BLUEMOMENT

the gov minister hutton announced a new coal fired power station this morning and that the coal would be obtained from more secure suppliers (than gas). Naturally enough, if he's not referring to Russia who supply more than 50%, or South Africa who supply 35% or even Colombia who supply the rest of our imported coal which is 70% of UK steam coal consumption, then he must be referring to the boyos in the valleys?

I'm sure Australia and the USA would be happy to supply.

Lots of coal came from E Germany during the miners strike. Funny really the German miners were sending cash to the strikers, while the Communist government were sending coal to make sure the strikers lost.

Surprisingly its still cheaper to transport coal from Russia etc than it is to dig it up in Barnsley.

Olivepage wrote: Surprisingly its still cheaper to transport coal from Russia etc than it is to dig it up in Barnsley.

Not to mention New Zealand lamb, East European tree transplants, clothes from the Far East...

Anyway I'm sure he meant the boyos in the Hunter Valley, New South Wales...

Anyway I'm sure he meant the boyos in the Hunter Valley, New South Wales...

not at all. thon's an aussie chemical plant that tries to make wine in an aussie sort of way.

efter global whatsit it'll be chateau tredegar/pontypridd from the leek eaters which is a fate worse than stuffing a pipe up the exhaust and breathing in which is whit the gov's doing ....

I was on a transatlantic trip recently at the start of which a fellow crew member suggested the purchase of 'industrial quantities of wine.' Is that similar?
In any event, it was only just enough..

Olivepage wrote:I'm sure Australia ..... would be happy to supply.

apparently, they already do. coking coal for steel.

i think the gov are in a state of panic. something's made them believe that they've got to increase capacity very quickly.

ParaHandy wrote: i think the gov are in a state of panic. something's made them believe that they've got to increase capacity very quickly.

For years they've done nothing but watch as the load steadily rises and the power stations get older, sticking to the party line that the market will deliver, and ignoring all warnings that electricity might just behave differently. (A shortage would obviously cause a price spike but, even if that was sufficiently high to encourage an immediate start of new build, power station construction takes years. Meanwhile, some of the lights will be out...)

Perhaps the penny has finally dropped and they've had an injection of realism! (I know, difficult to believe of politicians...) Of course they may just be remembering exactly how long Heath's government lasted the last time the lights went out...

DaveS wrote:power station construction takes years.

I think a coal fired power station could be built a lot quicker (especially on an existing site) than a nuke? Although, I heard Bob Marshall-Andrews demanding a public inquiry so it might not be so quick.

Given the amount of sulphur, CO2 and much more that a coal fired station will pour into the atmosphere (the scandanavians have not forgotten or forgiven us Drax and what it did to the environment in the Kattegat), the budget's increased tax burden on high emission is a nonsense. Do as I say, not as I do ...

A coal fired station could certainly be built quicker than a nuke, but we're still talking years - equally unacceptable politically if we're into rota cuts. Another worry is that the "brownout" measures before resorting to load shedding - 3% then 6% voltage reduction - are likely to be much less effective than 30 years ago due to the growth in switch mode power supplies, HF lighting controls and "intelligent" motor drives, all of which simply draw more current as the voltage falls.

There is, of course, always the argument that the sulphur from coal fired stations causes an increase in atmospheric reflectivity which partially counteracts the greenhouse effect of the additional CO2. It's not one that I'm very happy with, personally.

DaveS wrote:A coal fired station could certainly be built quicker than a nuke, but we're still talking years - equally unacceptable politically if we're into rota cuts.

i reckon it'll be a close run thing but your view is that we might actually have to shut down?

i reckon it'll be a close run thing but your view is that we might actually have to shut down?

Aye, invest in candles.

Seriously Dave, we've been thinking of putting in a wee wood stove in our all-electric retirement home here in the West - good long term thinking or unnecessary palaver?

Interesting history to Drax.

First its the biggest coal fired station in West Europe, 4 GWatt from 6 x 660MWatt alternators.

Also has 4 RR Olympus powered alternators to meet short term requirements.

Indeed the Scandinavians, particularly the Norwegians did start a fuss about SO2 - You may remember that was going to be the cause of the end of civilization as we know it, before CFCs but after the next iceage. And of course before MMGW was invented.

So they built the FGD plant, several hundred million of our money. which lowered the SO2 output considerably. They also built a factory some miles away to handle the "exhaust" (magnesium sulphate?) from the FGD plant and make it into plasterboard.

Only problem was that the unit cost of output from Drax increased considerably when the FGD plant was running.

So that the Grid control took base load from other stations which were cheaper

So that revenue dropped and efficiency dropped because they were not running all the sets at full output.

So they effectively went bust

The banks had an American company in to run the place, because Americans know more about these things don't they.

So after a year or three, and writing off one set by dropping the rotor onto the stator during a maintenance "event" they walked away from it, literally, just packed their bags and went and buggered off back to wild west leaving even more debt in their wake.

So a mixture of chasing anti- pollution targets (SO2)

Unit cost targets

And now CO2 targets

Has meant the largest and probably most efficient coal fired station in the country is a financial basket case. So how can they expect to gain investment to improve efficiency.

The place is approaching the end of its working life, so where is the 4/5GWatt capacity to replace it? And thats to stand still, no allowance for growth.

Energy policy in this country is a complete dogs dinner, chasing whatever target suits the latest headline in the Sun. An absolute shambles.

Nick wrote:

i reckon it'll be a close run thing but your view is that we might actually have to shut down?

Aye, invest in candles.

Seriously Dave, we've been thinking of putting in a wee wood stove in our all-electric retirement home here in the West - good long term thinking or unnecessary palaver?

Well a stove is a nice thing in its own right, but installing one would indeed be a hassle. I personally would probably not bother. You've got storage heaters, and even if rota cuts happen they're unlikely to happen overnight so you'll still be warm - unlike the poor sods with gas central heating (now including me ) which of course stops working immediately the power goes off.