http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/index.cfm?forumid=1 FuseTalk Standard Edition http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52499 2013-05-15T20:16:56 00 jarathoon 1
http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/dfr

also

http://dual-fluid-reactor.org/

"The Dual Fluid Reactor, DFR, is a novel nuclear reactor concept based on the Generation IV Molten-Salt Reactor (MSR) concept and the liquid-metal cooled reactors (SFR, LFR) with the major improvement that the molten-salt fuel is not used as coolant but the heat is removed in a separate liquid-lead loop.

The DFR has been invented by members of the Institute for Solid State Nuclear Physics (Institut für Festkörper-Kernphysik, IFK) and an associate member. A patent is pending and the IFK is currently seeking public and private funding. "

]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52495 2013-05-15T16:44:50 00 jarathoon 1 "National Grid and Statnett confirm plans for further development of the world's longest interconnector"

"The NSN interconnector will have a capacity of 1400 MW and will be the first electricity link between UK and Norway. The link will contribute to further integration of the North-European power markets and strengthen the North-European power grid. It will support production and consumption of renewable energy and help towards achieving EU 2020 renewable goals."

http://www.nationalgrid.com/co...onnector+15.05.13.htm

http://www.statnett.no/en/Inte...rconnector-Norway-UK/

]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52492 2013-05-15T12:40:35 00 jarathoon 1
"Britain's hopes for new nuclear power may at last be cleared by ministers, with EDF deal set to be struck within weeks"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/mon...=rss&ns_campaign=1490

According the Daily Mail Online a deal may be struck within two weeks...

"But now sources close to the talks say 'the mood music has changed'."


'the mood music has changed' has it! That explains everything then...


"It is now understood that this is likely to be set between £93 and £96 per mega-watt hour.

While ministers wanted a lower rate, in the £80s, EDF said it could not build the reactors for that amount.

To compensate for the higher price, sources say tough terms and conditions in the contract will prevent EDF from making 'massive windfall profits' from the venture - a key political concern because ministers do not want to be seen to be over-paying to the French state-backed firm.

A clause is likely to be inserted that will allow the Government to claw back money from the company to pass back to consumers if this happens, it is understood."

So the Treasury will now write a 'blank cheque' with a claw back term which converts a inflation adjusted "contracts for difference" system, into "contracts for guaranteed 10% profits on unlimited amounts of public money expended" system (CfG-10%-oUAoPM)

In addition the public will be insuring the reactor against most of consequential costs and losses of an accident, giving loan guarantees, paying extra if the project runs over time and budget, subsidising the education and training of new staff, putting a cap on the costs of nuclear waste handling and disposal, subsidising the costs of increasing the size of the spinning power generation reserve etc. etc...

How can the other energy companies compete with this?

Well they can't.

Within 10 years they will have all negociated "contracts for guaranteed 10% profits on unlimited amounts of public money expended" deals from the Treasury.

No doubt Treasury and DECC staff will have gold plated jobs laid on for them, once they leave the civil service [as seems to have been the general practice in the MoD until very recently], in order to compensate them for their valient efforts in negociating a good deal for the energy oligarchs.

Obviously if this nonsense goes ahead and gets made into law, I will quit the Liberal Democrats; eventually when a different party (other than the Toies of the Lib Dems) offers to sweep all this nonsense away I will vote for them instead.

James Arathoon]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52488 2013-05-15T08:30:26 00 SherryF 1 Our company is designing an EX e (increased safety) heater assembly for the USA. We have specified the design to be compliant with ISA 60079.7 so that we can get it certified through ISA or UL. The Ex e standard defines generous min creepage and clearance distances that must be satisfied, e.g. for 320V a min clearance of 6mm is required and a min creepage of 6.3mm for material group I. Our situation is that we have two conductors that are insulated from each-other by an insulator with a number of joints. In ISA 60079.7 if the joint is un-cemented, the clearance and creepage distances are the line of sight along the joint; however there is no clear definition as how to change this joint to a cemented joint (i.e. to make it equivalent to solid insulation).
I have found some definitions that talk about a cemented joint but they refer to a joint which is filled with an insulating compound such as epoxy or silicone .
I am after a clear definition of the requirement of this insulating compound so our design would comply with the standard in order to avoid any design changes later on. Does the joint just need to be filled or is there a requirement for a certain level of bonding.

Thank you very much in advance
Sherry]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52473 2013-05-14T12:08:20 00 jarathoon 1
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/e...onium/1016276.article

Since the failed consultation on siting an underground nuclear waste storage facility in Cumbria, reprocessing and then burying our Plutonium stockpile is now no longer a vaible option politically. The available options for burning up the plutonium are:

a) Reprocessing Plutonium into MOX fuel for 3rd Generation Nuclear Reactors.
b) Reprocessing Plutonium to be "burnt" in a fast neutron reactor (e.g. using Sodium or Molten Salt or Helium gas cooling)
b) Reprocessing Plutonium to be "burnt" in a thermal neutron reactor (e.g. using a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor)

Even if new 3rd generation reactors are built (which is extremely unlikely now) they are not necessarily going to be able to burn MOX fuel. The EPR would need to repeat large parts of the GDA process and incorporate design changes to be able to use MOX fuel. We would also need a new MOX fuel manufacturing and fabrication plant.

A MOX burning variant of Hitachi's ABWR is currently under construction in Japan.

http://www.world-nuclear-news....o_resume-0110124.html

I am not sure if Hitachi will be applying to get a MOX burning ABWR reactor through the GDA process or not. Does anyone else know?

Anyway the final two options are fourth generation reactor choices which need further research and development. The costs of reprocessing the fuel/waste at both the front and back end of the reactors need to be compared, not just the main reactor costs.

James Arathoon]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52469 2013-05-14T10:04:19 00 MHIJAZI84 2
I am interested in real time information and how it can be used in the power industry in general and power distributions networks in particular all help are welcomed.]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52466 2013-05-14T09:38:04 00 Noaksie 2 http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52464 2013-05-14T02:49:00 00 annasalizzato 1
The $1.2 million methane system captures the byproduct of the bacterial breakdown of sludge to operate the boiler and heat the rest of the plant.

The plant's natural gas bill - which previously averaged $453,511 a year - dropped to $140,938 in 2012 and the savings are expected to continue annually.

Read More : http://www.postcrescent.com/ar...050322/?nclick_check=1]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52454 2013-05-12T15:29:00 00 jarathoon 1
"Slow is scary if France quits nuclear : state institute"

http://www.reuters.com/article...idUSBRE93M0XF20130423

Apparently a dramatic skills shortage is looming for EDF later this decade, as France confirms that it wants to slowly wind down its nuclear portfolio.

" "You can't spread the exit of nuclear over half a century. It's very dangerous," he said, adding that this consideration partly explained Germany's decision to opt for a fast exit to avoid a loss of skills.

France's state-owned utility EDF, which operates its 58 nuclear reactors, faces a wave of retirements and will have to replace half its nuclear staff by 2017-18."

This is what the Modernisation of British Rail required when moving from steam power to diesel power. (Here we are attempting to move from 3rd Gen. Nuclear to 4th Gen. Nuclear, and the skill sets needed will be as different as in the move from steam power to diesel power on the railways)

British Rail found it wasn't cost effective or practical to make the transistion from steam to diesel gradually. It is difficult to attract lots of clever young people to learn skills only necessary to keep an obviously dying industry alive for a few years longer than might otherwise be the case. Maintaining supply chain investment and naintaining support services for long obsolete products becomes extremely difficult even at any cost.

Both the new EPR nuclear reactors currently being built in Europe, France's Flamanville 3 and Finland's Olkiluoto 3 are both now due to be finished in 2016. That means they have to be commisssioned in parallel. That means managing two separate and highly skilled commissioning teams (from the contractor supply chains as well as from Areva/EDF) at just the time they have large numbers of people retiring out of the Industry.

This of course increases the risk of yet further delays to one or both of these projects.

The senior policy people at the IET should think about how they respond to the question I raised a few days ago...

"What happens once the UK abandons the path to new 3rd Generation Nuclear?"

http://www.theiet.org/forums/f...d=52371&enterthread=y

James Arathoon]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52444 2013-05-11T11:27:29 00 jarathoon 1
"New Thinking Blog: British energy policy: descending to a combination of pork barrel politics and desperation?"

http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/i...tics-and-desperation/

The most important paragraph comes at the end.

" Freeing up Britain to Innovate

Britain is gearing up to think about its plutonium management, just at a time when the Government's faltering nuclear power programme could do with some more support. One option might be to inject further support into the Sellafield nuclear complex thereby potentially (although unlikely) helping to meet both objectives. However, this comes at a cost to society way beyond the short-term direct costs. The Government has got to realise that global energy systems and technologies are developing rapidly and their characteristics are about flexibility, the opposite of plutonium and uranium based technologies. The continued focus on nuclear power and its associated technologies increasingly appears anachronistic, particularly if that energy policy is muddled with powerful regional and defence policies and lobbies."


The most important point here is not exactly what Catherine Mitchell actually says in her article and how it might be said better or with a different emphasis; the most important point is in fact the underlying sentiment that she has chosen to express - a very strong desire to challenge the establishment position on energy, in particular nuclear energy, to encourage people to look for something better.

James Arathoon]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52431 2013-05-10T12:03:12 00 bartonp 1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22480068]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52426 2013-05-10T04:01:03 00 mikeoride 1
In 2009, Chuck Ellis, president of Pearl Valley Cheese in Fresno, Ohio, ordered a 400,000-gallon anaerobic digester system from Siemens Water Technology to both lower BOD from cheese whey and wastewater streams and to produce methane to fire his plant's boiler. By the time the system was commissioned in 2011, "We found that the ROI didn't pan out," he recalls.

On the other hand, Fresno's rural location in eastern Ohio (the community is approximately midway between Columbus and Pittsburgh) translates to high electric rates. Ellis accepted a bid from GEM Energy to engineer a high-pressure moisture removal system for methane to feed a 65 kW microturbine. The system came on line in March and is meeting about 20 percent of Pearl Valley's electric demand, feeding electricity back to the grid when the plant is not in production.]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52412 2013-05-09T11:57:52 00 jarathoon 13
http://enformable.com/2013/05/...aiichi-reactor/


"Workers at Fukushima Daiichi were working this week to remove rubble from atop the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 reactor building with remote-controlled cranes, when they discovered the radiation dose from a piece of debris they removed from the 5th floor of the reactor building was highly radioactive and releasing a dose rate over 540 millisieverts per hour. The maximum allowable exposure for radiation workers in the U.S. is 50 millisieverts per year.


The debris, which is approximately 1 cubic meter in size, was transferred to a building on the south side of the Fukushima Daiichi complex for temporary storage, until it can be transferred to a solid waste storage site in the future."



No doubt the Japanese investigators have sampled the debris to find out what it consists of, so hopefully within a few weeks we should be given more information on this.


The UK's Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) keep telling us all that the explosion at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 was a simple hydrogen explosion. I have spoken to two experienced Nuclear Inspectors face to face on two different occasions. At the time of our conversations they both supported the consensus hydrogen explosion thesis.


However it is now very likely that as the on-site teams explore further into the building they will find even higher levels of radioactivity than just found on the 5th floor.


How can a hydrogen/air explosion account for such large lumps of highly radioactive debris?


This debris must contain significant amounts of material from either inside the reactor containment or from within the fuel pool; there are no other sources for material as radioactive as this.

The evidence is really starting to stack up against the consensus view of Nuclear Regulatory Professionals across the world have adopted; that this was just a simple hydrogen explosion.


The roof steels are all missing right above the unit 3 fuel pool, and given that the measured radioactivity levels, within the reactor dry wall containment, did not change significantly around the time of the explosion, it seems to me that a very credible explanation is that some form of fuel pool detonation occurred.


However the problem is we won't know for sure what happened until new robots are built that can get into to inspect the internal building damage in detail. The radioactivity levels are too high for humans and they may well prove to be too high for existing robot technologies as well.


In the meantime I would like to see the HSE withdraw HM Chief Inspector's Fukushima Final Report findings in regard to the Unit 3 reactor explosion, pending further data and a further evaluation of the newly available facts.


I don't want to see the ONR have to withdraw their report findings, after pressure is applied by campaigners and politicians, and in a way that completely undermines their future credibility.

James Arathoon]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52371 2013-05-07T13:11:00 00 jarathoon 5
When the negotiations between the government and EDF finally collapse (sometime this summer, most likely before the holiday season in August), we as engineers should not be taken by surprise, we should have something to say or be actively preparing something to say on what we do instead.

It is now clear 'the collective client' [that is the UK public] cannot afford the proposed "3rd generation nuclear at any cost" option that is on the table, therefore we need as engineers to work up some alternatives, we all can collectively afford. In particular we need to build up a private sector market place in energy generation technologies, not design systems which abolish private sector innovation and involvement.

I personally think we need a transformed and renewed nuclear industry (especially in terms of its current leadership) to encourage research and development in terms of new nuclear waste management and energy generation technologies.

I don't want to be helping dig a hole to bury plutonium at great expense. Nor do I want to build another sodium filled fast neutron fission reactor to burn it. I want to build "thermal neutron" molten salt reactors to get rid of our civilian stockpile of plutonium waste, along with other thorium nuclear molten salt reactors which generate very little plutonium and other long lived radioactive waste as a long term energy generation technology. I think we should build these technologies up in any order or by any process that makes sense.

If people think that putting corrosion resistant nuclear fuel pebbles in a molten salt heat transfer bath, as a first step, then so be it, I will go along with that. Building plants which require fast flowing pressurised gas or water cooling is expensive and difficult and just doesn't make any commercial or engineering sense, if you can use slow moving molten salts as the heat transfer fluid at atmospheric pressure instead.

In the UK, I think we do have the necessary engineering motivation, expertise and funds to build up new UK based fourth generation nuclear development programmes, especially if those programmes are built up in partnership with other countries.

I think in the present circumstances we should be saying "look instead of new 3rd generation nuclear at any cost" we could be doing this or that or the other, some mixture of this, that and the other. The more potential alternatives we work up the better at this stage, because the more sensible our medium and long term choices will be further on down the line.

I know some of you are sick of me saying this again and again and again. However I don't care, because I am sick and tired of living in a country run by people who argue from "presige", or use other dishonest rhetorical tricks, to undermine efforts to evauate or consider alternatives, and who thus lead us to collectively throw away billions and billons of pounds down the drain, year in, year out, with lots of senseless repetition and little rational deviation.

James Arathoon]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52370 2013-05-07T12:49:25 00 RubyMariya 12 Ability to do work is called energy.
Energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. It change its form.
Kinds:
Different forms of energy are:
Mechanical Energy
Heat Energy
Chemical Energy
Magnetic Energy
Electrical Energy]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52367 2013-05-06T21:50:34 00 emmanuel 2
But what about when you have an automatic incremental PFC system in place - and you then install backup generation; should we spend time and money (and often incur system down time while implementing the control) to ensure we inhibit or drop out the PFC?

As it is automatic, it will never drive the PF into leading, potential faults with PFC units (in my experience) normally result in banks not coming in, and a worse PF, not the other way around where they come in and over correct the system.

So are there other reasons why we should want to spend the extra time and money and disruption, and not just leave the automatic PFC to do it's job?

Would be interested in others experience or thoughts on this?]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52353 2013-05-03T19:34:22 00 Justas 1
U/f must be constant, 230/50=4.6, 184/40=4.6 and so one.]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52336 2013-05-02T03:07:51 00 wave 3
Except the cost, what is the critical factors for planner to choose 11kV or 22kV voltage level in distribution network?]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52325 2013-05-01T16:15:37 00 jarathoon 1
http://liberum.eu.bdvision.ipr...646efb76a03a030054be9

"Summary Conclusions
In this note we conclude that:

1) EU policy makers have grossly underestimated the difficulties and risks of their drive to decarbonise the power sector.
2) EU policy makers have failed to take into account the huge changes in the economic, commodity and financial environments and adjust policy accordingly.
3) The economic arguments supporting the current climate change dominated energy policy look weak and public support is uncertain.
4) Given the hostile rhetoric that utility companies face today from across the political spectrum on bills and profits, it takes quite a leap of faith to believe that future governments will steadfastly defend the huge bill and profit increases that will inevitably result from current policy.
5) Political risk is bound to rise sharply in the UK energy space in the coming years as the inherent implausibility and contradictory nature of the policy goals are exposed by events.
6) A crisis in UK energy policy looks increasingly likely and therefore utility
companies and investors would be prudent in limiting their future exposure."

This report does not come up with the answers; it is up to engineers and entrepreneurs to do that, once the government eventually decides to get out of the way and abandon its policy of creating ordered queues of specialist subsidy farmers in Whitehall.

James Arathoon]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52296 2013-04-30T10:06:50 00 jarathoon 26
"Electricity reforms under threat as top civil servant resigns"

"Departure comes as analysts warn government not to rely on gas to rescue UK from forthcoming energy crunch"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...et-reform-resgination

We will only have an energy crunch if the politicians and civil servants choose to manufacture one. Now that 3rd Gen Nuclear is quitely being abandoned these Energy Market "Rigging" Reforms for 3rd Gen Nuclear are no longer needed, and in their current incarnation will harm the rest of the energy market rather than help it.

The most urgent energy problem we face right now is too little gas storage, and this is despite the fact that energy suppliers are making bumper profits.

We don't need government to provide new subsidies to encourage this or that, they just need to set the regulatory framework up in the right way to encourage companies it act in the right way (in the national interest as well as their own interest), rather than encouraging them to sit on their hands waiting for a new raft of subsidies paid by another round of levies from energy consumers and businesses.

The Electricity Market Reform Bill is doing more harm than good now, and should be abandoned at the first available opportunity. As I also think it will be a really big mistake to split the Office for Nuclear Regulation off from the HSE there is hardly anything worth salvaging in it.

James Arathoon]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52266 2013-04-26T21:54:31 00 jarathoon 13
Conclusion of a report written by Lindsay Cornell

"RESULTS OF THE DRM+ HIGH POWER FIELD
TRIAL IN THE UNITED KINGDOM"

http://public-service.net/docu/WHP199.pdf

"Conclusions
DRM+ was extensively tested in the UK in a highly credible 'real environment'. The frequency and antenna system was previously used by a commercial FM station. A large number of measurements were taken over an extended period and extensive geography with a calibrated receiving system and analysis was performed on the data.
The trial has shown that DRM+ is capable of excellent coverage in good quality at reduced power levels compared with FM and that as expected 4-QAM was more robust than 16-QAM. Urban coverage was superior to FM, especially in the more rugged 4-QAM mode, because despite a few
drop-outs, the overall subjective experience was found to be better than that of FM with noise, clicks and fuzz. The audio decoding method includes error concealment algorithms to fade-out to silence when audio frame errors are detected and fade-in again when the error rate falls. In rural areas, the coverage was also excellent although terrain shielding did cause some audio failure, although this was comparable to the experience with FM from the co-sited transmitters."

So DRM+ is better on balance in terms of mobile reception and energy efficiency than Analog FM. I know that DAB is considered worse than Analog FM in terms of mobile reception and energy efficiency.

Therefore I have started to ask the obvious question again.

Why are are we moving to the in car use of DAB when it is worse than either of the other two alternatives, doing nothing or gradually moving over to DRM+ in the FM band. I think there are 4 digital DRM+ channels added for each analogue FM channel lost, so a gradual rollout would not be two difficult.

I doing think there have been any comprehensive engineering trials comparing the three technologies side by side, in terms of energy requirements, reception performance etc.

Ofcom have denied all responsibility for the digital switch over pollicy which is interesting, so I have sent an email to the dept of Culture. Media and Sport and now await there reply.

James Arathoon

]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52225 2013-04-24T19:37:47 00 2omuataise3 1
Maintenance on the mist eliminator pump;changing filters and reducing the level of oil stop the problem but it has since re occured and developing in another GT.Please ,has anyone had similar problems.Can you share your ideas as to how you handled it?

Regards]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52213 2013-04-23T21:29:15 00 seeker 4 The site presently only has one three conductor 11kv overhead line leading to it. Can someone tell me what is the normal maximum current carrying capacity of the conductors of such an overhead line assembly is?
A deep duct was installed under the road in front of the site but as yet no other excavation has taken place either from the windfarm or towards a distribution substation about 3 miles away. I am guessing there will be a new connection possibly at 33kv or more but seek informed comment.]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52108 2013-04-18T11:03:30 00 aroscoe 2 I've just been alerted to the IET CIRED 2003 conference fees.

€1250
€35 x 3 (3 lunches)
€89 (dinner)
€35 (1 technical visit)
€175 (tutorial)

Potentially €1654 unless you decide to skip certain options.

Does anyone else think this is off-the-scale and will deter people from attending, perhaps even withdrawing papers?

It is at least double, almost 2.5 times the cost of other conferences ...?


]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52075 2013-04-16T23:48:35 00 mlee1066 4
My insurance is due for renewal, and this year I've finally decided to look at some alternative quotes. The problem that I am finding is that, when you mention you work on petrochemical sites, companies don't want to offer a quote.

There are plenty of companies who do work on such sites, so somebody must insure them.

Kingsbridge are highlighted on the IET website, but they appear to be completely useless. The only restriction on work location listed is offshore but, to be completely certain, in emails clarifying points, three times I asked if I was correct in assuming that petrochemical sites are OK. In all three cases they ignored that query.

Another query was regarding the definition of manual work. Apparently, I can test and inspect but not repair. So, if during testing, I find a wrong connection, which would take a couple of minutes to repair, I have to say to the client "sorry guv, can't do that. Not my job".

For information, I carry out commissioning and maintenance on protection relays. I'm looking for public liability and tool insurance.

Regards,

Martin]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52052 2013-04-16T08:29:36 00 toantv3 1 I don't install scopeview in EMTP_RV software for Window 7
Does anyone know how to install scopeview in EMTP_RV software for Window 7
Thanks for help me!]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=52027 2013-04-14T11:06:57 00 jarathoon 9
He has written an article in the Telegraph entitled

"Why Britain must make nuclear work"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...ake-nuclear-work.html

However he is not talking about nuclear in general he is talking in particular about the nuclear technologies incorporated into 3rd Generation reactors, in particular EdF/Areva's EPR.

His first sentence I agree with:

"Without power, businesses cannot thrive and grow, nor can individuals go about their daily lives. Securing our energy supplies is vital to our national security."

But then he goes on as if third generation nuclear was our only option going forward.

And leads to another sentence which when the word 3rd Generation is inserted makes more sense.

"Failure to reach agreement on the price of [3rd Generation] nuclear electricity threatens not only the first new [3rd Generation] nuclear power station for a generation, but potentially all those [3rd Generation nuclear power stations] that will [would?] come in its wake."

Yes. Yes. Yes. Great, the failure of this programme is just what I want. I want us to abandon our 3rd generation nuclear aspirations, so that we engineers have the freedom and opportunity to work seriously hard to develop better, cheaper and safer technologies instead.

He goes on to say...

"Once agreed, the contract for difference can serve the twin aims of providing a fair return for investors and a fair price for consumers, both for the cost of electricity generated, as well as the upfront investment required."

How do we know? All the negotiations are being conducted in secret with one selected player, EdF. We don't know the strike price and we don't know what add-ons to the strike price are being negotiated, in terms of loan guarantees (since EdF can only sell bonds with little above junk bond status, given their current level of indebtedness and future prospects), and publicly funded bailouts if the project runs over its projected budget.

Having tried to get rid of our state owned energy monopolies, is the solution now to install other countries state owned monopoly providers in their place!

From the next quote it becomes clear that Lord Hutton is not a free market enthusiast, and would indeed like to return us to the days of state owned monopolies...

"Left to its own devices, the market would not choose to invest in capital-intensive low-carbon infrastructure. This would lead us to a precarious, high-carbon future increasingly dependent on imported gas."

More nonsense comes in the following sentence

"Nuclear can, and will, provide a long-term, consistent guarantee that will protect consumers and ensure that energy bills will be less than would be the case if we do nothing."

But no one is proposing we do nothing. If gas prices shoot up the market will find ways of generating energy more cheaply, without copious state subsidies. That is the way the market works! All the government need to do is provide some seed money to help with the initial research and early development of new plausible replacement technologies. The market can then choose which of these might work well and then begin to roll them out using private equity funding.

Lord Hutton is worried about EdF

"EDF Energy has spent £1bn already and the project is at present costing the company £1m a day."

I think EdF are making a lot more money out of supplying the UK public with energy, than they are losing at Hinkley Point C. For EdF this is just pin money put in place to help leverage them a better deal. In any case they are perfectly free to withdraw from the process anytime they want. A lot of people would be celebrating if they did.

Lord Hutton finishes with "There is no Plan B for our energy security."

"Failure exposes Britain to many risks, while success will help settle our energy future and send a strong signal to potential investors that Britain means [subsidised monopolistic] business."

Yes I agree there is no Plan B that will involve Lord Hutton, and thus there is no reason for him to know about it.

James Arathoon]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51971 2013-04-10T19:53:10 00 Zuiko 8
Scenario.
11 kV - 400 V secondary substation transformer is faulty and need to replace.

TX feeds LV bus-bars through an ACB. Two other TXs in the same substation feed the bars. Two bus-section switches stop the bars being fed in parallel in normal operation.

ie

- o - o -

So each bus bar section - has a TX connected, and the bus section switches, o , are normally open. The outer of the two bus-sections, the left and right hand sides feed LV customer. The middle section is live but with no customers.



Method
Isolate incoming HV feed, isolate main LV 3-phase ACB. Earth incoming feed. Permit. Swap TX. Switch back. (for the sake of clarity, ingoring testing etc here)

Issue
I have many years experience working for a DNO and I have never once isolated the LV neutral link doing such a job, only the three phases.

The LV neutral-earth link is IN. The HV cable sheaths are bonded to the HV steelwork earth, which is bonded to the LV neutral-earth at the TX star points. All the three TXs are in the same configuration.


I have been asked to remove the neutral link for the permit to be issued.


I cannot see the point because all the steelwork of the entire substation is bonded to the earth, and if the neutral link stayed in, any conductors connected to it remain at earth potential (even if the earth potential rises)


Any clarification on why I am being asked to remove the neutral link?

cheers
W]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51931 2013-04-07T16:22:06 00 jarathoon 5
"Olympics chief Lord Deighton to bring nuclear power stations to Britain"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...tions-to-Britain.html

"The man who delivered the Olympic Games to Britain has been brought in by the Government to kick-start negotiations on bringing new nuclear power stations to Britain."

It should be remembered that the Olympics were only delivered successfully, after having tripled the original budget, and slashing the amount of money that should have gone to grass roots sport and legacy building.

The secret government negotiations with EdF now look like they are heading in much the same way. The treasury are obviously getting involved because a overly generous strike price is not enough on its own for EdF to hedge all their risks, and hence give them guaranteed profits in perpetuity.

The cost of the two reactor complex at Hinkley point C is now publicly estimated to be at least 14 Billion. If I triple an earlier estimate for the build costs (£8 Billion), that would give Lord Deighton a maximum "Olympics" style tripled budget of £24 Billion, to play with.

I agree Lord Deighton could get a new 3.2 GW EPR Nuclear complex built for between £14 and £24 Billion. However just because I agree he could do it, doesn't mean I think this is the right or rationally correct thing to do.

A rational basis comes from, a full cost benefit analysis (including an examination opportunities lost), and this depends on a lot of other factors, especially concerning what we don't end up doing in terms of developing new improved and more cost effective nuclear technologies.

You might say that giving an error range for the building costs of between £14 and £24 billion is too large. However we have yet to see a EPR nuclear power station finished, let alone any proper transparency over the costs and how they can escalate if certain critical build operations go wrong like concrete pours etc. So who knows?

As far as I can see it, the only way of pushing significant new money into new innovative nuclear and renewable energy solutions (solar, wind, tidal etc), is to declare the existing third generation nuclear technologies as not fit for purpose, and thus against the long term interest of the nation, in terms of cost, build times, flexibility, the consequences worst case accidents and unresolved waste management issues.

Apparently, according to the Telegraph

"Lord Deighton, the former chief executive of the London Olympic organising committee and a former banker at Goldman Sachs, is seen as a "doer" who can get big projects off the ground."

Well yes the UK does need rebooting, especially in terms of rebuilding its capacity for engineering creativity, engineering skills, infrastructure and supply chains. However we can't do this on the back of over generous government subsidy, and short sighted enthusiasm for expensive and third rate technological solutions of the past.

James Arathoon
]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51930 2013-04-07T11:39:38 00 jarathoon 1
"Thorium Advocate Nuclear Tour of Oak Ridge National Laboratory"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hA8V8y52BM

"Thorium advocate Kirk Sorensen, Kirk Dorius & Baroness Bryony Worthington tour ORNL's nuclear facilities including the MSRE (Molten Salt Reactor Experiment).

Molten Salt Reactors, Fluoride Salt Cooled High Temperature Reactors, Small Modular Reactors and Advanced High Temperature Reactors are discussed. ORNL's salt loop is presented."


I would like to see more of our technical and engineering experts, talking more freely and rationally about how they see the future of nuclear technologies.

Perhaps the IET should organise a tour given by the technical engineers and thinkers in the NNL and the NDA, to see what they really think as individuals, given their experiences of working in the uk nuclear sector over many years.

James Arathoon]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51926 2013-04-06T16:42:11 00 SWORDLOVER 3 http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51918 2013-04-05T19:11:21 00 oblomof 2 I would like convert .plf extention (related to ATP/EMTP) to .mat extention by MATLAB command. please guide me.
If you have "pl42mat.exe" application file,
please send for me.
Regards]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51874 2013-04-03T20:12:55 00 dlane 3
I have a site that utilises 3WN5 Siemens air circuit breakers at 400V and Siemens 8BK20 and 8BK30 6.6kV breakers with 3AH and 3TL truck assemblies.

I am getting mixed messages from Siemens about spares availability, just wondering if there is anyone else with this switchgear and how they are supporting it.

Kind regards

Donald Lane]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51783 2013-03-29T10:19:55 00 Asad421 1
Thanks
Asad]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51773 2013-03-28T21:39:58 00 MAXMIRA 2 Originally posted by: MAXMIRA

Hi all,

Can anyone help me I have been given a load schedule for a 35kw delta connected motor. The load schedule shows the 35kw spread across the three phases I.e. 11.66kw per phase. I think this is incorrect as I would put it as 35kw per phase. Can anyone tell me which is the correct method and possibly back it up with some maths. Your help would be much appreciated.

Maxmira

]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51755 2013-03-27T20:32:20 00 iochoa 1
Thanks]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51730 2013-03-26T15:00:14 00 jarathoon 2
We seem to have some progress on nuclear energy policy in terms of Gen IV reactors and small modular reactors. The rhetoric is no longer just about steam rollering out GEN 3 technology at any cost, although the government hasn't given up on this objective quite yet, unfortunately

The business department and DECC have collaborated on this document which is encouraging for the future.

Telegraph's View

"Government extends new nuclear power station timetable by five years, confirms first plant will cost up to £14bn
The Government has dropped its target of having new nuclear power plants running by 2025, admitting it now expects them to be developed "by 2030"."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...ht-Hinkley-Point.html

James Arathoon]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51668 2013-03-23T14:59:07 00 wave 6
Why ring main unit are still adopted in modern power system?

Thank you!!]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51667 2013-03-23T10:43:19 00 Ipayyoursalary 9 "a thing of the past" and 1.3 Billion poor people around the world bed down for another night without electricity, they'll be putting out the bunting at WWF headquarters tonight. Yes folks, at 8:30pm it's Earth Hour. The WWF self-interest group's annual celebration of backwardness, ignorance and the demonisation of electricity.  So come on everyone, make sure you turn off all your lights and electronic devices at 8:30pm and enjoy sitting shivering in the dark for an hour.  Let's all help the WWF 'raise awareness' (and funding) for their campaign to return society to the stone age with massive subsidies for rich landowners and green taxes, energy rationing and rolling blackouts for the poor.

Alternatively, you might want to keep the lights ON and instead read Ross McKitrick's excellent critique here or watch Bjorn Lomborg's video take on Earth Hour here]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51541 2013-03-19T08:39:35 00 jackdaniel 2 http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51519 2013-03-18T11:46:42 00 scientif 1 First, I wish to thank you for the time and consideration you gave to my post.
I am currently conducting my Master Thesis about the islanding operation of six distributed steam turbine generators in a 60kV high voltage network.
Each generator is a salient pole synchronous machine and has typically these power values: 37MW and 47MVA. the distance between the generators is in kilometers.
So here are my questions:
- are there any control strategies adapted for this situation, so as to operate all of these generators in island mode (disconnected from the grid utility, supplying local loads)?
- if there is an increase or decrease in load demand while working in island mode, how can the six generators share the load power demand?
- should droop or isochronous control be used for the generators during the island mode?
- are there any load shedding techniques adapted for this situation?
I am still struggling with this, so any help is really welcome; websites, company products, articles, theses, etc.
Thank you very much for your help.]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51512 2013-03-18T09:43:59 00 JohnRRussell 2
Is thermit welding widely used by the DNOs in the UK?]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51494 2013-03-16T06:49:18 00 squelch 1 do you have any manual?]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51493 2013-03-16T04:10:25 00 jackdaniel 2
What is the factor to size the motor as per below starter;

1)VSD
2)Soft Starter
3)star-delta

Example,

For DOL starter, the cable size shall be 2~2.5 from normal rating]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51464 2013-03-15T14:10:21 00 mikezpowell 4
I have been tasked with organising a diversion of an HV cable at a hospital / secure unit. What I would be inteested in is if anyone has experience of such a shutdown, and if so do you have any tips to share / points to watch out for / experiences to relate?]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51444 2013-03-14T16:19:04 00 jarathoon 103
This might seem a silly question, as we must be payng for something real in our utility bills.

Actually we are paying to convert one form of energy to another (heat and work) at time of our choosing. In terms of a methane we pay for the chemical energy that can be converted to heat, when we burn it. We don't pay for the chemical (or indeed nuclear) energy we can't convert to heat. So even if we knew exactly what we were paying for this "energy" is not the whole story. This is paradoxically the "free" energy to use a chemical term.

I was reading the text recently from a lecture that Prof. E. T. Whittaker gave to the Edinburgh University Physical Society on 16th January 1929.

He sort of starts out with what was the 19th Century scientific view of energy: (what is still the dominant engineering view of energy I expect)

1. Energy is a physically real
2. Energy is a scalar quantity
3. Energy is localised in space (anything that is physically real must be somewhere)
4. Energy is Conserved (it must exist in a certain fixed amount and the amount at any place can only be changed by some physical process of transference)

Whittaker concludes the first part of by saying that in this view energy (in its localisation and transference from place to place) must obey a conservation equation like the "equation of continuity" in hydrodynamics.

Now from the time of Einstein there are element of the new physics that engineers find easy to integrate into their realist view, and elements that they find vey hard.

The view that matter is a form of energy is easy to integrate (E=mc^2), if you ignore how the equation is derived. The conceptual view that total amount of energy in the universe is relative and depends on the frame of reference that you choose is much harder to comprehend. Energy loses it "thinghood" when you can use an arbitary change of reference frame to change its value.

Even more disturbing to the engineer, energy is no longer an independent scalar quantity in General Theory of Relaivity, it has now become irretreivably mixed into the Energy Momentum Tensor.

E.T. Whittaker concludes his lecture

"but we may perhaps be pardoned for some sentimental regret that energy has lost the status of thinghood, and now counts as only one of ten components of a symmetrical tensor of the second rank in the distorted manifold of space and time"

We now have dark energy of course (a form of energy that does not gravitate) yet might well be convertable into mass.

Does anyone know what energy is anymore?

James Arathoon]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51440 2013-03-14T14:02:45 00 jarathoon 1
also see

"UK joins test reactor project in France with £12.5m commitment"

http://www.the-weinberg-founda...ith-12-5m-commitment/

Perhaps the techtonic plates governing British Government policy on nuclear have started to shift in favour of developing a new set of safer and cheaper nuclear power technologies with reduced long lasting radioactive waste production. My fear is that we just end up wasting all this money on investigating a new generation of fast reactor designs.

Been there done that - plenty of times!

James Arathoon]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51403 2013-03-13T11:42:39 00 kudrenko 4 Should I add FLC of each starter and select breaker of approximately the same size?]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51397 2013-03-13T10:03:21 00 torsten 5
I am working in a offshore and onshore company in Germany.
We will have a job in UK. I heard now that we have to use only 110VAC electrical equipment.
We need some hand-held units (normaly 230VAC) and electrical units with plugs for rotating current (400VAC).

It should be a PUWER rule in the UK. Is that true? Still anybody have information about this case?

I don't know if we have to change now all our electric devices for the repair works.]]> http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=226&threadid=51391 2013-03-13T02:01:53 00 jackdaniel 2
I have googles about integral earthing, but i still dont understand, can somebody explain to me.

is it means the earthing can be transfer either to feeder earth or busbar earth.]]>