On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:26:18 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 13/05/2010 22:18, Bruce wrote:

And who is building windmills with no subsidies?

That's a fair point. But if the Chapmans and Bloomfields of this
world are to be believed, nuclear is so cheap that it needs no subsidy
at all.

Bruce is sounding more and more like Dribble these days.


When the two nuclear consortia build their four new nuclear stations
without government subsidy, you can say that you proved me wrong.

But that ain't gonna happen. They won't start building until they
have agreed a very large subsidy, because the economics of nuclear
power simply don't add up.

You can say they do add up, as often as you like, but it is wishful
thinking. I also wish it was true. Unfortunately, it isn't.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 00:17:43 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:42:05 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
To be honest, a few more major grid incidents like 2008, but slightly
more severe to actually result in forced domestic load shedding (ie
power cuts without warning) would change a few people's minds about
nuclear power.


But nuclear power is not the answer to the energy gap, because it
takes at least nine years to build and commission a nuclear power
station.

Nuclear would be four or five years too late, as we will have a
shortage of generating capacity in 2014/2015.

Thats entirely the fault of people like you.


Wasn't me. I left the nuclear industry back in 1989, after working on
the construction of two nuclear stations and being a specialist
adviser on several more.


So we had better throw in more gas stations hadn't we? and hope we have
enough roubles for the gas meter.


That has already been decided.


But I think you can BUILD a nuke quicker than that. Its the planning
permission and legals that holds it up.


No, that's how long it takes to build. The French build them fastest,
and nine years is about right. The two French nuclear projects
currently under construction were due to take nine years, but are each
currently running over two years late. One is in France and the other
is in Finland.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:15:48 +1200, Gib Bogle
wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:
Seriously... At least it seems more potent, or less impotent than wind
power. There is always demand, so I presume this means they can ramp the
gas generators down a bit which is a good thing.

On paper, tidal power is very appealing. The energy density of moving water is
very high. But as far as I'm aware there is still no commercially viable (i.e.
profitable) tidal current turbine facility in operation. I'm referring to a
turbine that is just plonked down in a spot with high currents, not to a
facility with a dam and/or gates.


Absolutely right. We are at the very early stages of research with
the first full scale trial just getting under way.

I'm disappointed, because I worked in this area back in the late
1970s/early 1980s and it came to a dead end when Thatcher's government
refused to fund trails - of course the country's finances were in an
appalling state in 1979 after 15 years of economic mismanagement.

Thirty years later, we are only slightly further on, and the economic
situation is, if anything, even worse. But now the need is much more
pressing.


The marine environment is very challenging. Highly corrosive, teeming with
life, very high loadings, unfriendly to workers.


The biggest problem for a full scale tidal stream power station is
maintenance of the turbines. That isn't even being addressed in the
current trials. It will probably be at least two decades before a
full scale installation can be contemplated.

Of course, if our research hadn't been curtailed in the early 1980s,
we might now be in a very different position.

It grieves me that successive governments have failed to fund
practical, worthwhile research while ploughing vast £ billions into
completely pointless particle research. The money for the Large
Hadron Collider (and other, previous particle accelerators) would have
been far better spent on research and development of sustainable power
generation.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:35:56 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 13/05/2010 23:15, Gib Bogle wrote:

The marine environment is very challenging. Highly corrosive, teeming
with life, very high loadings, unfriendly to workers.

Great place to park a wind farm then. ;-)


It has obviously escaped you that wind turbines are located *above*
the water, not beneath it. ;-)

The technology of placing foundations for wind turbines in the marine
environment is already well proven.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:07:09 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 13/05/2010 22:19, Bruce wrote:
But, in the medium term, I think the tidal stuff and
some offshore wind farms[1] offer a good solution.

Agreed. But with any intermittent supply, such as wind or tidal,
there has to be additional pumped storage so that the power can be
re-generated when it is actually needed, rather than when the wind
blows or the tide flows.

And where pray are you going to park your pump storage schemes?

You tell me. You're the self-appointed expert after all!

Am I?

I pointed you at a web page that suggested you were wrong about the cost
of nuclear v windpower which you ignored.


It is the same propaganda that has been produced by the same vested
interests since the late 1950s. It was wrong then, and it is still
wrong.

It's like asking people to believe Alastair Campbell - Dodgy Dossier
and all that. It's just a pack of lies, no more and no less.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:46:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

which has similar drawbacks in that most demand is NOT at the bottom of
a 1000 foot damn holding back a lake the size of loch ness, so you STILL
need massive power cables connecting prime generators not just to
customers but ALSO to pumped storage, and you STILL need AS MUCH pumped
storage as generating capacity. So again, as with wind., you double up
the costs. Of generating AND transmission, half of which is idle at any
given time.


No need to SHOUT, dear. ;-)

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:35:56 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 13/05/2010 23:15, Gib Bogle wrote:

The marine environment is very challenging. Highly corrosive, teeming
with life, very high loadings, unfriendly to workers.
Great place to park a wind farm then. ;-)


It has obviously escaped you that wind turbines are located *above*
the water, not beneath it. ;-)


Indeed. As we all know, not only can greens walk on water, but they can
build windmills that do it as well ;-)

The technology of placing foundations for wind turbines in the marine
environment is already well proven.


Well lets hope the sea stays put and doesn't splash about too much.

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:07:09 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 13/05/2010 22:19, Bruce wrote:
But, in the medium term, I think the tidal stuff and
some offshore wind farms[1] offer a good solution.
Agreed. But with any intermittent supply, such as wind or tidal,
there has to be additional pumped storage so that the power can be
re-generated when it is actually needed, rather than when the wind
blows or the tide flows.
And where pray are you going to park your pump storage schemes?
You tell me. You're the self-appointed expert after all!
Am I?

I pointed you at a web page that suggested you were wrong about the cost
of nuclear v windpower which you ignored.


It is the same propaganda that has been produced by the same vested
interests since the late 1950s. It was wrong then, and it is still
wrong.

It's like asking people to believe Alastair Campbell - Dodgy Dossier
and all that. It's just a pack of lies, no more and no less.



Odd that it agrees with many other sources, whereas your position is
only reflected in the green**** type literature.

So, when you were in the nuclear industry, were you fetching the
sandwiches or mixing the concrete?

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:46:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

which has similar drawbacks in that most demand is NOT at the bottom of
a 1000 foot damn holding back a lake the size of loch ness, so you STILL
need massive power cables connecting prime generators not just to
customers but ALSO to pumped storage, and you STILL need AS MUCH pumped
storage as generating capacity. So again, as with wind., you double up
the costs. Of generating AND transmission, half of which is idle at any
given time.


No need to SHOUT, dear. ;-)

well you dont seem to be listening.

On 14/05/2010 10:42, Bruce wrote:
And who is building windmills with no subsidies?

That's a fair point. But if the Chapmans and Bloomfields of this
world are to be believed, nuclear is so cheap that it needs no subsidy
at all.

Bruce is sounding more and more like Dribble these days.

When the two nuclear consortia build their four new nuclear stations
without government subsidy, you can say that you proved me wrong.

But that ain't gonna happen. They won't start building until they
have agreed a very large subsidy, because the economics of nuclear
power simply don't add up.

You can say they do add up, as often as you like, but it is wishful
thinking. I also wish it was true. Unfortunately, it isn't.

So you keep on saying but it isn't me you need to convince. It is the
likes of:

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publica...Commentary.pdf

And it will take more than an opinion unsubstantiated by facts to
persuade them that they have got it wrong.

On 14/05/2010 11:00, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:35:56 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 13/05/2010 23:15, Gib Bogle wrote:

The marine environment is very challenging. Highly corrosive, teeming
with life, very high loadings, unfriendly to workers.

Great place to park a wind farm then. ;-)


It has obviously escaped you that wind turbines are located *above*
the water, not beneath it. ;-)

I suspect that the environment just above the surface of the sea is at
least as corrosive as that just below.

The technology of placing foundations for wind turbines in the marine
environment is already well proven.

But by no means simple. Will they stand the test of time?

At least the Tidal Barrage at Rance in France has survived since 1966.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:15:17 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

So you keep on saying but it isn't me you need to convince.


I don't need to convince anyone. I just don't like it when ignorant
people propagate lies.

Unfortunately, ignorant people don't know any better.

It's exactly the same with climate change. With both climate change
and nuclear power, people are polarised into believers and
non-believers whose ignorant prejudices are fed by lies and propaganda
from both sides.

Having worked in nuclear power for almost 15 years way back when, and
having reached senior management level, I am particularly sad that, in
2010, the basic untruths of the 1950s and 1960s keep reappearing,
thanks to vested interests who, on the one hand, stand to make
billions of pounds out of nuclear power, or on the other hand, are
misguided environmentalists who fail to realise that a non-nuclear
future would be particularly bleak.

In a propaganda war such as this, truth is the first casualty. I am
merely trying to point out the truth, which unfortunately seems
equally unpalatable to the quasi-religious zealots on both sides.

Eventually, we will build new nuclear stations, but they will need a
hefty subsidy. Alas, there is no other way they will happen.

And that is my last word on the subject for now. ;-)

On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:26:29 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

At least the Tidal Barrage at Rance in France has survived since 1966.


But La Rance isn't a tidal stream power station. It has a dam which
fills at high water and generates power by allowing the retained water
to escape through turbines as the tide falls.

The most important thing to learn from La Rance is that, 44 years
later, no-one has built anything like it. Tidal barrages involve
massive capital cost, very low returns, an almost infinite payback
period and of course huge environmental opposition.

And at the end of it all, you get uneconomic electricity at the wrong
time of day most days.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:53:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Odd that it agrees with many other sources, whereas your position is
only reflected in the green**** type literature.


Strangely enough, my position is exactly the same as government
policy.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:53:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:46:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

which has similar drawbacks in that most demand is NOT at the bottom of
a 1000 foot damn holding back a lake the size of loch ness, so you STILL
need massive power cables connecting prime generators not just to
customers but ALSO to pumped storage, and you STILL need AS MUCH pumped
storage as generating capacity. So again, as with wind., you double up
the costs. Of generating AND transmission, half of which is idle at any
given time.


No need to SHOUT, dear. ;-)

well you dont seem to be listening.


I've heard it all before from equally ignorant people. Having worked
at a senior level in the power industry, on both nuclear and
non-nuclear projects, I find the endless repetition of lies and
half-truths quite boring. Bull**** doesn't impress me, no matter how
often it is repeated, and how many capital letters it contains.

Donwill wrote:
On 12/05/2010 22:08, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
'The Deal' looks good to me.

A case where the whole is better than the individual parts I think, good
luck to them I say.

Interesting times...

If it holds for the full five year term the lib-dems have a chance
that they really do want to be a serious party of government, the
conservatives have their liberal side reinforced and decontaminated
of the daily wail faction , and labour's payroll vote will disappear
with cuts in public expenditure. On the other hand lib-dems show
they really want only to be dreamers, conservatives tears apart etc

--
djc

On 14/05/2010 13:49, Bruce wrote:

At least the Tidal Barrage at Rance in France has survived since 1966.


But La Rance isn't a tidal stream power station. It has a dam which
fills at high water and generates power by allowing the retained water
to escape through turbines as the tide falls.

But it does have turbines operating in a marine environment.

The most important thing to learn from La Rance is that, 44 years
later, no-one has built anything like it. Tidal barrages involve
massive capital cost, very low returns, an almost infinite payback
period and of course huge environmental opposition.

Take out the environmental opposition and the Severn Barrage would
almost certainly go ahead.

And at the end of it all, you get uneconomic electricity at the wrong
time of day most days.

Uneconomic electricity is what you get from wind turbines.

I suppose if I mentioned Lynmouth or Strangford Lough you would rubbish
those enterprises as well.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 13:59:44 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:
In article ,
Bruce wrote:

And that is my last word on the subject for now. ;-)

Oh no it isn't!

I've got some questions you may be able to shed some light on, as you
worked in that arena:


Oh dear, that didn't last long. ;-)


1) What aspects of nuclear power station construction push up the cost
so much (i.e. over and above that of coal/gas, given that all types need
cooling towers, generators and so on).


As you rightly say, from the turbine hall outwards, there is not much
difference. The big money is in the reactor pressure vessel, the
reinforced concrete containment, the reactor cooling systems, control
systems and instrumentation. The materials used are of the very
highest quality and the workmanship on site has to be of an extremely
high standard. All control systems have to be fully duplicated with a
further fail-safe emergency back-up system.

Because of the colossal weight of the reactor, containment, controls,
and the enclosing structure, the foundations need to be much stronger
than for any other form of construction on the planet. Only hard rock
under the foundations will do, and there must be no adverse geology.
This drastically limits the availability of suitable sites, and also
explains why all four new stations proposed will be on existing
nuclear sites.

The result is that costs of a reactor building are orders of magnitude
greater than costs of coal or gas-fired boilers.

The high costs extend from the reactor through to the heat exchangers
where the reactor's heat output is transferred to water to make steam
to drive the turbines. All the pipework is manufactured to extremely
high standards with the intention of lasting a full 35 years in
service. The standards of welding, testing and inspection are higher
than in any other industry. All this is extremely expensive.

There is then the cost of decommissioning. All the calculations that
show nuclear power to be cheap completely ignore this, or make a
pitifully small allowance, typically 15% of the construction cost. The
assumption is made that the taxpayer will pick up the bill after the
power companies have made their profits and gone. But decommissioning
is astronomically expensive - the budget at only the older part of
Sellafield, formerly known as Windscale, is already £1.5 billion and
rising, likely to continue for at least 30 years, and that is small
beer compared to full decommissioning of our commercial nuclear power
stations.


2) I could imagine that the control systems were not that good, given
these were first generation type stations. Is it likely that control
systems would have improved significantly in the 40 years or so since
today's stations were designed, such that construction or operating
costs might be lower.


A very perceptive question. As technology has improved, the control
systems have evolved to take advantage of improved reliability and
there is a tendency to include less duplication than before. The
result is that the latest French reactor design, which has been
proposed for two new nuclear stations in the UK, does not meet
existing UK standards, which still demand the same degree of
redundancy and back-up as before.

It's quite a conundrum. Do you accept a single safety system with
only a basic back-up because electronics are more reliable than the
control systems of the 1980s, or do you insist on the same degree of
multiple redundancy and a back-up on top to give even greater degrees
of safety?

I cannot answer that, as it isn't my field, and like most UK
ex-nuclear people I have been out of the industry for a long time now.
But I do know that it is vexing the regulator to an unprecedented
degree.

Having seen a potential disaster in the making during commissioning of
a nuclear station I personally wouldn't want any slackening of the
requirements. No fuel was loaded in the reactor, but had it been
operational, there would have been a meltdown. Everyone involved
could dismiss it as just a trial, but there was a simultaneous failure
of back-up systems that was so serious, the person in charge of that
stage of commissioning suffered a serious breakdown. He knew exactly
what it would have meant if fuel had been loaded.

As usual, there will be those who dismiss such concerns. They are
probably the same smug, ignorant, complacent people who sneer about
there being any risk from asbestos, despite the fact that 20 people a
week are dying of asbestos-related conditions when the fact that
asbestos manufacture came to an end some years ago should have seen
figures falling substantially by now.

Anyway, enough of that. I wasn't going to say any more about nuclear,
was I? ;-)

On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:52:26 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

the budget at only the older part of
Sellafield, formerly known as Windscale, is already £1.5 billion and
rising, likely to continue for at least 30 years,


Sorry, should be £1.5 billion PER YEAR and rising ...

On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:46:43 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 14/05/2010 13:49, Bruce wrote:

At least the Tidal Barrage at Rance in France has survived since 1966.


But La Rance isn't a tidal stream power station. It has a dam which
fills at high water and generates power by allowing the retained water
to escape through turbines as the tide falls.

But it does have turbines operating in a marine environment.

The most important thing to learn from La Rance is that, 44 years
later, no-one has built anything like it. Tidal barrages involve
massive capital cost, very low returns, an almost infinite payback
period and of course huge environmental opposition.

Take out the environmental opposition and the Severn Barrage would
almost certainly go ahead.


No it wouldn't, because the Treasury would rule it out on cost
grounds. Even the most optimistic studies suggest power from a Severn
barrage would be significantly more expensive then wind power.


And at the end of it all, you get uneconomic electricity at the wrong
time of day most days.

Uneconomic electricity is what you get from wind turbines.


I agree. That's no reason for throwing good money after bad.


I suppose if I mentioned Lynmouth or Strangford Lough you would rubbish
those enterprises as well.


Not at all. The tidal stream generator at Strangford Lough is the
sort of research project that should have been funded 30 years ago, as
I said elsewhere in the thread.

Did you mean Lynemouth?

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:15:17 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:
So you keep on saying but it isn't me you need to convince.


I don't need to convince anyone. I just don't like it when ignorant
people propagate lies.

Unfortunately, ignorant people don't know any better.


As you amply demonstrate.

It's exactly the same with climate change. With both climate change
and nuclear power, people are polarised into believers and
non-believers whose ignorant prejudices are fed by lies and propaganda
from both sides.

Having worked in nuclear power for almost 15 years way back when, and
having reached senior management level, I am particularly sad that, in
2010, the basic untruths of the 1950s and 1960s keep reappearing,
thanks to vested interests who, on the one hand, stand to make
billions of pounds out of nuclear power, or on the other hand, are
misguided environmentalists who fail to realise that a non-nuclear
future would be particularly bleak.


So, what PWR did you work on?


In a propaganda war such as this, truth is the first casualty. I am
merely trying to point out the truth, which unfortunately seems
equally unpalatable to the quasi-religious zealots on both sides.

Eventually, we will build new nuclear stations, but they will need a
hefty subsidy. Alas, there is no other way they will happen.

And that is my last word on the subject for now. ;-)

I bet it isn't.

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:53:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Odd that it agrees with many other sources, whereas your position is
only reflected in the green**** type literature.


Strangely enough, my position is exactly the same as government
policy.

No, they merely remarked they aren't going to subsidise it: They made no
pronouncement on whether it was economic or not: merely that it wasn't
any of their business to provide it if it was, or wasn't.


So that's a lie for a start.

Passing all your failings: closed mind, lies and dogma and a closed
mind, to other people who oppose you, is standard political weaselling.

I would not expect anything less.
From you.

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:53:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:46:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

which has similar drawbacks in that most demand is NOT at the bottom of
a 1000 foot damn holding back a lake the size of loch ness, so you STILL
need massive power cables connecting prime generators not just to
customers but ALSO to pumped storage, and you STILL need AS MUCH pumped
storage as generating capacity. So again, as with wind., you double up
the costs. Of generating AND transmission, half of which is idle at any
given time.

No need to SHOUT, dear. ;-)

well you dont seem to be listening.


I've heard it all before from equally ignorant people. Having worked
at a senior level in the power industry, on both nuclear and
non-nuclear projects, I find the endless repetition of lies and
half-truths quite boring.

Oh dear. More unprovable assertions.

Let me ask again. What PWR reactors have you worked on, and what is your
experience of construction cost management, and access to financial
figures in these stations?

I have worked on defense weaposn design. I don't claim to have a handle
on whether or not they are cost effective solutions to defense problems.

So I cannot see your claimed experience has anything to do with making
you any kind of authority on the question of financial viability.


Bull**** doesn't impress me, no matter how
often it is repeated, and how many capital letters it contains.


Me neither darling.
I dont know what axe you have to grind, or why you are so anti nuclear
power - I suppose its down to being frightened by a reactor at the age
of 40 or something.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:15:17 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:
So you keep on saying but it isn't me you need to convince.

I don't need to convince anyone. I just don't like it when ignorant
people propagate lies.

Unfortunately, ignorant people don't know any better.

It's exactly the same with climate change. With both climate change
and nuclear power, people are polarised into believers and
non-believers whose ignorant prejudices are fed by lies and propaganda
from both sides.

Having worked in nuclear power for almost 15 years way back when, and
having reached senior management level, I am particularly sad that, in
2010, the basic untruths of the 1950s and 1960s keep reappearing,
thanks to vested interests who, on the one hand, stand to make
billions of pounds out of nuclear power, or on the other hand, are
misguided environmentalists who fail to realise that a non-nuclear
future would be particularly bleak.

In a propaganda war such as this, truth is the first casualty. I am
merely trying to point out the truth, which unfortunately seems
equally unpalatable to the quasi-religious zealots on both sides.

Eventually, we will build new nuclear stations, but they will need a
hefty subsidy. Alas, there is no other way they will happen.

And that is my last word on the subject for now. ;-)

Oh no it isn't!

I've got some questions you may be able to shed some light on, as you
worked in that arena:

1) What aspects of nuclear power station construction push up the cost
so much (i.e. over and above that of coal/gas, given that all types need
cooling towers, generators and so on).

2) I could imagine that the control systems were not that good, given
these were first generation type stations. Is it likely that control
systems would have improved significantly in the 40 years or so since
today's stations were designed, such that construction or operating
costs might be lower.


Indeed. I was talking yesterday to someone about HIS experience in the
nuclear power industry. Early stations were not much cop, and they
needed many modifications to make them effective, and often didn't work
as planned and were very expensive. They were also hand built: No two
are the same. All parts are special.

Sizewell B - the latest IIRC - has been by contrast a very steady
supplier of electricity to the South East for many years, and it and
even later reactor designs, are far more cost effective.

Its a standard trick of the Anti-Nuclear brigade to extrapolate from the
UK's original small and very experimental series of reactors, and claim
the same issues will apply to later designs and that economies of scale
have not improved construction costs on iota.

Conveniently ignoring real construction and running cost data from the
later French and Canadian designs.

Thanks,

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:52:26 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

the budget at only the older part of
Sellafield, formerly known as Windscale, is already £1.5 billion and
rising, likely to continue for at least 30 years,


Sorry, should be £1.5 billion PER YEAR and rising ...

That was not a reactor that was ever designed with decommissioning in mind.


Nor with serious power generation in mind. It was an experimental
reactor, as were all the windscale reactors, and its costs have zero
relevance to any discussions involving new reactors.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 13:59:44 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:
In article ,
Bruce wrote:
And that is my last word on the subject for now. ;-)
Oh no it isn't!

I've got some questions you may be able to shed some light on, as you
worked in that arena:

[snip interesting stuff]

Ouch. Well, I dunno. What do we do next?

get on and build some bloody reactors. Simple cheap designs with
adequate systems to meet sensible safety standards, that can be stripped
of high level waste and sealed up in 60 years when they have done their
jobs.

On 14/05/2010 15:16, Bruce wrote:
I suppose if I mentioned Lynmouth or Strangford Lough you would rubbish
those enterprises as well.

Not at all. The tidal stream generator at Strangford Lough is the
sort of research project that should have been funded 30 years ago, as
I said elsewhere in the thread.

Did you mean Lynemouth?

No.

http://www.lyntonandlynmouth.com/turbine.html

On 14/05/2010 15:16, Bruce wrote:

Take out the environmental opposition and the Severn Barrage would
almost certainly go ahead.

The Sustainable Development Commission seemed to think it was viable.
FOE of course think it diabolical.

No it wouldn't, because the Treasury would rule it out on cost
grounds. Even the most optimistic studies suggest power from a Severn
barrage would be significantly more expensive then wind power.

How many off-shore wind turbines do you get for £14M and often would
they need replacing over the next 200 years?

On 14/05/2010 15:10, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:52:26 +0100,
wrote:

the budget at only the older part of
Sellafield, formerly known as Windscale, is already £1.5 billion and
rising, likely to continue for at least 30 years,


Sorry, should be £1.5 billion PER YEAR and rising ...


What about the cost of decommissioning a commercial power station such
as the one at Trawsfyndd with two reactors.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:46:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:52:26 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

the budget at only the older part of
Sellafield, formerly known as Windscale, is already £1.5 billion and
rising, likely to continue for at least 30 years,


Sorry, should be £1.5 billion PER YEAR and rising ...

That was not a reactor that was ever designed with decommissioning in mind.

Nor with serious power generation in mind. It was an experimental
reactor, as were all the windscale reactors, and its costs have zero
relevance to any discussions involving new reactors.


Wrong. The decommissioning includes the Calder Hall reactor, which is
an early example of a Magnox reactor. Magnox reactors were used
throughout the first generation of nuclear power stations. It is
therefore hugely relevant to power station decommissioning.

It's time to ask you where your "knowledge" of nuclear power comes
from. I'm a degree qualified chartered engineer with almost 15 years'
experience working in the nuclear power sector, up to senor management
level. You?

On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:33:41 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 14/05/2010 15:10, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:52:26 +0100,
wrote:

the budget at only the older part of
Sellafield, formerly known as Windscale, is already £1.5 billion and
rising, likely to continue for at least 30 years,


Sorry, should be £1.5 billion PER YEAR and rising ...


What about the cost of decommissioning a commercial power station such
as the one at Trawsfyndd with two reactors.


You tell me. You're the one who claims to be an expert.

It's time to ask you where your "knowledge" of nuclear power comes
from. I'm a degree qualified chartered engineer with almost 15 years'
experience working in the nuclear power sector, up to senor management
level. You?

On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:24:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

So, what PWR did you work on?


Sizewell B. Which one did you work on?

On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:13:36 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:
On 14/05/2010 15:16, Bruce wrote:

Take out the environmental opposition and the Severn Barrage would
almost certainly go ahead.

The Sustainable Development Commission seemed to think it was viable.
FOE of course think it diabolical.

No it wouldn't, because the Treasury would rule it out on cost
grounds. Even the most optimistic studies suggest power from a Severn
barrage would be significantly more expensive then wind power.

How many off-shore wind turbines do you get for £14M


On current estimates, the likely cost of a Severn Barrage is between
£23 billion and £30 billion.

The lowest projected cost per kWh of electricity generated is 27p.
Some options would give a cost exceeding 40p per kWh. Compare that
with gas at 4p and wind at 17p to 21p per kWh.

So not only would it cost up to £30 billion to build, it would never
produce a return on capital because every kWh generated would require
am extremely heavy subsidy.


and often would
they need replacing over the next 200 years?


A tidal barrage in the Severn would silt up after three or four
decades. What would you do then?

On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:28:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:53:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Odd that it agrees with many other sources, whereas your position is
only reflected in the green**** type literature.


Strangely enough, my position is exactly the same as government
policy.

No, they merely remarked they aren't going to subsidise it: They made no
pronouncement on whether it was economic or not: merely that it wasn't
any of their business to provide it if it was, or wasn't.


That is exactly my position. QED.

On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:32:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Oh dear. More unprovable assertions.


You do make me laugh!

All you give us is bull****, from a position of profound ignorance.

On 14/05/2010 17:52, Bruce wrote:
How many off-shore wind turbines do you get for £14M

On current estimates, the likely cost of a Severn Barrage is between
£23 billion and £30 billion.

Where are you getting your figures from?

The lowest projected cost per kWh of electricity generated is 27p.
Some options would give a cost exceeding 40p per kWh. Compare that
with gas at 4p and wind at 17p to 21p per kWh.

So not only would it cost up to £30 billion to build, it would never
produce a return on capital because every kWh generated would require
am extremely heavy subsidy.

and often would
they need replacing over the next 200 years?

A tidal barrage in the Severn would silt up after three or four
decades. What would you do then?

On what do you base that opinion?

On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:59:29 +0100, Roger Chapman
wrote:
On 14/05/2010 17:52, Bruce wrote:
How many off-shore wind turbines do you get for £14M

On current estimates, the likely cost of a Severn Barrage is between
£23 billion and £30 billion.

Where are you getting your figures from?

The lowest projected cost per kWh of electricity generated is 27p.
Some options would give a cost exceeding 40p per kWh. Compare that
with gas at 4p and wind at 17p to 21p per kWh.

So not only would it cost up to £30 billion to build, it would never
produce a return on capital because every kWh generated would require
am extremely heavy subsidy.

and often would
they need replacing over the next 200 years?

A tidal barrage in the Severn would silt up after three or four
decades. What would you do then?

On what do you base that opinion?


One of my research contractors, who is also a personal friend, is a
sedimentologist has worked on every single Severn Barrage study since
the 1970s. There have been quite a few studies.

All hydro-electric dams suffer from siltation. For example, the Aswan
High Dam in Egypt is now almost useless for power generation because
the silting has significantly reduced its capacity. To varying
degrees, the same is true of the dams on the Colorado River in the
USA. These are among the largest hydro-electric dams in the world.

But they are all sites on rivers that have a fairly low silt content.
In contrast, the Severn Barrage will be located on an estuary with an
extremely high silt content. Siltation is unavoidable. Even a design
that minimises the problem will last only a few decades.

On 14/05/2010 17:43, Bruce wrote:
Sorry, should be £1.5 billion PER YEAR and rising ...


What about the cost of decommissioning a commercial power station such
as the one at Trawsfyndd with two reactors.

You tell me. You're the one who claims to be an expert.

Another Dribble moment. Dodging an awkward question and countering with
a lie. Unlike you I have never claimed to be an expert in nuclear power.

It's time to ask you where your "knowledge" of nuclear power comes
from. I'm a degree qualified chartered engineer with almost 15 years'
experience working in the nuclear power sector, up to senor management
level. You?

The closest I ever came to the nuclear industry was working as a
production engineer at English Electric in Stafford at the same time as
the generators for Wylfa were being manufactured but I was in Rectifiers
rather than Generators so had nothing to do with their actual construction.

But hey this is newsnet, you are what you post.

It had crossed my mind that you might be Bob Bruce (a friend of a
friend) but he is by all accounts a reasonable man.

On 14/05/2010 18:21, Bruce wrote:

How many off-shore wind turbines do you get for £14M

On current estimates, the likely cost of a Severn Barrage is between
£23 billion and £30 billion.

Where are you getting your figures from?

You haven't said where your figures come from.

snip

and often would
they need replacing over the next 200 years?

A tidal barrage in the Severn would silt up after three or four
decades. What would you do then?

On what do you base that opinion?

One of my research contractors, who is also a personal friend, is a
sedimentologist has worked on every single Severn Barrage study since
the 1970s. There have been quite a few studies.

Lasting 200 years is one of the supposed advantages of the Barrage. Are
you saying that the supporters of the scheme are just ignoring
inconvenient facts?

All hydro-electric dams suffer from siltation. For example, the Aswan
High Dam in Egypt is now almost useless for power generation because
the silting has significantly reduced its capacity. To varying
degrees, the same is true of the dams on the Colorado River in the
USA. These are among the largest hydro-electric dams in the world.

But they are all sites on rivers that have a fairly low silt content.
In contrast, the Severn Barrage will be located on an estuary with an
extremely high silt content. Siltation is unavoidable. Even a design
that minimises the problem will last only a few decades.

I know I shouldn't argue with experts but why won't most of the silt
just wash through? The fine stuff will stay in suspension for a long
time and the coarser silt would be dropped upstream of the site of the
barrage regardless of whether there is a barrage or not and already be
dredged out of the deep water channel as a matter of course.

On 14/05/2010 17:52, Bruce wrote:
On current estimates, the likely cost of a Severn Barrage is between
£23 billion and £30 billion.

The lowest projected cost per kWh of electricity generated is 27p.
Some options would give a cost exceeding 40p per kWh. Compare that
with gas at 4p and wind at 17p to 21p per kWh.

So not only would it cost up to £30 billion to build, it would never
produce a return on capital because every kWh generated would require
am extremely heavy subsidy.

While looking for further evidence I came across the bit below (written
so it happens by someone who didn't see the project as worthwhile).
There is a huge gap between this and Bruce's figures even allowing for
the doubling of the overall cost in his version.

Its estimated cost of construction would be £15bn, it would need 200,000
man years of labour, with a maximum at peak of 40,000
men. It could be built in 15 years from the decision to proceed. The
caissons would be 40m wide, 80m long, and 35m deep, made
of concrete or possible steel construction like North Sea oil platforms,
and floated out from fabricating yards. They might weigh
90,000 tons each.

The price per KWhr of the power produced would depend on the rate at
which the capital cost was discounted. If it was paid for by
taxation, with the Treasury discount rate of 2% the price would be 2.3p
per kwh, compared with coal at 4p. If there were a
commercial discount of 8% the price would be 9.2p per kwh, almost as
expensive as biomass (11p).

For the full item

http://www.iwtnet.pwp.blueyonder.co....ernbarrage.pdf