Let's talk about something other than Brexit and the gay club shootings.

The UK's Small Modular Reactor Competition

"The UK government has launched a competition to select a design of a
small modular reactor (SMR) for future deployment in the UK. The idea
behind SMRs is that they can be factory built and stamped out like
aircraft and transported to location on the back of a truck. With
thirty-three companies / designs on the shortlist, this looks like the
process could take a while to complete"

http://euanmearns.com/the-uks-small-...r-competition/

An interesting read. The idea of lots of small reactors distributed
widely is appealing. It gives redundancy, means that spares for only
one type of reactor needs to be held, and training is simplified.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 18:57:07 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Let's talk about something other than Brexit and the gay club shootings.

The UK's Small Modular Reactor Competition

"The UK government has launched a competition to select a design of a
small modular reactor (SMR) for future deployment in the UK. The idea
behind SMRs is that they can be factory built and stamped out like
aircraft and transported to location on the back of a truck. With
thirty-three companies / designs on the shortlist, this looks like the
process could take a while to complete"

http://euanmearns.com/the-uks-small-...r-competition/

An interesting read. The idea of lots of small reactors distributed
widely is appealing. It gives redundancy, means that spares for only
one type of reactor needs to be held, and training is simplified.

And more chances of a cock up.
More sources of radio active material for terrorist dirty bomb.

I suggested this years ago, using designs originally intended for submarines
and ships.

Wheels reinvented while you wait.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...

Let's talk about something other than Brexit and the gay club shootings.

The UK's Small Modular Reactor Competition

"The UK government has launched a competition to select a design of a
small modular reactor (SMR) for future deployment in the UK. The idea
behind SMRs is that they can be factory built and stamped out like
aircraft and transported to location on the back of a truck. With
thirty-three companies / designs on the shortlist, this looks like the
process could take a while to complete"

http://euanmearns.com/the-uks-small-...r-competition/

An interesting read. The idea of lots of small reactors distributed
widely is appealing. It gives redundancy, means that spares for only
one type of reactor needs to be held, and training is simplified.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

Brian Gaff wrote:

I suggested this years ago, using designs originally intended for submarines
and ships.

Probably the Rolls Royce one is based on their sub reactor?

On 16-Jun-16 9:03 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
I suggested this years ago, using designs originally intended for submarines
and ships.

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote lighthouses
along their northern coast, which ran off individual subcritical reactors.


--
--

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote lighthouses
along their northern coast, which ran off individual subcritical reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial

Talking of wheels reinvented, I came across this thing, 'invented' by two
'brilliant' Africans.

https://youtu.be/sgWWXSEw0Dc?list=PL...aHONfSYCX0R H

It just amazes me that people believe this is new.

(Brian; it's a video of a rolling barrel with a handle, for transporting
water)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:03:30 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

I suggested this years ago, using designs originally intended for
submarines and ships.

Wheels reinvented while you wait.
Brian

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

It really makes a lot of sense. If you consired Chernobel and Five Mile
Island they were both huge - experimental type facilities.

We need a "standard" that has been tested to the extreme. Were failure
effects would be limited by its size. Standardisation would mean
predictability.

On 16/06/16 10:12, DerbyBorn wrote:
It really makes a lot of sense. If you consired Chernobel and Five Mile
Island they were both huge - experimental type facilities.

We need a "standard" that has been tested to the extreme. Were failure
effects would be limited by its size. Standardisation would mean
predictability.


Predictable? Ye'd then know where the moment of non-passive[1] failure
was on the MTBF plot, and the day before that would be only one that the
bean counters would let ye spend money on preventative maintenance.

[1] - er, boom ..

--
Adrian C

On 16/06/16 10:04, Bob Eager wrote:
Talking of wheels reinvented, I came across this thing, 'invented' by two
'brilliant' Africans.

https://youtu.be/sgWWXSEw0Dc?list=PL...aHONfSYCX0R H

It just amazes me that people believe this is new.


Yeah - they reinvented the Aquaroll I was using on holiday in the 70's.

On 16/06/16 10:32, Tim Watts wrote:
On 16/06/16 10:04, Bob Eager wrote:
Talking of wheels reinvented, I came across this thing, 'invented' by two
'brilliant' Africans.

https://youtu.be/sgWWXSEw0Dc?list=PL...aHONfSYCX0R H

It just amazes me that people believe this is new.


Yeah - they reinvented the Aquaroll I was using on holiday in the 70's.


1953:

http://www.aquaroll.com/news/item/di...-aquaroll.html

Bob Eager wrote:

https://youtu.be/sgWWXSEw0Dc
It just amazes me that people believe this is new.

1953 for the Aquaroll

http://www.aquaroll.com/shop/aquaroll

Tim Watts wrote:

Yeah - they reinvented the Aquaroll I was using on holiday in the 70's.

Same here, marketed at the parents to get the kids to fill the water ...

https://youtu.be/ClaXPqdUmyw

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:32:14 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

On 16/06/16 10:04, Bob Eager wrote:
Talking of wheels reinvented, I came across this thing, 'invented' by
two 'brilliant' Africans.

https://youtu.be/sgWWXSEw0Dc?list=PL...aHONfSYCX0R H

It just amazes me that people believe this is new.


Yeah - they reinvented the Aquaroll I was using on holiday in the 70's.

I did put the Aquaroll link in the comments, as someone really wouldn't
believe me.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:46:39 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

https://youtu.be/sgWWXSEw0Dc It just amazes me that people believe this
is new.

1953 for the Aquaroll

http://www.aquaroll.com/shop/aquaroll

I put that link in the comments.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 18:57:07 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Let's talk about something other than Brexit and the gay club shootings.


Your not implying there's a connection between the two are you ? ;-)

It wouldnl't suprise me that one group would claim there is to get their POV across

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 07:42:50 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 18:57:07 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Let's talk about something other than Brexit and the gay club shootings.


And more chances of a cock up.

So that's the gay club sorted....

More sources of radio active material for terrorist dirty bomb.

Is that because gay sex is dirty, but I can;t yet see a link to brexit.

Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote lighthouses
along their northern coast, which ran off individual subcritical
reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial


These were used in desert regions where solar panels with back
up batteries suffered from dust problems. I went to a lecture on them in
the 60s. Also used in spacecraft for deep space long journeys where
solar panels could not generate enough power.

On 6/15/2016 6:57 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Let's talk about something other than Brexit and the gay club shootings.

The UK's Small Modular Reactor Competition

"The UK government has launched a competition to select a design of a
small modular reactor (SMR) for future deployment in the UK. The idea
behind SMRs is that they can be factory built and stamped out like
aircraft and transported to location on the back of a truck. With
thirty-three companies / designs on the shortlist, this looks like the
process could take a while to complete"

http://euanmearns.com/the-uks-small-...r-competition/

An interesting read. The idea of lots of small reactors distributed
widely is appealing. It gives redundancy, means that spares for only
one type of reactor needs to be held, and training is simplified.

Indeed, an interesting article, to my mind worth reading for the
Rickover quote alone. It was a new quote to me, but it does rather sum
up my opinion.

Not so many years ago, there was quite a lot of enthusiasm in the UK
industry for the South African PBMR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble...odular_reactor

but it seems to have sunk without trace.

If I were asked to bet on one, I would agree with the author's view on
the Westinghouse one, except that it is probably really too large. But
while every country has a regulatory system which seems to insist on
analysing every design from first principles, and even "repeat orders"
need a major reassessment, I can't see SMRs getting off the ground, at
least in the west.

I know nothing about the regulation of the airliner industry, but we
don't seem to see every country reassessing each new plane or
modification and, Concord(e) apart, you don't seem to get countries
blocking introduction of major "foreign" planes.

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 6/15/2016 6:57 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Let's talk about something other than Brexit and the gay club shootings.

The UK's Small Modular Reactor Competition

"The UK government has launched a competition to select a design of a
small modular reactor (SMR) for future deployment in the UK. The idea
behind SMRs is that they can be factory built and stamped out like
aircraft and transported to location on the back of a truck. With
thirty-three companies / designs on the shortlist, this looks like the
process could take a while to complete"

http://euanmearns.com/the-uks-small-...r-competition/

An interesting read. The idea of lots of small reactors distributed
widely is appealing. It gives redundancy, means that spares for only
one type of reactor needs to be held, and training is simplified.

Indeed, an interesting article, to my mind worth reading for the Rickover
quote alone. It was a new quote to me, but it does rather sum up my
opinion.

Not so many years ago, there was quite a lot of enthusiasm in the UK
industry for the South African PBMR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble...odular_reactor

but it seems to have sunk without trace.

If I were asked to bet on one, I would agree with the author's view on the
Westinghouse one, except that it is probably really too large. But while
every country has a regulatory system which seems to insist on analysing
every design from first principles, and even "repeat orders" need a major
reassessment, I can't see SMRs getting off the ground, at least in the
west.

I know nothing about the regulation of the airliner industry, but we don't
seem to see every country reassessing each new plane or modification and,
Concord(e) apart, you don't seem to get countries blocking introduction of
major "foreign" planes.

They do actually. That's why you don’t see the russian
passenger aircraft flying into the EU or the US etc.

On 16-Jun-16 9:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote lighthouses
along their northern coast, which ran off individual subcritical
reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial


Isn't a light bulb basically all that a lighthouse needs?


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 17/06/2016 09:09, Nightjar wrote:
On 16-Jun-16 9:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote lighthouses
along their northern coast, which ran off individual subcritical
reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial



Isn't a light bulb basically all that a lighthouse needs?


Not a very powerful light bulb, though, according to the figures on WP.
Even allowing for it flashing on and off, so it's not powered all the
time, you are looking at a couple of hundred watts, maximum.

In article ,
GB wrote:
On 17/06/2016 09:09, Nightjar wrote:
On 16-Jun-16 9:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote lighthouses
along their northern coast, which ran off individual subcritical
reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial



Isn't a light bulb basically all that a lighthouse needs?


Not a very powerful light bulb, though, according to the figures on WP.
Even allowing for it flashing on and off, so it's not powered all the
time, you are looking at a couple of hundred watts, maximum.

in most light houses, 'flashing' is created by a revolving lens assembly.
That revolving would need a motor - more power.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 17-Jun-16 9:49 AM, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:09:09 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 16-Jun-16 9:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote lighthouses
along their northern coast, which ran off individual subcritical
reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial


Isn't a light bulb basically all that a lighthouse needs?

Bulb wattages vary widely. Here's a big one of 3 kW
http://tinyurl.com/hdbxwl5 . But modern LED arrays probably use much
less. But in older lighthouses, you also needed to supply the power
for turning the huge (and technically and aesthetically rather
beautiful IMO*) Fresnel lens systems**. Although the bigger ones
typically weighed several tons, they floated on a bath of mercury so
actually required very little effort to turn them once the initial
inertia had been overcome***. In older, manned lighthouses, this was
manpower, literally. The lighthouse keepers would regularly (every few
hours) have to wind up a falling-weight system that rotated the lens
(think Grandfather clock), but later, on unmanned lighthouses the
power had to come from another source, usually electric, from diesel
generators and batteries IIRC.

* Images here http://tinyurl.com/z2kpsu8 The bigger and heavier ones
stand several feet high.

** A rotating lens system was essential, to give the appropriate
number of flashes per minute that identified the particular
lighthouse, rather than just switching the lamp on and off repeatedly,
which as we all know, shortens the life of the bulb dramatically. The
Fresnel lenses were very efficient at gathering the maximum amount of
light from the bulb and focusing it where needed. Ranges were
typically 20 miles or so, depending on lighthouse height, bulb power
and atmospheric conditions.

*** There used to be the national lighthouse museum run by Trinity
House in Penzance some years ago, and they had several in a range of
sizes. The biggest floated in a mercury bath and could be turned with
one finger. But Trinity House closed the museum in 2005 and I think
the collection was broken up and dispersed. An absolute tragedy and
disgrace!


Although they are described as lighthouses, the vast majority of the
Soviet nuclear powered lights were little more than navigation beacons.

There is one that often appears in photos, which does have all the
gubbins of a full blown lighthouse and that has radiation warnings, but
it also has diesel generators and large fuel tanks, so the reactor was
obviously not there to run the light. Perhaps it ran a backup system to
call for attention if the main power failed.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 17/06/2016 10:07, charles wrote:
In article ,
GB wrote:
On 17/06/2016 09:09, Nightjar wrote:
On 16-Jun-16 9:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote lighthouses
along their northern coast, which ran off individual subcritical
reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial



Isn't a light bulb basically all that a lighthouse needs?


Not a very powerful light bulb, though, according to the figures on WP.
Even allowing for it flashing on and off, so it's not powered all the
time, you are looking at a couple of hundred watts, maximum.

in most light houses, 'flashing' is created by a revolving lens assembly.
That revolving would need a motor - more power.

True, indeed. So, I don't see how one of these generators could produce
anything like enough power? They seem to be in the range 10-100 watts.

Solar power makes more sense nowadays, even with redundancy built in to
allow for degradation due to dust build up.

In article , GB
wrote:
On 17/06/2016 10:07, charles wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:
On 17/06/2016 09:09, Nightjar wrote:
On 16-Jun-16 9:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote lighthouses
along their northern coast, which ran off individual subcritical
reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial



Isn't a light bulb basically all that a lighthouse needs?


Not a very powerful light bulb, though, according to the figures on
WP. Even allowing for it flashing on and off, so it's not powered all
the time, you are looking at a couple of hundred watts, maximum.

in most light houses, 'flashing' is created by a revolving lens
assembly. That revolving would need a motor - more power.

True, indeed. So, I don't see how one of these generators could produce
anything like enough power? They seem to be in the range 10-100 watts.

Solar power makes more sense nowadays,

Not in winter north of the arctic circle

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 17/06/16 10:15, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2016 10:07, charles wrote:
In article ,
GB wrote:
On 17/06/2016 09:09, Nightjar wrote:
On 16-Jun-16 9:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote lighthouses
along their northern coast, which ran off individual subcritical
reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial




Isn't a light bulb basically all that a lighthouse needs?


Not a very powerful light bulb, though, according to the figures on WP.
Even allowing for it flashing on and off, so it's not powered all the
time, you are looking at a couple of hundred watts, maximum.

in most light houses, 'flashing' is created by a revolving lens assembly.
That revolving would need a motor - more power.

True, indeed. So, I don't see how one of these generators could produce
anything like enough power? They seem to be in the range 10-100 watts.

Solar power makes more sense nowadays, even with redundancy built in to
allow for degradation due to dust build up.


Solar power makes no sense at all. Its completely unsustainable



--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 17/06/2016 11:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/16 10:15, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2016 10:07, charles wrote:
In article ,
GB wrote:
On 17/06/2016 09:09, Nightjar wrote:
On 16-Jun-16 9:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote lighthouses
along their northern coast, which ran off individual subcritical
reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial





Isn't a light bulb basically all that a lighthouse needs?


Not a very powerful light bulb, though, according to the figures on WP.
Even allowing for it flashing on and off, so it's not powered all the
time, you are looking at a couple of hundred watts, maximum.

in most light houses, 'flashing' is created by a revolving lens
assembly.
That revolving would need a motor - more power.

True, indeed. So, I don't see how one of these generators could produce
anything like enough power? They seem to be in the range 10-100 watts.

Solar power makes more sense nowadays, even with redundancy built in to
allow for degradation due to dust build up.


Solar power makes no sense at all. Its completely unsustainable

How much does a TNG cost? (£100k? £1m? £10m?) Then compare that to half
a dozen solar panels.

You probably ought to read the thread before commenting on it.

In article , GB
wrote:
On 17/06/2016 11:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/16 10:15, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2016 10:07, charles wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:
On 17/06/2016 09:09, Nightjar wrote:
On 16-Jun-16 9:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote
lighthouses along their northern coast, which ran off individual
subcritical reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial





Isn't a light bulb basically all that a lighthouse needs?


Not a very powerful light bulb, though, according to the figures on
WP. Even allowing for it flashing on and off, so it's not powered
all the time, you are looking at a couple of hundred watts, maximum.

in most light houses, 'flashing' is created by a revolving lens
assembly. That revolving would need a motor - more power.

True, indeed. So, I don't see how one of these generators could
produce anything like enough power? They seem to be in the range
10-100 watts.

Solar power makes more sense nowadays, even with redundancy built in
to allow for degradation due to dust build up.


Solar power makes no sense at all. Its completely unsustainable

How much does a TNG cost? (£100k? £1m? £10m?) Then compare that to half
a dozen solar panels.

You probably ought to read the thread before commenting on it.

Solar panels don't work at night. That's the time most people wany to turn
their lights on.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 17/06/16 12:33, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:38:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Solar power makes more sense nowadays, even with redundancy built in to
allow for degradation due to dust build up.


Solar power makes no sense at all. Its completely unsustainable

Many buoys these days are fitted with solar panels to power the
electronics, especially the scientific buoys used to record maritime
conditions such as wind speed, wave heights and temperatures. Even
lighthouses have them. What does surprise me is that they survive the
conditions, and don't get short-circuited by the salt water or simply
crudded up by salt deposits.


Yep. There its not a question of generating large amounts of power, so
batteries and solar is cheaper than cables to shore. atomic batteries,
or regular visits to replace primary cells - nuclear or not.

Its pretty **** poor in the Arctic circle in winter tho.

However that's not what I meant. I meant that when you need to generate
serious amounts of power, reliably, solar doesn't cut the mustard. The
batteries get too huge and too expensive, and the whole thing gets to be
about the battery, and you might as well have something else instead.



Two scientific buoys in the Channel off Plymouth:
http://tinyurl.com/guae5m2 http://tinyurl.com/gse33le

and the Bishop Rock lighthouse west of the Isles of Scilly
http://tinyurl.com/hhnhyrt (solar panels up around the lantern below
the helipad), Nab Tower off Southampton http://tinyurl.com/h9jfgrs and
Royal Sovereign, off Eastbourne http://tinyurl.com/gtlmzru

"In 1973, the oil lamp was changed to a hyper radial rotating 400W
light, when *electricity was brought to Bishop Rock*. The lamp emits two
white flashes every 15 seconds and has an intensity of 600,000 candela.
It has a range of 45km."

http://www.engineering-timelines.com...Item.asp?id=36

It may have solar panels, but it looks very much as if it has an
undersea cable powering it, since solar panels were not in existence in
1973.

I accept that the other two are currently solar powered, but they are
low pwer, and close enough to shore to be easily serviceable when
anything goes wrong


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

Nightjar wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote lighthouses
along their northern coast, which ran off individual subcritical
reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial

Isn't a light bulb basically all that a lighthouse needs?

Yes, but that hardly makes them candidates for a UK modular reactor ...

On 17/06/16 13:04, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote lighthouses
along their northern coast, which ran off individual subcritical
reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial


Isn't a light bulb basically all that a lighthouse needs?

Yes, but that hardly makes them candidates for a UK modular reactor ...

OTOH a pair of reactors (for redundancy) makes a lot of sense for remote
island communities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Collette_Power_Station

is interesting. Note that undersea interconnectors can and do fail.

IN the end its a cost benefit calculation. Whether reactors,
interconnections with gas backup, diesel or WHY is actually the cheapest
way to supply a small isolated community with power.



--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

In article ,
harry scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 18:57:07 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Let's talk about something other than Brexit and the gay club shootings.

The UK's Small Modular Reactor Competition

"The UK government has launched a competition to select a design of a
small modular reactor (SMR) for future deployment in the UK. The idea
behind SMRs is that they can be factory built and stamped out like
aircraft and transported to location on the back of a truck. With
thirty-three companies / designs on the shortlist, this looks like the
process could take a while to complete"

http://euanmearns.com/the-uks-small-...r-competition/

An interesting read. The idea of lots of small reactors distributed
widely is appealing. It gives redundancy, means that spares for only
one type of reactor needs to be held, and training is simplified.



And more chances of a cock up.
More sources of radio active material for terrorist dirty bomb.

I knew it was you who wrote the even before i looked see who had;!....

How sadly predictable(...
--
Tony Sayer

On 17/06/16 16:04, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 18:57:07 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Let's talk about something other than Brexit and the gay club shootings.

The UK's Small Modular Reactor Competition

"The UK government has launched a competition to select a design of a
small modular reactor (SMR) for future deployment in the UK. The idea
behind SMRs is that they can be factory built and stamped out like
aircraft and transported to location on the back of a truck. With
thirty-three companies / designs on the shortlist, this looks like the
process could take a while to complete"

http://euanmearns.com/the-uks-small-...r-competition/

An interesting read. The idea of lots of small reactors distributed
widely is appealing. It gives redundancy, means that spares for only
one type of reactor needs to be held, and training is simplified.



And more chances of a cock up.
More sources of radio active material for terrorist dirty bomb.

I knew it was you who wrote the even before i looked see who had;!....

How sadly predictable(...

Well yes.

Of course te reactors are generally 'sealed fir life' so its pretty hard
to actually get he material out without some pretty specialised kit, and
you would either have to do that onsite, or steal the whole 1000 tonne
reactor....

And if you start dismantling a scrammed reactor, you have better be
quick or very protected, cos the gamma is gonna fry you in an hour


--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 6/17/2016 4:22 PM, Tim Streater wrote:


And more chances of a cock up.
More sources of radio active material for terrorist dirty bomb.

I knew it was you who wrote the even before i looked see who had;!....

How sadly predictable(...

Well yes.

Of course te reactors are generally 'sealed fir life' so its pretty
hard to actually get he material out without some pretty specialised
kit, and you would either have to do that onsite, or steal the whole
1000 tonne reactor....

And if you start dismantling a scrammed reactor, you have better be
quick or very protected, cos the gamma is gonna fry you in an hour

Perhaps harry, with all his nuclear expertise, can explain how to get
radioactive stuff out (without killing yourself, that is).

I'm pretty relaxed about terrorists taking on either a full sized or a
small modular reactor. Knocking any power station off the grid is pretty
easy of course, but I reckon there are far softer targets around than a
reactor pressure vessel (or other sensitive parts). And I think we can
be reasonably sure that anyone googling too assiduously for details will
get ....noticed.

On 17/06/2016 12:09, charles wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:
On 17/06/2016 11:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/16 10:15, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2016 10:07, charles wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:
On 17/06/2016 09:09, Nightjar wrote:
On 16-Jun-16 9:58 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote
lighthouses along their northern coast, which ran off individual
subcritical reactors.

Yes, but with enough juice for a light bulb ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Terrestrial





Isn't a light bulb basically all that a lighthouse needs?


Not a very powerful light bulb, though, according to the figures on
WP. Even allowing for it flashing on and off, so it's not powered
all the time, you are looking at a couple of hundred watts, maximum.

in most light houses, 'flashing' is created by a revolving lens
assembly. That revolving would need a motor - more power.

True, indeed. So, I don't see how one of these generators could
produce anything like enough power? They seem to be in the range
10-100 watts.

Solar power makes more sense nowadays, even with redundancy built in
to allow for degradation due to dust build up.


Solar power makes no sense at all. Its completely unsustainable

How much does a TNG cost? (£100k? £1m? £10m?) Then compare that to half
a dozen solar panels.

You probably ought to read the thread before commenting on it.

Solar panels don't work at night. That's the time most people wany to turn
their lights on.

Charge batteries during the day.

A TNG does make sense along the North coast of the USSR, where it's dark
for months on end in the winter.

On 17/06/2016 14:41, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:59:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Yep. There its not a question of generating large amounts of power, so
batteries and solar is cheaper than cables to shore. atomic batteries,
or regular visits to replace primary cells - nuclear or not.

Its pretty **** poor in the Arctic circle in winter tho.

However that's not what I meant. I meant that when you need to generate
serious amounts of power, reliably, solar doesn't cut the mustard. The
batteries get too huge and too expensive, and the whole thing gets to be
about the battery, and you might as well have something else instead.


No argument there!

Two scientific buoys in the Channel off Plymouth:
http://tinyurl.com/guae5m2 http://tinyurl.com/gse33le

and the Bishop Rock lighthouse west of the Isles of Scilly
http://tinyurl.com/hhnhyrt (solar panels up around the lantern below
the helipad), Nab Tower off Southampton http://tinyurl.com/h9jfgrs and
Royal Sovereign, off Eastbourne http://tinyurl.com/gtlmzru

"In 1973, the oil lamp was changed to a hyper radial rotating 400W
light, when *electricity was brought to Bishop Rock*. The lamp emits two
white flashes every 15 seconds and has an intensity of 600,000 candela.
It has a range of 45km."

http://www.engineering-timelines.com...Item.asp?id=36

It may have solar panels, but it looks very much as if it has an
undersea cable powering it, since solar panels were not in existence in
1973.

The phrase 'electricity was brought to Bishop Rock' is misleading. It
means 'when the Bishop Rock was electrified'. The Bishop doesn't have
an undersea cable. When the paraffin vapour lamp was replaced by
incandescent electric lamps (1500 watt, 240 volt) in 1972/3, they were
powered by diesel generators. The lamps were subsequently changed in
the early 1990's, to the two 400 watt lamps you mention.

It's odd to turn diesel power into electricity, with all the losses that
implies, and then just use the electricity to heat up an incandescent light.

The idea of paraffin vapour lamps sounds much more thermodynamically
efficient.






At that time,
when full automation was being planned, solar power was considered but
it was concluded that they wouldn't generate enough power. New
generators were installed, running intermittently and charging
batteries. Fuel is stored on-site, enough for 18 months, topped up
every 6 months by supplies helicoptered in. Around 2008, consideration
was being given to using 'alternative energy sources' to reduce the
lighthouse's use of diesel power. I imagine the solar panels visible
in that photo are the result, probably charging the batteries when the
sun shines, with the diesels doing it when it doesn't.

Source: 'Bishop Rock Lighthouse', Elisabeth Stanbrook, Twelveheads
Press, 2008.

On 17/06/2016 17:58, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:48:51 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 17/06/2016 14:41, Chris Hogg wrote:

and the Bishop Rock lighthouse west of the Isles of Scilly
http://tinyurl.com/hhnhyrt (solar panels up around the lantern below
the helipad), Nab Tower off Southampton http://tinyurl.com/h9jfgrs and
Royal Sovereign, off Eastbourne http://tinyurl.com/gtlmzru

"In 1973, the oil lamp was changed to a hyper radial rotating 400W
light, when *electricity was brought to Bishop Rock*. The lamp emits two
white flashes every 15 seconds and has an intensity of 600,000 candela.
It has a range of 45km."

http://www.engineering-timelines.com...Item.asp?id=36

It may have solar panels, but it looks very much as if it has an
undersea cable powering it, since solar panels were not in existence in
1973.

The phrase 'electricity was brought to Bishop Rock' is misleading. It
means 'when the Bishop Rock was electrified'. The Bishop doesn't have
an undersea cable. When the paraffin vapour lamp was replaced by
incandescent electric lamps (1500 watt, 240 volt) in 1972/3, they were
powered by diesel generators. The lamps were subsequently changed in
the early 1990's, to the two 400 watt lamps you mention.

It's odd to turn diesel power into electricity, with all the losses that
implies, and then just use the electricity to heat up an incandescent light.

The idea of paraffin vapour lamps sounds much more thermodynamically
efficient.

The change was part of a major modernisation of the lighthouse. Lamp
power was increased from the paraffin lamp's 720,000 candelas to
2,600,000 candelas with the electric lamps, increasing the range by 4
miles to 29 miles. It took 30 minutes to light the vapour lamp burner,
and electric lamps were more reliable and required less maintenance.
The generators powered other bits of kit as well, notably the drive to
the lens rotating system, compressed air fog signals (previously
'tonite' explosive cartridges*), radio communications and RACON radar
(previously battery powered) and cooking and heating (previously
coal).

* http://tinyurl.com/zuuookh

Cooking - so it was manned, at least then.

On 16/06/2016 09:26, Nightjar wrote:
On 16-Jun-16 9:03 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
I suggested this years ago, using designs originally intended for
submarines
and ships.

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union built a series of remote lighthouses
along their northern coast, which ran off individual subcritical reactors.


Also radio beacons of some kind. After being decommissioned they were
just abandoned. Some have been canabalised by metal thieves with
unfortunate consequences for the people involved.

On 17/06/2016 16:22, Tim Streater wrote:


Perhaps harry, with all his nuclear expertise, can explain how to get
radioactive stuff out (without killing yourself, that is).


Its obvious, you blow it up with a nuke.