Power stations, was Battersea Power Station

John Locke wrote:
> > Closure of Thames-side power stations has had a bad effect on system
> > stability in the London grid with it's high load density, also it is a
> > serious Civil Defence issue, if power was lost to London for any length
> > of time, we would be in deep s**t.
>
> Did not the general central London region get a couple of tasters in respect
> of power outages in that area, in the past couple of years?
>
>
> What would replacement power stations being fuelled with, IF the govt
> decided to "re-invent" the wheel on this one & what guarantees of security
> of fuel supply could be given?
>
> John Locke.

Coal, of course, apparently Great Britain still has 300 years supply,
at the rate it was being used before the Thatcher pit closures. The
pre-nationalisation electricity companies had the right idea, build
coal-burning plants near load centres, fed by waterway and/or railway,
with a reserve stock at the station.

Nuclear and hydro plants could supply the National Grid with the base
load, this would help with the global warming issue, but all users
would be supplied from 'power islands' based around their local coal
plants, which could disconnect from the Grid when problems arise.

If you read up on the theory behind long distance electric power
transmission, these systems tend towards instability, it's a wonder
that the National Grid works at all.

In article <1163621788.779433.218860@b28g2000cwb. .com>,

> Coal, of course, apparently Great Britain still has 300 years supply,
> at the rate it was being used before the Thatcher pit closures. The
> pre-nationalisation electricity companies had the right idea, build
> coal-burning plants near load centres, fed by waterway and/or railway,
> with a reserve stock at the station.

Well, these pre-nationalisation companies had a specific target area rather
than the entire country so why would they build the stations anywhere else?

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"Richard Lamont" <richard@lamont.me.uk> wrote
>
> Since then, has the National Grid ever collapsed over a wide area,
> requiring a 'black start'? Or has it managed to stay up throughout?
>
Didn't it collapse over a lot of London and the South East in the October
1987 storm (don't worry, it wasn't a hurricane)?

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:
> "Richard Lamont" <richard@lamont.me.uk> wrote
> >
> > Since then, has the National Grid ever collapsed over a wide area,
> > requiring a 'black start'? Or has it managed to stay up throughout?
> >
> Didn't it collapse over a lot of London and the South East in the October
> 1987 storm (don't worry, it wasn't a hurricane)?
>
> Peter

As one who suffered 9 days without power in '87 it was due to the
amount of overhead cables that were down through tree hits etc rather
than a technical fault . We had a section of cable about 20m long that
ended up with 5 joints in it and was still in service when we moved 5
years ago.

In article <sdKdncbJRrKmucHYnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d@bt.com>,
Peter Masson <peter.masson1@> wrote:

> "Richard Lamont" <richard@lamont.me.uk> wrote
> >
> > Since then, has the National Grid ever collapsed over a wide area,
> > requiring a 'black start'? Or has it managed to stay up throughout?
> >
> Didn't it collapse over a lot of London and the South East in the October
> 1987 storm (don't worry, it wasn't a hurricane)?

I don't think so. Quite a lot of overhead, local board distribution,
supplies failed. In a great many cases because pole-mounted transformers
got smashed by falling trees.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article <455c2743$0$21085$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Nick Pedley <nicholaspedley@npedley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> >
> I've seen the recording of the broadcast that was made that night from
> Alexandra Palace for about 35 minutes IIRC. It went out well, just that
> most of the London target audience were more concerned with finding
> candles to read with!

Well, I was at TV centre that night. It wasn't that most of the target
audience hadn't got power - that wasn't true - the major power loss only
affected part of West London fed from the distribution board at Battersea.
A fault had taken out the NG sub-station at Iver, throwing load onto the
secondary distibution system. The bit at Battersea couldn't cope with te
extra load and blew up. The real problem was that TV Centre lost power, so
none of the scheduled programmes could be originated.

Alexandra Palace carried a revised BBC1 schedule with participants in a
current affairs show being taxied from Lime Grove to AP. It hadn't
facilities to provide 2 services.

Actually, BBC2 had begun that morning with Jackanory.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article <1163621788.779433.218860@b28g2000cwb. .com>,
alexander.keys1 <alexander.keys1@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>John Locke wrote:
>> > Closure of Thames-side power stations has had a bad effect on system
>> > stability in the London grid with it's high load density, also it is a
>> > serious Civil Defence issue, if power was lost to London for any length
>> > of time, we would be in deep s**t.
>>
>> Did not the general central London region get a couple of tasters in respect
>> of power outages in that area, in the past couple of years?
>>
>>
>> What would replacement power stations being fuelled with, IF the govt
>> decided to "re-invent" the wheel on this one & what guarantees of security
>> of fuel supply could be given?
>>
>> John Locke.
>
>Coal, of course, apparently Great Britain still has 300 years supply,
>at the rate it was being used before the Thatcher pit closures. The
>pre-nationalisation electricity companies had the right idea, build
>coal-burning plants near load centres, fed by waterway and/or railway,
>with a reserve stock at the station.

Actually, a planning application has just been put in for a huge pair of
coal burning power stations in Kent (beside the existing plant at
Kingsnorth). They would each be 800MW (that's a lot of power), and
supposedly super-clean, with 45% efficiency and scope for full carbon
capture, to reduce carbon emmissions by 1.8 million tonnes.

All right, I'm getting that data from an article which appears to have
the power companies press release as its main source. What it does not
say is how the coal will get there - the Kent coal mines were closed
down long ago.

--

Jeremy Nunns
Cambridge
Remove Chinese Ship to Reply

"Jeremy Nunns" <Jeremy@junk.yours.> wrote in message
news:Y$sn5DA1GEXFFwXB@yours....
>
> Actually, a planning application has just been put in for a huge pair of
> coal burning power stations in Kent (beside the existing plant at
> Kingsnorth). They would each be 800MW (that's a lot of power), and
> supposedly super-clean, with 45% efficiency and scope for full carbon
> capture, to reduce carbon emmissions by 1.8 million tonnes.
>
> All right, I'm getting that data from an article which appears to have
> the power companies press release as its main source. What it does not
> say is how the coal will get there - the Kent coal mines were closed
> down long ago.
>
> Jeremy Nunns

Quite handy for spare chnnel tunnel freight capacity maybe?

Paul

In article <rNSdnZTbxIBa9sHYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com>, Peter Masson
<peter.masson1@> writes
>
>"Paul Scott" <notvalidpmscott@> wrote in message
>news:FZ6dncC04rfJ_MHYnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "Jeremy Nunns" <Jeremy@junk.yours.> wrote in message
>> news:Y$sn5DA1GEXFFwXB@yours....
>> >
>> > Actually, a planning application has just been put in for a huge pair of
>> > coal burning power stations in Kent (beside the existing plant at
>> > Kingsnorth). They would each be 800MW (that's a lot of power), and
>> > supposedly super-clean, with 45% efficiency and scope for full carbon
>> > capture, to reduce carbon emmissions by 1.8 million tonnes.
>> >
>> > All right, I'm getting that data from an article which appears to have
>> > the power companies press release as its main source. What it does not
>> > say is how the coal will get there - the Kent coal mines were closed
>> > down long ago.
>> >
>> > Jeremy Nunns
>>
>> Quite handy for spare chnnel tunnel freight capacity maybe?
>>
>It will undoubtedly come in by ship to a wharf adjacent to the power
>stations, much as I'd like to see 4000 tonne coal trains through Lewisham,
>down the Dartford Loop, and along the Grain branch.
>
>Peter
>
>

It is all imported coal, some of it coming from as far a way as
Australia.

Kingsnorth is inland, so I suspect there is a rail link somewhere.

The existing plant at Kingsnorth and one at Ironbridge will be closed,
so the net movement of coal will not grow immensely.
--
Nicholas David Richards -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

"Nicholas D Richards" <nicholas@salmiron.> wrote
>
> Kingsnorth is inland, so I suspect there is a rail link somewhere.
>
It's on the banks of the Medway with its own jetty, so rail haulage won't be
needed for imported coal.

Peter