Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ety-fears.html

harryagain wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ety-fears.html

Reading today's chip-wrappers?

On 12/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ety-fears.html


Oh ,not this again. EDF have shut down a power station in Teesside 2
years ago, and there was never this amount of news or whatever then.

On 12/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ety-fears.html


Do you not read the other threads in this group Harry? It has already
been discussed at length. All it does is to demonstrate is that the
nuclear industry has very high safety standards and that their systems work.

--
Colin Bignell

En el artículo , Nightjar
"cpb"@ "insert my surname here@?.? escribió:

Do you not read the other threads in this group Harry? It has already
been discussed at length. All it does is to demonstrate is that

.... Usenet is write-only for some.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ety-fears.html


Do you not read the other threads in this group Harry? It has already been
discussed at length. All it does is to demonstrate is that the nuclear
industry has very high safety standards and that their systems work.

It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly designed.

On 13/08/2014 07:14, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ety-fears.html


Do you not read the other threads in this group Harry? It has already been
discussed at length. All it does is to demonstrate is that the nuclear
industry has very high safety standards and that their systems work.

It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly designed.


Everything should be so badly designed that it can work continuously for
more than 30 years before needing maintenance.

--
Colin Bignell

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:32:05 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname
here wrote:


Everything should be so badly designed that it can work continuously for
more than 30 years before needing maintenance.

"work continuously for more than 30 years before needing maintenance" is not
what *any* generation is capable of. Nukes are no different, they are good, but
not that good!

Best ever performance in the UK (maybe worldwide?) was Sizewell A back in the
70's for about 20 months continuous reactor operation. Even this wasn't a zero
maintenance regime.

--

On 13/08/2014 13:37, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:32:05 +0100, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insert my surname
here wrote:


Everything should be so badly designed that it can work continuously for
more than 30 years before needing maintenance.

"work continuously for more than 30 years before needing maintenance" is not
what *any* generation is capable of. Nukes are no different, they are good, but
not that good!

Best ever performance in the UK (maybe worldwide?) was Sizewell A back in the
70's for about 20 months continuous reactor operation. Even this wasn't a zero
maintenance regime.


My version sounds better and is more likely to wind Harry up.

--
Colin Bignell

On 13/08/2014 07:14, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ety-fears.html


Do you not read the other threads in this group Harry? It has already been
discussed at length. All it does is to demonstrate is that the nuclear
industry has very high safety standards and that their systems work.

It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly designed.


Or, more likely in this case, a welder was having an off day. Or the
steel's been corroded by a leaky roof, or...

The unit has been running continuously for thirty years, though, which
is longer than *any* of the current generation of solar panels or wind
turbines is expected to last.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 13/08/14 12:36, John Williamson wrote:
On 13/08/2014 07:14, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ety-fears.html



Do you not read the other threads in this group Harry? It has already
been
discussed at length. All it does is to demonstrate is that the nuclear
industry has very high safety standards and that their systems work.

It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly
designed.


Or, more likely in this case, a welder was having an off day. Or the
steel's been corroded by a leaky roof, or...

The unit has been running continuously for thirty years, though, which
is longer than *any* of the current generation of solar panels or wind
turbines is expected to last.

Apart from Sizewell, all our nukes are well past their expected design
lifetimes..

Probably built better than any in the world actually. Which is why we
never sold one elsewhere. Too damned expensive



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/08/14 12:36, John Williamson wrote:
On 13/08/2014 07:14, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ety-fears.html



Do you not read the other threads in this group Harry? It has already
been
discussed at length. All it does is to demonstrate is that the nuclear
industry has very high safety standards and that their systems work.

It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly
designed.


Or, more likely in this case, a welder was having an off day. Or the
steel's been corroded by a leaky roof, or...

The unit has been running continuously for thirty years, though, which
is longer than *any* of the current generation of solar panels or wind
turbines is expected to last.

Apart from Sizewell, all our nukes are well past their expected design
lifetimes..

Probably built better than any in the world actually. Which is why we
never sold one elsewhere. Too damned expensive


how about Torness? I think it was the last one to be built.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 13/08/2014 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Apart from Sizewell, all our nukes are well past their expected design
lifetimes..

Probably built better than any in the world actually. Which is why we
never sold one elsewhere. Too damned expensive



Not quite accurate, UK designed Magnox stations were built at Latina in
Italy and Tokai Mura in Japan in the early 1960s.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 13/08/2014 07:14, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ety-fears.html


Do you not read the other threads in this group Harry? It has already
been
discussed at length. All it does is to demonstrate is that the nuclear
industry has very high safety standards and that their systems work.

It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly
designed.


Or, more likely in this case, a welder was having an off day. Or the
steel's been corroded by a leaky roof, or...

The unit has been running continuously for thirty years, though, which is
longer than *any* of the current generation of solar panels or wind
turbines is expected to last.

Bollix.
All steam raising pressure vessels have to be shut down and inspected by law
every year.

On 14/08/2014 19:32, harryagain wrote:
All steam raising pressure vessels have to be shut down and inspected by law
every year.

'struth - where are the pressure cooker police? I haven't had mine
inspected in years...

--
Rod

On 14/08/2014 19:32, harryagain wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 13/08/2014 07:14, harryagain wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ety-fears.html


Do you not read the other threads in this group Harry? It has already
been
discussed at length. All it does is to demonstrate is that the nuclear
industry has very high safety standards and that their systems work.

It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly
designed.


Or, more likely in this case, a welder was having an off day. Or the
steel's been corroded by a leaky roof, or...

The unit has been running continuously for thirty years, though, which is
longer than *any* of the current generation of solar panels or wind
turbines is expected to last.

Bollix.
All steam raising pressure vessels have to be shut down and inspected by law
every year.



As a general rule, H&S legislation these days tries to avoid setting
defined limits. The Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 are no
exception and they removed all requirements for fixed periods of
inspections. Instead, there must be written schedule of examination,
drawn up by a competent person. Whether or not that calls for an annual
inspection, or some longer or shorter period, will depend greatly upon
the perceived danger from the system. In any case, systems that are
associated with nuclear plants are usually subject to their own regulations.

--
Colin Bignell

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 19:32:18 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

All steam raising pressure vessels have to be shut down and inspected by law
every year.

No Harry they don't and never have required a 12 month test in the UK. 14
months for the safety valves (which can now be done 'on load' and without
lifting) and 26 months on the rest of the boiler is the upper limit laid down in
the legislation that is applicable to power station boilers. The 26 month
period has been the case for *many* decades.

In the case of Sizewell B it operates continuously for 18 months between
fuelling which is done off load. There is no possibility of any 'on load'
boiler inspections!


--

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:14:19 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ety-fears.html


Do you not read the other threads in this group Harry? It has already been
discussed at length. All it does is to demonstrate is that the nuclear
industry has very high safety standards and that their systems work.

It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly designed.

So, having generated at or around its rated output for around 30 years in all
weathers, in the depths of winter, the heat of summer, through blocking highs
and howling gales, a defect is found and then that is automatically viewed as a
bad design? Even those on site don't know the extent of the problem yet!

Harry the vast majority of 'renewables' are lucky to last more than a decade let
alone more than a quarter of a century.

--

On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 1:31:08 PM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:14:19 +0100, "harryagain"

wrote:





"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message

...

On 12/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:

Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ety-fears.html





Do you not read the other threads in this group Harry? It has already been

discussed at length. All it does is to demonstrate is that the nuclear

industry has very high safety standards and that their systems work.



It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly designed.



So, having generated at or around its rated output for around 30 years in all

weathers, in the depths of winter, the heat of summer, through blocking highs

and howling gales, a defect is found and then that is automatically viewed as a

bad design? Even those on site don't know the extent of the problem yet!



Harry the vast majority of 'renewables' are lucky to last more than a decade let

alone more than a quarter of a century.



--

The likes of Harry want us living in dark mud huts using animals for heat.

Philip

/The likes of Harry want us living in dark mud huts using animals for heat.

Philip /q

..... planning our assault on the odd looking house with the LED lights still on...

Jim K

In article , The Other Mike
scribeth thus
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:14:19 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...735/EDF-shuts-
down-two-UK-nuclear-plants-amid-safety-fears.html


Do you not read the other threads in this group Harry? It has already been
discussed at length. All it does is to demonstrate is that the nuclear
industry has very high safety standards and that their systems work.

It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly designed.

So, having generated at or around its rated output for around 30 years in all
weathers, in the depths of winter, the heat of summer, through blocking highs
and howling gales, a defect is found and then that is automatically viewed as a
bad design? Even those on site don't know the extent of the problem yet!

Harry the vast majority of 'renewables' are lucky to last more than a decade let
alone more than a quarter of a century.



Something to shed some light on the layout of the system...


http://www.thermopedia.com/content/638/
--
Tony Sayer

..

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 23:29:51 +0100, tony sayer wrote:


Something to shed some light on the layout of the system...


http://www.thermopedia.com/content/638/

Yep, a nightmare to inspect and repair but at least they are removable and
replaceable as a unit unlike all the other AGR's. A defect in the wrong location
and it's a permanent derating, early shutdown or no life extension possibility.

The winter margin is in danger of being eroded completely. But **** happens and
this is not an unexpected scenario when the price to the consumer, and 'green'
demands dictate no investment in real generation capability.

When you had 20-30% margin of conventional plant as in the 1980's then you can
get away with even major incidents. For instance a chance discovery at a coal
fired station maybe a three decades ago had the potential for the permanent loss
of 2GW or at least a clear up operation taking a few years and then a number of
major boiler builds from scratch. It was caught in time and sorted in a matter
of a few months before a series of what would be catastrophic failures happened
but the discovery was a severe wake up call with implications across the entire
coal fired fleet.

--

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:14:19 +0100, "harryagain"

wrote:


"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ety-fears.html


Do you not read the other threads in this group Harry? It has already
been
discussed at length. All it does is to demonstrate is that the nuclear
industry has very high safety standards and that their systems work.

It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly
designed.

So, having generated at or around its rated output for around 30 years in
all
weathers, in the depths of winter, the heat of summer, through blocking
highs
and howling gales, a defect is found and then that is automatically viewed
as a
bad design? Even those on site don't know the extent of the problem yet!

Harry the vast majority of 'renewables' are lucky to last more than a
decade let
alone more than a quarter of a century.


Is that so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Coulee_Dam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outwood_Windmill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_E...rating_Systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krafla_Power_Station

Talking drivel as usual.

--

On 14/08/2014 19:46, harryagain wrote:
"The Other Mike" wrote in message
Harry the vast majority of 'renewables' are lucky to last more than a
decade let
alone more than a quarter of a century.


Is that so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Coulee_Dam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outwood_Windmill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_E...rating_Systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krafla_Power_Station

Talking drivel as usual.

So that's fewer than 10 out of many thousands of installations that have
survived long enough to meet the specification. Only *one* of the solar
installations has lasted 30 years, the rest were built over a period of
six years, and so the newest hasn't even survived 25 years yet.

The solar installation only replaces an eighth of a nuclear station, too.

The windmill may be a few centuries old, but the currently working parts
only date back a decade or two, following wind damage. It never
generated more than a few kilowatts either.

As against fewer than 10 nuclear stations out of hundreds that have
failed partially or fully before their original design life was exceeded
in the same period.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article , harryagain
scribeth thus

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:14:19 +0100, "harryagain"

wrote:


"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2014 18:12, harryagain wrote:
Problems with Britains aging nuclear power stations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...735/EDF-shuts-
down-two-UK-nuclear-plants-amid-safety-fears.html


Do you not read the other threads in this group Harry? It has already
been
discussed at length. All it does is to demonstrate is that the nuclear
industry has very high safety standards and that their systems work.

It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly
designed.

So, having generated at or around its rated output for around 30 years in
all
weathers, in the depths of winter, the heat of summer, through blocking
highs
and howling gales, a defect is found and then that is automatically viewed
as a
bad design? Even those on site don't know the extent of the problem yet!

Harry the vast majority of 'renewables' are lucky to last more than a
decade let
alone more than a quarter of a century.


Is that so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Coulee_Dam

Yes bloody great rivers there we don't have them that size..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station

Impressive!, "it supplies 0.012% of the power demand of France"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outwood_Windmill

Wend the wind don't blow the mill don't go ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_E...rating_Systems

California rather hot there..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krafla_Power_Station

Volcanic activity's is a shade thin on the ground in the UK Dontcha
know;!..

Talking drivel as usual.


Yes, Harry you get better over the years;(...

--



--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
harryagain wrote:
It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly
designed.


Or more that nothing lasts for ever?

--
*24 hours in a day ... 24 beers in a case ... coincidence? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly
designed.


Or more that nothing lasts for ever?


The nuclear waste is with us forever. For all practical purposes.

On 14/08/2014 19:57, harryagain wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly
designed.


Or more that nothing lasts for ever?


The nuclear waste is with us forever. For all practical purposes.


Only because the Greens want it to hang around for ever.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 13/08/2014 07:14, harryagain wrote:


It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly
designed.



It demonstrates that boilers can develop faults.
Nothing to do with nuclear at all.
It also shows that some people are scared silly by the word nuclear
which is why NMRI is now MRI to keep the stupid from being scared.

On 13/08/2014 16:02, Dennis@home wrote:
On 13/08/2014 07:14, harryagain wrote:


It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly
designed.



It demonstrates that boilers can develop faults.
Nothing to do with nuclear at all.
It also shows that some people are scared silly by the word nuclear
which is why NMRI is now MRI to keep the stupid from being scared.

+1

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 13/08/2014 07:14, harryagain wrote:


It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly
designed.



It demonstrates that boilers can develop faults.
Nothing to do with nuclear at all.
It also shows that some people are scared silly by the word nuclear
which is why NMRI is now MRI to keep the stupid from being scared.

It demonstrates that they are poor design.

If we don't have them, this won't happen,

On 14/08/2014 19:58, harryagain wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 13/08/2014 07:14, harryagain wrote:


It demonstrates that some of our nuclear power stations are badly
designed.



It demonstrates that boilers can develop faults.
Nothing to do with nuclear at all.
It also shows that some people are scared silly by the word nuclear
which is why NMRI is now MRI to keep the stupid from being scared.

It demonstrates that they are poor design.

An item that works for 30 years without any major problems is bad
design? Even if the problem is only suspected, and not confirmed yet?
What does that make a wind turbine that only lasts a decade or less
before needing to be replaced because it can't be repaired economically?

If we don't have them, this won't happen,

If technology didn't exist, we'd all be sitting in hovels, killing rats
for entertainment, while dying young of many disease and suffering from
chronic malnutrition. Boilers that last 30 years or more are part of
what technology has brought us. Without boilers of this and similar
types in other power stations, nobody could make solar cells or wind
turbines.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.