Energy blackouts

Post by **clv101** » 28 Dec 2014, 10:07

Emily Gosden on energy blackouts:

Britain unprepared for severe blackouts, secret Government report reveals

Blackouts report: death, disorder and other key consequences

Blackouts report: how could it happen? The scenario explained

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Dec 2014, 11:36

Hinkley Point nuclear plant would trip off the system, automatically shutting down, when power went off but its ongoing safety would rely on backup generators and refuelling within 72 hours.

Refuelling within 72 hours? Can that really be true? Just 72 hours between normality and our nukes going all Fukushima on us? Maybe getting a bigger fuel tank before building Hinkley C would be a plan.

fuzzy · Post by **fuzzy** » 28 Dec 2014, 11:51

There is no explanation why a nuclear power station needs to be shutdown. It may need to be disconnected from the grid if other power stations are disconnected by pylon failure, but thats a disadvantage of grid systems everywhere and has nothing to do with a shutdown. Presumably a nuclear power station can generate plenty electricity for itself.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Dec 2014, 11:57

The generated energy has to go somewhere and if not by electricity via the grid there is an instantaneous problem. Hence they automatically shut down when the grid connection fails.

The reactor still needs to be cooled massively and the generators are required to operate the cooling system. That's what failed three times out of three at Fukushima. It wouldn't make much difference weather the generators failed because they get flooded by a tidal wave or because they run out of diesel.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 28 Dec 2014, 12:48

biffvernon wrote:
Hinkley Point nuclear plant would trip off the system, automatically shutting down, when power went off but its ongoing safety would rely on backup generators and refuelling within 72 hours.
Refuelling within 72 hours? Can that really be true? Just 72 hours between normality and our nukes going all Fukushima on us? Maybe getting a bigger fuel tank before building Hinkley C would be a plan.

I don't follow this. The backup generators at USA nuclear power plants are the size of railroad locomotives and would run for months on a properly sized fuel tank.

fuzzy · Post by **fuzzy** » 28 Dec 2014, 12:53

It doesn't have to work like that - unless they designed it so. You could run a safe power station disconnected from the grid - it doesn't actually output power, it generates a voltage depending on the rate of turning of the alternator which cannot vary except at start up, as mains everywhere is synchronised - another disadvantage of grid systems. I accept that you couldn't run at much thermal power output without the grid connected. IIRC the Chernobyl reactor was progressively harder to control at low power outputs, but if the nuclear industry can't do it properly...
Fukishima was a different problem as the plant was flooded - not good for electricity.

odaeio · Post by **odaeio** » 28 Dec 2014, 13:29

I doubt it will happen. By the time the industry and the banking/financial sector is shut down, passenger air/sea travel stopped etc, there will be more than enough to keep the lights on and people warm. I am somewhat convinced this will all be in place by July. All that will be required is sufficient for domestic and farming use.

I don't see the supply of the required electricity/gas to be a problem during the first stages of the "manufactured" decline we are about to see happening beginning early 2015.

Air travel will probably be targeted first, we will probably see an increase in plane problems - more vanishing/crashing planes, and multiple emergencies, followed by, or simultaneously with, Ebola being rolled out once again. This could coincide with sea passenger travel problems and emergencies. I suspect this should get into full swing early in the year. Shouldn't take long to shut down travel at the peoples insistence.

The energy savings should make the slide far less steep, and keep domestic supplies comfortable for quite a long time.

Post by **adam2** » 28 Dec 2014, 13:43

biffvernon wrote:
Hinkley Point nuclear plant would trip off the system, automatically shutting down, when power went off but its ongoing safety would rely on backup generators and refuelling within 72 hours.
Refuelling within 72 hours? Can that really be true? Just 72 hours between normality and our nukes going all Fukushima on us? Maybe getting a bigger fuel tank before building Hinkley C would be a plan.

I too am shocked by this and very much hope that the report is in error on this point. I understood that sufficient diesel fuel was stored for MONTHS of operation, not just 72 hours !
IIRC, a nuclear power station was fairly recently tripped due to loss of the grid connection, I do not recall any concerns re diesel supplies for standby generators.

Post by **adam2** » 28 Dec 2014, 13:48

fuzzy wrote:There is no explanation why a nuclear power station needs to be shutdown. It may need to be disconnected from the grid if other power stations are disconnected by pylon failure, but thats a disadvantage of grid systems everywhere and has nothing to do with a shutdown. Presumably a nuclear power station can generate plenty electricity for itself.

AFAIK, it is a regulatory requirement that nuclear power reactors trip when the station is disconnected from the grid.
It might be more sensible to keep the reactor running at a much reduced power, in order to supply the station auxiliary demand, this would also somewhat speed a return to full power when needed. So doing would need a change in the regulations though.

Mr. Fox · Post by **Mr. Fox** » 28 Dec 2014, 13:52

Report wrote:7. Transport

“Roads will suffer congestion due to the anticipated self-evacuations...

Oh, shit!

Still, I know of one Camborne resident who'll be happy.

I trust that 'the powers that be' have a good plan in place to let Camborne know that the Mad Max zombie apocalypse has officially started... they might not notice otherwise.

Now, where's that James Burke clip again... Ah, yes...

Mr. Fox · Post by **Mr. Fox** » 28 Dec 2014, 13:59

Anyone found the actual report, BTW?

Gosden's articles only reference her own articles, AFAICS.

odaeio · Post by **odaeio** » 28 Dec 2014, 14:11

Mr. Fox wrote:
Report wrote:7. Transport

“Roads will suffer congestion due to the anticipated self-evacuations...
Oh, shit!

Still, I know of one Camborne resident who'll be happy.

I trust that 'the powers that be' have a good plan in place to let Camborne know that the Mad Max zombie apocalypse has officially started... they might not notice otherwise.

Now, where's that James Burke clip again... Ah, yes...

Heheheh - yup, I imagine that "TPTB" do indeed have extensive plans in place. No Mad Max/Zombie apocalypse will be allowed to happen. I think we can all be fairly sure of that.

They have even been practising - lot's of weird booms, bangs, "explosions" and unseen "fireworks" been causing wonderment around the U.K. the last few month's.

Zombi Apocalypse? "We won't be 'avin' any of that round here mate! Now run along...nothing to see here."

Mr. Fox · Post by **Mr. Fox** » 28 Dec 2014, 14:26

odaeio wrote:No Mad Max/Zombie apocalypse will be allowed to happen. I think we can all be fairly sure of that.

You have clearly never been to Camborne.

(Benefits claimants in Camborne, yesterday)

My favourite bit of Gosden's has to be this:

10. Money

“LINK ATM network, card payments and Point of Sale will probably fail.

“Although payments would still be made [to benefits claimants] the vast majority would not be able to access the money.”

A superb nugget of right-wing troll-bait... "even during zombie apocalypse, those scroungers keep on scrounging!"

Masterful.

To the comments section... Tally-ho!

odaeio · Post by **odaeio** » 28 Dec 2014, 14:41

Mr. Fox wrote:
odaeio wrote:No Mad Max/Zombie apocalypse will be allowed to happen. I think we can all be fairly sure of that.
You have clearly never been to Camborne.

My favourite bit of Gosden's has to be this:

10. Money

“LINK ATM network, card payments and Point of Sale will probably fail.

“Although payments would still be made [to benefits claimants] the vast majority would not be able to access the money.”
A superb nugget of right-wing troll-bait... "even during zombie apocalypse, those scroungers keep on scrounging!" Masterful.

I just don't see any of it happening to be honest. If nobody had taken any steps to pre-empt things sure, but with the soon to come shut-downs due to "economic collapse" etc, there will be more than enough capacity to keep those sort of services running. Even in the event of unforeseen plant breakdowns, once the average/peak demand has been reduced significantly, everything should be o.k. for a long time to come yet, IMHO. I don't see any need to invest in more plant/fuel storage - there will be more than enough existing.

Post by **adam2** » 28 Dec 2014, 14:47

I feel that lack of communications may be a much bigger problem than is expected.
Cell phones are reliant on power to the masts, backup batteries are provided but typically only last a few hours. A few key sites have generators, but most don't and those that do presumably don't have fuel for weeks.
Landlines used to work in power cuts since each subscriber had a dedicated pair of copper wires back to the telephone exchange and power was supplied by a very large battery AND a generator at the exchange. This is no longer the situation for many subscribers. Increasingly fibre optic cables are used for both high speed internet service AND TELEPHONE LINES from the exchange to a cabinet in the street, from which copper wires run to each customer. The equipment in the roadside cabinet needs electricity, backup batteries are fitted, but as with cell phone masts are only sized for an hour or two.

In view of the amount of downsizing, out sourcing, right sizing, off shoring, and short term thinking I have little faith in backup batteries in telecoms equipment.