept
on idle at all times to get maximum life.