http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035

The Other Mike wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035


probably arson by the greens.

They hate that power station for some reason..

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:43:30 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035

Nasty, that could take a long time to put out.

I see "Other" on gridwatch has dropped to 0.043GW and possibly the
loss of approximately 0.4GW is been taken up by hydro. Both are
running not far short of 1GW when at this time of day they are
normally nearer 0.5GW.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:13:00 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:43:30 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035

Nasty, that could take a long time to put out.

I see "Other" on gridwatch has dropped to 0.043GW and possibly the
loss of approximately 0.4GW is been taken up by hydro. Both are
running not far short of 1GW when at this time of day they are
normally nearer 0.5GW.

0.4GW is neither here nor there spread across conventional generation
round the country.

The 0.043GW of 'other' that remains is the 44MW of biomass at
Lockerbie run by E.ON


--

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:43:30 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035

Nasty, that could take a long time to put out.

I see "Other" on gridwatch has dropped to 0.043GW and possibly the
loss of approximately 0.4GW is been taken up by hydro. Both are
running not far short of 1GW when at this time of day they are
normally nearer 0.5GW.

I would say so, yes.


Losing half a gig plus is not good..I expect CCGT will come onstream to
cover - or the oil stations

The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:13:00 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:43:30 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035
Nasty, that could take a long time to put out.

I see "Other" on gridwatch has dropped to 0.043GW and possibly the
loss of approximately 0.4GW is been taken up by hydro. Both are
running not far short of 1GW when at this time of day they are
normally nearer 0.5GW.

0.4GW is neither here nor there spread across conventional generation
round the country.


Oh but that plant was doing 600MW or more - its a 750MW station.


And I am sorry, 400MW IS a problem if its unexpected and unplanned .

we are currently throwing a lot of power to France and Ireland as well.

(Looks like Moyle is back up to its rated level)


The 0.043GW of 'other' that remains is the 44MW of biomass at
Lockerbie run by E.ON



Yes, I think so. And RWE has another small station as well IIRC.

Anyway as pointed out the hydro/pumped has been cranked up a lot to
cover and the CCGT is coming on earlier...

So its not been declared a system warning or anything. We have lots of
spare CCGT capacity that's on cold standby one assumes..take a few hours
to fire it up.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:08:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I see "Other" on gridwatch has dropped to 0.043GW and possibly the
loss of approximately 0.4GW is been taken up by hydro. Both are
running not far short of 1GW when at this time of day they are
normally nearer 0.5GW.

I would say so, yes.

Losing half a gig plus is not good..I expect CCGT will come onstream to
cover - or the oil stations

Surely oil would take too long to warm up, it's only a few hours
since the fire started and 400MW is nothing to coal or CCGT just
takes a while to bring on line (at an already hot station). Though
CCGT is pretty quick...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:08:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:43:30 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035

Nasty, that could take a long time to put out.

I see "Other" on gridwatch has dropped to 0.043GW and possibly the
loss of approximately 0.4GW is been taken up by hydro. Both are
running not far short of 1GW when at this time of day they are
normally nearer 0.5GW.

I would say so, yes.

Losing half a gig plus is not good..I expect CCGT will come onstream to
cover - or the oil stations

OIL? On a day like today? Peak demand is at 50GW at 1800 is 10GW
down on a couple of weeks ago, current demand is just 46GW. 500MW is
neither here nor there. There is currently 14GW of CCGT and 5GW of
coal offline at the moment and that is far cheaper plant to run than
oil where prices were high and are now going throught the roof.

--

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:08:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:43:30 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035

Nasty, that could take a long time to put out.

I see "Other" on gridwatch has dropped to 0.043GW and possibly the
loss of approximately 0.4GW is been taken up by hydro. Both are
running not far short of 1GW when at this time of day they are
normally nearer 0.5GW.

I would say so, yes.

Losing half a gig plus is not good..I expect CCGT will come onstream to
cover - or the oil stations

OIL? On a day like today? Peak demand is at 50GW at 18:00 is 10GW
down on a couple of weeks ago, current demand is just 46GW. 500MW on
a day with temperatures not far off those of a cool summer is neither
here nor there - 15MW per unit spread across the 500 / 660MW coal
generation)

There is currently 14GW of CCGT and 5GW of coal offline at the moment
and that is far cheaper plant to run than oil where prices were high
already and are now going through the roof.

--

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:08:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I see "Other" on gridwatch has dropped to 0.043GW and possibly the
loss of approximately 0.4GW is been taken up by hydro. Both are
running not far short of 1GW when at this time of day they are
normally nearer 0.5GW.
I would say so, yes.

Losing half a gig plus is not good..I expect CCGT will come onstream to
cover - or the oil stations

Surely oil would take too long to warm up, it's only a few hours
since the fire started and 400MW is nothing to coal

Oh, its aLOT to caol. coal sets take a lot of warming up from cold, and
even when war a lod of shovelling as it were to raise boiler pressure
and steam productiong.

OCGT is minutes only and CCGT is between one and 4 hours from warm or
cold start.


But there is a humanm delay overhead there as well..

or CCGT just
takes a while to bring on line (at an already hot station). Though
CCGT is pretty quick...


The point is that fortunately in this case there is plant on hot standby
because it happened before the afternoon peak. And gave enough time to
stoke up a bit more plant for that.

But the urgent an immediate shortfall was covered by hydro. Which is
literally seconds or minutes.

From what data there is, it looks like the pellet burners were taken
down over an hour or so..

The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:08:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:43:30 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035
Nasty, that could take a long time to put out.

I see "Other" on gridwatch has dropped to 0.043GW and possibly the
loss of approximately 0.4GW is been taken up by hydro. Both are
running not far short of 1GW when at this time of day they are
normally nearer 0.5GW.

I would say so, yes.

Losing half a gig plus is not good..I expect CCGT will come onstream to
cover - or the oil stations

OIL? On a day like today? Peak demand is at 50GW at 1800 is 10GW
down on a couple of weeks ago, current demand is just 46GW. 500MW is
neither here nor there. There is currently 14GW of CCGT and 5GW of
coal offline at the moment and that is far cheaper plant to run than
oil where prices were high and are now going throught the roof.

Not fuel oil. That's almost a waste product. What's left when aall et
diesel and petrol has been taken out..

But I agree: there is enough CCGT to cover it all as the weather is warm..

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:30:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:13:00 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:43:30 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035
Nasty, that could take a long time to put out.

I see "Other" on gridwatch has dropped to 0.043GW and possibly the
loss of approximately 0.4GW is been taken up by hydro. Both are
running not far short of 1GW when at this time of day they are
normally nearer 0.5GW.

0.4GW is neither here nor there spread across conventional generation
round the country.

Oh but that plant was doing 600MW or more - its a 750MW station.

And I am sorry, 400MW IS a problem if its unexpected and unplanned .

No, regardless of it being unexpected it is planned for and of zero
consequence and within normal planning margins. Lights will not go
out. OCGT's will not run. Oil will not run and unless the weather
suddenly changes will not be running again this year.

As a point of reference, the low demand in the past few days with the
very unseasonal temperatures mean that some of the units at Drax have
only been doing 500MW sent out rather than 645MW sent out because
their output is not wanted.

Four units at Ratcliife, currently down 80MW a piece

Ten units there, 1.2GW down on output

Extrapolate that to all the coal fired stations - and that is valid as
they will almost certainly be on low output because Drax and Ratcliife
are the lowest cost coal generation in the UK), and that is 4GW from
now to the peak easily covered.

So its not been declared a system warning or anything. We have lots of
spare CCGT capacity that's on cold standby one assumes..take a few hours
to fire it up.

As seen above, scheduling another 500 or even 750MW or even 4GW of
generation from just coal fired plant that is currently on the bars is
trivial. If needs be they just cancel all export on the FR and NED
interconnectors. 6GW demand swing from full export to full import
from the interconnectors, 3GW deferred export from simply pulling the
plug.

Add 2.5GW of short term pumped storage from Dinorwig, Ffestiniog and
Cruachan and the peak is covered. Easily.

Update on the situation at Tilbury, The fire is apparently in the
bunkers above the pulversising mills. Likely that the plant is
offline for a long time - or for good.


--

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:01:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Not fuel oil. That's almost a waste product. What's left when aall et
diesel and petrol has been taken out..

.....and still way too expensive to burn.


--

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:01:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not fuel oil. That's almost a waste product. What's left when aall et
diesel and petrol has been taken out..

Even longer to get up steam pressure, have to heat the oil to get it
runny enough to pump and then burn to heat the water to boiling to
make the steam to drive the turbines... B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:59:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Surely oil would take too long to warm up, it's only a few hours
since the fire started and 400MW is nothing to coal

Oh, its aLOT to caol. coal sets take a lot of warming up from cold, and
even when war a lod of shovelling as it were to raise boiler pressure
and steam productiong.



OCGT is minutes only and CCGT is between one and 4 hours from warm or
cold start.


But there is a humanm delay overhead there as well..

or CCGT just
takes a while to bring on line (at an already hot station). Though
CCGT is pretty quick...


The point is that fortunately in this case there is plant on hot standby
because it happened before the afternoon peak. And gave enough time to
stoke up a bit more plant for that.

But the urgent an immediate shortfall was covered by hydro. Which is
literally seconds or minutes.

From what data there is, it looks like the pellet burners were taken
down over an hour or so..




--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:59:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Surely oil would take too long to warm up, it's only a few hours
since the fire started and 400MW is nothing to coal

Oh, its aLOT to caol. coal sets take a lot of warming up from cold, and
even when war a lod of shovelling as it were to raise boiler pressure
and steam productiong.

I'm thinking that a big coal station with a handful of units won't
have all the units that are actually online and feeding the grid
running at 100%. Some might be but if the grid wants 1.35GW and the
units are 400MW each that's 3 units flat out and one running at
150MW. I don't think they would do that as a 400MW unit running at
150MW would be awfully ineffcient.

I'd expect some other load balance between units. Suffice to say
there is spare capacity already online that just needs more steam, I
should imagine that a coal station in that position could ramp up and
down 500MW in a hour without too much bother.

Indeed looking at the daily coal plot that can change by 5GW in about
an hour.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:34:50 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

And I am sorry, 400MW IS a problem if its unexpected and unplanned
..

No, regardless of it being unexpected it is planned for and of zero
consequence and within normal planning margins.

Aye wasn't it 1600MW that disaapeared when when Longannet and
Sizewell B dropped off line the other year. That made the lights go
out in a few places but not for long.

Update on the situation at Tilbury, The fire is apparently in the
bunkers above the pulversising mills. Likely that the plant is
offline for a long time - or for good.

Very curious as to why dry woodpellets should catch fire. Damp ones I
could understand if they started to rot, big bales of haylidge have
spontaneously caught fire around here in the past after being opened
up and put out in the field for the stock.

--
Cheers
Dave.

The Other Mike wrote:

I think we differ on the meaning of 'planned' and on the meaning of
'significant' but not in any way on the actual figures.


Update on the situation at Tilbury, The fire is apparently in the
bunkers above the pulversising mills. Likely that the plant is
offline for a long time - or for good.


****. They have only just got it ON line after what - 3 years?

The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:01:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Not fuel oil. That's almost a waste product. What's left when aall et
diesel and petrol has been taken out..

....and still way too expensive to burn.



A LOT cheaper than gas IIRC.

The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:01:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Not fuel oil. That's almost a waste product. What's left when aall et
diesel and petrol has been taken out..

....and still way too expensive to burn.


I think not.

Its very hard to get a handle on it but it seems to be somewhere between
$750 a tonne and $1500 a tonne depending on the grade

Coal is around $100 per tonne but has lower energy desnity..about 2/3rs
to half.

Gas is staggeringly expensive..no wonder we burn coal.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:59:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Surely oil would take too long to warm up, it's only a few hours
since the fire started and 400MW is nothing to coal
Oh, its aLOT to caol. coal sets take a lot of warming up from cold, and
even when war a lod of shovelling as it were to raise boiler pressure
and steam productiong.

I'm thinking that a big coal station with a handful of units won't
have all the units that are actually online and feeding the grid
running at 100%. Some might be but if the grid wants 1.35GW and the
units are 400MW each that's 3 units flat out and one running at
150MW. I don't think they would do that as a 400MW unit running at
150MW would be awfully ineffcient.

I'd expect some other load balance between units. Suffice to say
there is spare capacity already online that just needs more steam, I
should imagine that a coal station in that position could ramp up and
down 500MW in a hour without too much bother.

Indeed looking at the daily coal plot that can change by 5GW in about
an hour.

yes, but that's a lot of stations that know its actually coming.

Essentially its 'more coal now' and 'more steam a couple of hours later'

I think this is where the difference between unplanned and unexpected is..

expected is easier to deal wit because you can pre-load the fuel you
know you will need. Unexpected means you have to eat into short term
hydro reserves while the big boys crank up.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:34:50 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

And I am sorry, 400MW IS a problem if its unexpected and unplanned
.
No, regardless of it being unexpected it is planned for and of zero
consequence and within normal planning margins.

Aye wasn't it 1600MW that disaapeared when when Longannet and
Sizewell B dropped off line the other year. That made the lights go
out in a few places but not for long.

Update on the situation at Tilbury, The fire is apparently in the
bunkers above the pulversising mills. Likely that the plant is
offline for a long time - or for good.

Very curious as to why dry woodpellets should catch fire. Damp ones I
could understand if they started to rot, big bales of haylidge have
spontaneously caught fire around here in the past after being opened
up and put out in the field for the stock.

1/. someone set fire to it?
2/. they weren't (that) dry.?
3/. Insurance scam.


Remember the station has only just opened after being converted..its
likely to have teething troubles.


Probably stay offline for the rest of the winter..

On 27/02/2012 14:21, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:34:50 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

And I am sorry, 400MW IS a problem if its unexpected and unplanned

Update on the situation at Tilbury, The fire is apparently in the
bunkers above the pulversising mills. Likely that the plant is
offline for a long time - or for good.

Very curious as to why dry woodpellets should catch fire. Damp ones I
could understand if they started to rot, big bales of haylidge have
spontaneously caught fire around here in the past after being opened
up and put out in the field for the stock.

Perhaps they were not entirely dry and some did start to go deep in the
middle. I expect once the fermentation/fungi get going it accelerates
PDQ. I have had my compost heap up to smouldering inside and it is only
2m cubed - most times it collapses in on itself at about 70C and stops.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Feb 27, 3:05*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
1/. someone set fire to it?
2/. they weren't (that) dry.?
3/. Insurance scam.

More likely dust accumulation in an area combined with overheating or
ignition.
A bit like dust & conveyor belts... as London Underground found out.

Surprised their in house fire extinguishing was not sufficient,
perhaps loss of power to the pumps... Woodishima...

Could be someone's apprentice though...

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:08:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:43:30 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035

Nasty, that could take a long time to put out.

I see "Other" on gridwatch has dropped to 0.043GW and possibly the
loss of approximately 0.4GW is been taken up by hydro. Both are
running not far short of 1GW when at this time of day they are
normally nearer 0.5GW.

I would say so, yes.


Losing half a gig plus is not good..I expect CCGT will come onstream to
cover - or the oil stations

18:10 demand flattened out at just over 50GW, frequency 49.96Hz

Total demand 50620MW

Gas 13751
Coal 20979
Nuke 8681
Wind 2288
Pump 1493
Hydro 838
Other 45

FR 1550
IRL 0
NED 995

Like I said hours ago. A none evert


--

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:35:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:01:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Not fuel oil. That's almost a waste product. What's left when aall et
diesel and petrol has been taken out..

....and still way too expensive to burn.



A LOT cheaper than gas IIRC.

Oil fired generation can go for months without running. In fact most
of the running at one site in the UK at least is to meet statutory
requirements for turbine governor overspeed trips and safety valve
testing, not for power generation. The station manager is an old mate
going back over 30 years - to the time we both had long hair and he
drove drove cars into trees. Now he's nearly bald and his driving has
marginally improved...

--

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:07:50 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:59:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Surely oil would take too long to warm up, it's only a few hours
since the fire started and 400MW is nothing to coal

Oh, its aLOT to caol. coal sets take a lot of warming up from cold, and
even when war a lod of shovelling as it were to raise boiler pressure
and steam productiong.

I'm thinking that a big coal station with a handful of units won't
have all the units that are actually online and feeding the grid
running at 100%. Some might be but if the grid wants 1.35GW and the
units are 400MW each that's 3 units flat out and one running at
150MW. I don't think they would do that as a 400MW unit running at
150MW would be awfully ineffcient.

Typical coal fired 500's can drop off to high 200's overnight, no
lower as it makes no sense to do so. If demand or prices drop too low
to justify generation they 'box' them up, all dampers closed, no
firing, no air circulation. If shutdown after the evening peak then
250MW per hour ramp rate is then achievable next day at a defined
time. It wastes heat as they have to ensure that all the steam that
reaches the turbine doesn't have any water in it as it trashes the
turbine blades very quickly, so they blow down the output from the
boiler (vent to waste) until the output temperature is sufficient to
ensure only dry steam. If you see clouds of water vapour 'steam'
rising from a power station building then they are either lifting the
safety valves which makes an even bigger racket or more oftent than
not, blowing down.

I'd expect some other load balance between units. Suffice to say
there is spare capacity already online that just needs more steam, I
should imagine that a coal station in that position could ramp up and
down 500MW in a hour without too much bother.

One with 3 or 4 500MW units would cope with that easily. The control
is more tightly controlled than in the distant past so plant damage is
less likely. Target generation outputs can be set to within a narrow
margin and firing can also roll off at the correct rate too so
temperature and pressure excursions are kept to the absolute minimum.

Indeed looking at the daily coal plot that can change by 5GW in about
an hour.

Not seen it that high but that is about 20% and easily achievable.


--

On 27/02/2012 18:14, The Other Mike wrote:
Like I said hours ago. A none evert

A what?

On CCGT - shouldn't you be able to fire it up in open mode, in a minute
or so to cover a peak, and let the steam come in later to get efficiency?

Andy

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:34:50 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote:

Update on the situation at Tilbury, The fire is apparently in the
bunkers above the pulversising mills. Likely that the plant is
offline for a long time - or for good.

Pellet boiler - pain in the arse.

Andy Champ wrote:
On 27/02/2012 18:14, The Other Mike wrote:
Like I said hours ago. A none evert

A what?

On CCGT - shouldn't you be able to fire it up in open mode, in a minute
or so to cover a peak, and let the steam come in later to get efficiency?


you can and they will occasionally do just that.


Andy

wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:34:50 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote:

Update on the situation at Tilbury, The fire is apparently in the
bunkers above the pulversising mills. Likely that the plant is
offline for a long time - or for good.

Pellet boiler - pain in the arse.

current best guess is back online Marc 11 subject to review.

Only the pellet store caught fire

Everything else is OK

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:16:46 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

I'd expect some other load balance between units. Suffice to say
there is spare capacity already online that just needs more steam,
I
should imagine that a coal station in that position could ramp up
and
down 500MW in a hour without too much bother.

One with 3 or 4 500MW units would cope with that easily.

I thought so, it's a lot of power but these things are designed for
it just add a few more tonnes of coal per minute and wait. B-)

Indeed looking at the daily coal plot that can change by 5GW in
about
an hour.

Not seen it that high but that is about 20% and easily achievable.

The normal weekday morning rise isn't far short of it. Today for
instance at 0500 coal was a shade under 15GW by 0700 its a shade
under 20GW. Hum, 2.5GW/hour, it's a warm morning though... I might
have miss read the gridwatch graph yesterday but I don't think so.

--
Cheers
Dave.

The Other Mike wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035

What I've ofetn wondered is why then don't dowse this sort of fire with
liquid nitrogen. I'm sure it would put out a fire in a fuel hopper pretty
damn quick AND leave you with usable fuel afterwards.

Tim

Tim Downie wrote:
The Other Mike wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035

What I've ofetn wondered is why then don't dowse this sort of fire with
liquid nitrogen. I'm sure it would put out a fire in a fuel hopper
pretty damn quick AND leave you with usable fuel afterwards.


and kill all the firemen too.

Water, is cheaper.


Tim

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Downie wrote:
The Other Mike wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035
What I've ofetn wondered is why then don't dowse this sort of fire with
liquid nitrogen. I'm sure it would put out a fire in a fuel hopper
pretty damn quick AND leave you with usable fuel afterwards.

and kill all the firemen too.

Water, is cheaper.


Maybe they could apply it with some sort or device that would allow liquids
to be dispensed at a distance, like a hose?

Technically, I'm sure the challenge of applying it without killing firemen
could be easily solved.

Tim

In article
,
Tim wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Downie wrote:
The Other Mike wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035 What I've ofetn
wondered is why then don't dowse this sort of fire with
liquid nitrogen. I'm sure it would put out a fire in a fuel hopper
pretty damn quick AND leave you with usable fuel afterwards.

and kill all the firemen too.

Water, is cheaper.


Maybe they could apply it with some sort or device that would allow
liquids to be dispensed at a distance, like a hose?

It might have a tendency to freeze and then break the hose.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

charles wrote:
In article
,
Tim wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Downie wrote:
The Other Mike wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035 What I've ofetn
wondered is why then don't dowse this sort of fire with
liquid nitrogen. I'm sure it would put out a fire in a fuel hopper
pretty damn quick AND leave you with usable fuel afterwards.

and kill all the firemen too.

Water, is cheaper.


Maybe they could apply it with some sort or device that would allow
liquids to be dispensed at a distance, like a hose?

It might have a tendency to freeze and then break the hose.

What's the freezing point of nitrogen?

I realise that's not what you meant but then I wasn't really suggesting
that it would be applied by conventional firehoses.

Tim

On 28/02/2012 19:36, Tim wrote:


What's the freezing point of nitrogen?

I realise that's not what you meant but then I wasn't really suggesting
that it would be applied by conventional firehoses.

Tim

The _boiling_ point of nitrogen is -196, and at that temperature many
things become brittle. Including rubber, as used to seal hoses... Some
fun videos on youtube for liquid nitrogen shatter.

Andy

On 28/02/2012 18:26, Tim wrote:
The Natural wrote:
Tim Downie wrote:
The Other Mike wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17177035
What I've ofetn wondered is why then don't dowse this sort of fire with
liquid nitrogen. I'm sure it would put out a fire in a fuel hopper
pretty damn quick AND leave you with usable fuel afterwards.

and kill all the firemen too.

If that was the issue they could wear normal air sets. The problem is
the amount that would be needed applied at once to do any good.

Water, is cheaper.

In bulk very much cheaper, available nearby and very easy to handle and
pump.

Maybe they could apply it with some sort or device that would allow liquids
to be dispensed at a distance, like a hose?

You would not be able to deliver enough of it (LN2) to the right place
quickly enough to make enough difference. It would flash boil in flight
and condensation icing of water from the air would block nozzles up.

Technically, I'm sure the challenge of applying it without killing firemen
could be easily solved.

Tim

I don't think the risk of killing firemen really enters into it.

They could wear PPE that would easily avoid injury, but the cost of
using LN2 and the time for it to get there would probably allow the fire
to die of natural causes first.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:05:00 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:16:46 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

I'd expect some other load balance between units. Suffice to say
there is spare capacity already online that just needs more steam,
I
should imagine that a coal station in that position could ramp up
and
down 500MW in a hour without too much bother.

One with 3 or 4 500MW units would cope with that easily.

I thought so, it's a lot of power but these things are designed for
it just add a few more tonnes of coal per minute and wait. B-)

Indeed looking at the daily coal plot that can change by 5GW in
about
an hour.

Not seen it that high but that is about 20% and easily achievable.

The normal weekday morning rise isn't far short of it. Today for
instance at 0500 coal was a shade under 15GW by 0700 its a shade
under 20GW. Hum, 2.5GW/hour, it's a warm morning though... I might
have miss read the gridwatch graph yesterday but I don't think so.

This is the loading profile of one 500MW coal fired unit dating from
the late 1960's that had been in the high 400's till 2230 the day
before, before coming offline at 2300.

353MW per hour ramp rate between 0701 and 0812

0630 0
0701 50
0730 224
0740 280
0800 340
0812 480
0903 450
1002 430
1031 440

--