https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197
When I was involved, oil was mainly used.

On 18/09/2019 07:29, harry wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197
When I was involved, oil was mainly used.


SF6 was introduced as a safer alternative to PCBs.

--
Colin Bignell

On 18/09/2019 09:52, nightjar wrote:
On 18/09/2019 07:29, harry wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197
When I was involved, oil was mainly used.


SF6 was introduced as a safer alternative to PCBs.


And this was discussed 10 years ago. Not sure why the
BBC have suddenly 'discovered' a problem.

On 18/09/2019 11:17, Andrew wrote:
On 18/09/2019 09:52, nightjar wrote:
On 18/09/2019 07:29, harry wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197
When I was involved, oil was mainly used.


SF6 was introduced as a safer alternative to PCBs.


And this was discussed 10 years ago. Not sure why the
BBC have suddenly 'discovered' a problem.
Because its a massively nasty greenhouse gas, allegedly.

Another hollow laugh moment: Gas, as you know, per kWh, emits less CO2
than coal.

At the point of burning.

It transpires that from well to burn the methane loss into the
atmosphere makes it as bad as coal overall in GHG terms



--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 18/09/2019 11:17, Andrew wrote:
On 18/09/2019 09:52, nightjar wrote:
On 18/09/2019 07:29, harry wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197
When I was involved, oil was mainly used.


SF6 was introduced as a safer alternative to PCBs.


And this was discussed 10 years ago. Not sure why the
BBC have suddenly 'discovered' a problem.

I assume that's a rhetorical question?

On 18/09/2019 07:29, harry wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197
When I was involved, oil was mainly used.

I'd say *not* an interesting topic. It would have been interesting if
they had explored the many benefits of SF6, and how they stacked up
about the supposed costs. But that is modern journalism for you.

newshound wrote:
On 18/09/2019 07:29, harry wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197
When I was involved, oil was mainly used.

I'd say *not* an interesting topic. It would have been interesting if
they had explored the many benefits of SF6, and how they stacked up
about the supposed costs. But that is modern journalism for you.

If I read

https://assets.publishing.service.go...atistics_2.pdf

correctly, the UK alone emits about 450Mt of CO2 per year; the same
warming effect from SF6 would (using the figure of 23,500 times)
require the UK to lose over 19,000t to the atmosphere; which would seem
like rather a lot. Wikipedia has this statement "Given the small
amounts of SF6 released compared to carbon dioxide, its overall
contribution to global warming is estimated to be less than 0.2
percent.[32]" - not that that small relative contribution should stop
people looking for alternatives.

#Paul

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:06:50 +0100, newshound
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 07:29, harry wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197
When I was involved, oil was mainly used.

I'd say *not* an interesting topic. It would have been interesting if
they had explored the many benefits of SF6, and how they stacked up
about the supposed costs. But that is modern journalism for you.

From the perspective of the grid and distribution networks it leads to much more
compact switchgear, less land area, massively extended maintenance intervals,
higher reliability, no possibility of oil leaks, no need for oil containment and
oil in water management, no need for air compressors and a massively reduced
possibility of catastrophic switchgear failure.

First large scale install in the UK was mid 70's at a site on the Sheffield
275kV ring

For the UK there has been stringent management in terms of filling, leak
detection and gas recovery for many decades.

Touching a 400kV metalclad busbar casing with the live conductor just 100mm
beyond your fingertips is possible. It's no more than an earthed bit of
pipework.

--

On 19/09/2019 09:15, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:06:50 +0100, newshound
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 07:29, harry wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197
When I was involved, oil was mainly used.

I'd say *not* an interesting topic. It would have been interesting if
they had explored the many benefits of SF6, and how they stacked up
about the supposed costs. But that is modern journalism for you.

From the perspective of the grid and distribution networks it leads to much more
compact switchgear, less land area, massively extended maintenance intervals,
higher reliability, no possibility of oil leaks, no need for oil containment and
oil in water management, no need for air compressors and a massively reduced
possibility of catastrophic switchgear failure.

First large scale install in the UK was mid 70's at a site on the Sheffield
275kV ring

For the UK there has been stringent management in terms of filling, leak
detection and gas recovery for many decades.

Touching a 400kV metalclad busbar casing with the live conductor just 100mm
beyond your fingertips is possible. It's no more than an earthed bit of
pipework.

That's what I love about this group. It's sometimes even better at
answering arcane questions than Google!

:-)

(Spent my 50 years on the generation side, had very little to do with
transmission).