Treasury Blocking electrification plans

[Starmill]

Yes, I believe I did mention motion sensing lights which are the LED heads you mentioned.

By the automatic lighting controls, I mean something as simple as a light sensor and time clock controlling a contractor. The contractor is switched on if the light sensor does not detect daylight AND the time clock is within one of its ON periods. The contractor then supplies the power to all the lights or a group of lights.

Hence during winter, typically, during the hours of no booked service, the lights are off because it’s not within the either of the time clocks ON periods. About 15 to 30 minutes before the first timetabled booked service, the time clock switches the lights on (assuming it’s still dark according to the light sensor). Then when the light sensor detects daylight, it turns the lights off. They stay off during the day. In the evening, as the sun goes down, the light sensor switches the lights on again. They stay on until the time clock ON period ends, which is set to say one hour after the last booked passenger service (the hour being the allowance in case the train service is delayed). Then they are off until the morning again…

Yes, something more straightforward like that would still be helpful. I think there are a lot of stations where the lights are fitted with the same sensors as general street lighting is, and there might be a few where there's timers too. But as you say plenty where lights are on really without the need at all.

 

[Shernan]

Lights are just minor issues. The bigger issues is where is renewable coming from. I agree that it is a complete waste of farmland to put solar panels on it, when we can put wind turbines instead and produce both electricity and food. I also agree that nuclear is needed and it is actually an important tool to bridge the gap between the renewables we can generate and the electricity we need.

However, the concern is all about cost and reliability. Renewable and nuclear stations cannot increase capacity in a short time like coal or gas do. So if there is a spike in the need of electricity, we are going to suffer power curs. On the other hand, building so many nuclear stations for spare electricity is expensive and uneconomical. In addition, many of our infrastructure is lacking behind in terms of the electric efficiency and the potential to power in a green way (e.g. trains). That's when cheap imports come in, no matter labour or materials, if we cannot afford to hire our own men and produce our own materials, then we can buy from someone else. On health and safety, those labour are imported, so doesn't really matter right? At least they don't deserve as much protection (see if there is a way to exclude them from echr and other provisions, such as right of union and minimum wage through parliamentary legislations. Only leave basic basic labour protection intact). On other practices we can evaluate item by item, and keep our costs down. Only with this method, we can stop this urban decay and be ready with our next generation infrastructure.

 

[Wolfie]

Lights are just minor issues. The bigger issues is where is renewable coming from. I agree that it is a complete waste of farmland to put solar panels on it, when we can put wind turbines instead and produce both electricity and food. I also agree that nuclear is needed and it is actually an important tool to bridge the gap between the renewables we can generate and the electricity we need.

However, the concern is all about cost and reliability. Renewable and nuclear stations cannot increase capacity in a short time like coal or gas do. So if there is a spike in the need of electricity, we are going to suffer power curs. On the other hand, building so many nuclear stations for spare electricity is expensive and uneconomical. In addition, many of our infrastructure is lacking behind in terms of the electric efficiency and the potential to power in a green way (e.g. trains). That's when cheap imports come in, no matter labour or materials, if we cannot afford to hire our own men and produce our own materials, then we can buy from someone else. On health and safety, those labour are imported, so doesn't really matter right? At least they don't deserve as much protection (see if there is a way to exclude them from echr and other provisions, such as right of union and minimum wage through parliamentary legislations. Only leave basic basic labour protection intact). On other practices we can evaluate item by item, and keep our costs down. Only with this method, we can stop this urban decay and be ready with our next generation infrastructure.

I really really hope that the end of that second para is rhetorical and not as "I'm alright Jack" as it reads...

 

[Elecman]

Yes, I believe I did mention motion sensing lights which are the LED heads you mentioned.

By the automatic lighting controls, I mean something as simple as a light sensor and time clock controlling a contractor. The contractor is switched on if the light sensor does not detect daylight AND the time clock is within one of its ON periods. The contractor then supplies the power to all the lights or a group of lights.

Hence during winter, typically, during the hours of no booked service, the lights are off because it’s not within the either of the time clocks ON periods. About 15 to 30 minutes before the first timetabled booked service, the time clock switches the lights on (assuming it’s still dark according to the light sensor). Then when the light sensor detects daylight, it turns the lights off. They stay off during the day. In the evening, as the sun goes down, the light sensor switches the lights on again. They stay on until the time clock ON period ends, which is set to say one hour after the last booked passenger service (the hour being the allowance in case the train service is delayed). Then they are off until the morning again…

That is the standard Royce Thompson controller from the early 70s now superseded by Merlin Gerin/ Schneider version

 

[Irascible]

However, the concern is all about cost and reliability. Renewable and nuclear stations cannot increase capacity in a short time like coal or gas do. So if there is a spike in the need of electricity, we are going to suffer power curs. On the other hand, building so many nuclear stations for spare electricity is expensive and uneconomical. In addition, many of our infrastructure is lacking behind in terms of the electric efficiency and the potential to power in a green way (e.g. trains). That's when cheap imports come in, no matter labour or materials, if we cannot afford to hire our own men and produce our own materials, then we can buy from someone else. On health and safety, those labour are imported, so doesn't really matter right? At least they don't deserve as much protection (see if there is a way to exclude them from echr and other provisions, such as right of union and minimum wage through parliamentary legislations. Only leave basic basic labour protection intact). On other practices we can evaluate item by item, and keep our costs down. Only with this method, we can stop this urban decay and be ready with our next generation infrastructure.

"Uneconomical"? you're not building nuclear for spare electricity, you're building it for the core reliable source - any electricity not used nationally can be exported & help other places fill their own gaps too. Nuclear plants just produce, no worries about clouds or the amount of wind - and if you watch our wind farm output you can see it varies *wildly*, it's not something you can rely on as the core energy production for an entire nation - to make it reliable you have to have huge amounts of storage too, and there aren't really regional scale practical solutions yet ( and the economics of that worry me a bit ).

Sourcing uranium could be a point of instability, but so could sourcing lithium or even the huge amounts of other metals that go into any other part of the network. You can at least reprocess used fuel rods & get ( rather less ) new ones. Our own gas sources aren't going to last forever & we've got ample current demonstration why importing fuel is a bad idea, so I don't see how *the* reliable source of power *can* be uneconomical on a national scale.

The concept of using hydrogen plant as storage buffers - electrolyse on windy days & burn it on calm ones - seems to have some appeal, and the sort of scale you'd need might make tapping it for transport use practical, but there's a lot of "ifs" and questions of economy in there. Meanwhile we know how to build nuclear plants *now*, we need to get rid of fossil *now*, and we also know how to electrify railway *now*.

 

[Annetts key]

One of the problems with nuclear power, is the length of time it takes to get a site to on line operational status. Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (the only new plant under construction) had its license granted in 2012. It’s not expected to come on line until mid 2026.

So how long will the eight the government is thinking about going to take before they are ready to start production? Around 2036 for the first of the eight?

For the same amount of money, what else could we do instead? How many homes and buildings could be improved to reduce energy use for that amount of money? And a well insulated building can have the hot water, electric heating or heat pump controlled automatically so that maximum energy use is when the grid is not under stress.

 

[Mikey C]

The failing of the British nuclear policy, is that we've wasted 2 decades trying to find more and more complicated ways for the private sector to finance them, when they're such a risky investment for a private company. Or even a subsidiary of the French state!

We don't need new nuclear plants to create additional electricity, we need new plants to replace the existing ones which will go out of service in the next few years.

 

[Class 170101]

One of the problems with nuclear power, is the length of time it takes to get a site to on line operational status. Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (the only new plant under construction) had its license granted in 2012. It’s not expected to come on line until mid 2026.

So how long will the eight the government is thinking about going to take before they are ready to start production? Around 2036 for the first of the eight?

You also forget the decommissioning process which will take many many lifetimes to complete.

 

[Trainbike46]

One of the problems with nuclear power, is the length of time it takes to get a site to on line operational status. Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (the only new plant under construction) had its license granted in 2012. It’s not expected to come on line until mid 2026.

So how long will the eight the government is thinking about going to take before they are ready to start production? Around 2036 for the first of the eight?

For the same amount of money, what else could we do instead? How many homes and buildings could be improved to reduce energy use for that amount of money? And a well insulated building can have the hot water, electric heating or heat pump controlled automatically so that maximum energy use is when the grid is not under stress.

I know it's not your point, but sizewell C is supposed to be operational in 2031 so that would make it the first of the eight new ones I assume?

 

[Annetts key]

I know it's not your point, but sizewell C is supposed to be operational in 2031 so that would make it the first of the eight new ones I assume?

It’s difficult to tell.

Anyway, as I understand it, full funding for Sizewell C is not yet in place (see this BBC News article).

The government plans to take a 20% stake in a £20bn large-scale nuclear plant at Sizewell, the BBC has learned.
French developer EDF will also take a 20% stake in the Suffolk power station.
Ministers hope the confirmation of two cornerstone investors will encourage infrastructure investors and pension funds to take up the remaining 60%.

We don’t know when construction is expected to start, but if we say 2024 (assuming funding has been completed and planning permission has been granted and not overturned in the courts). It’s likely to take at least ten years, so that puts it in the ball park of 2034 or later…

 

[Irascible]

One of the problems with nuclear power, is the length of time it takes to get a site to on line operational status. Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (the only new plant under construction) had its license granted in 2012. It’s not expected to come on line until mid 2026.

So how long will the eight the government is thinking about going to take before they are ready to start production? Around 2036 for the first of the eight?

For the same amount of money, what else could we do instead? How many homes and buildings could be improved to reduce energy use for that amount of money? And a well insulated building can have the hot water, electric heating or heat pump controlled automatically so that maximum energy use is when the grid is not under stress.

7 more plants ( I'd count Hinkley Point as the first one but that's also a replacement plant ) is going to be what, 26GW? I don't think we'd save 26GW consumption by insulating, and we also still need to convert some industry away from fossil fuels for their own processes too. We should be doing absolutely everything we know how to reduce energy use anyway. We need enough plant to run the country through a sub-zero windless winter's day without assuming we can import anything. If some of that is temporary storage using excess power from overnight, then that'd be absolutely awesome.

 

[gravitystorm]

26GW is around 227,760 GWh each year. If we just look at UK domestic gas consumption, that was around 299,301 GWh in 2020.

If we add in offices, industrial and other buildings, then it’s not unreasonable to say better insulation could lead to that scale of energy savings.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-consumption-in-the-uk-2021 (Consumption data table, table C9)

 

[JamesT]

26GW is around 227,760 GWh each year. If we just look at UK domestic gas consumption, that was around 299,301 GWh in 2020.

If we add in offices, industrial and other buildings, then it’s not unreasonable to say better insulation could lead to that scale of energy savings.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-consumption-in-the-uk-2021 (Consumption data table, table C9)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778816300718 Is a study of energy efficiency measures being implemented. It concludes things like:

The largest change in gas demand was associated with the combined installation of a condensing boiler, and cavity and loft insulation at −10.8%.

I saw another paper that talked of saving as much as 25% of consumption by implementing all possible measures (ie wall and loft insulation, fitting most efficient boiler).
I think it’s highly unlikely that we’d be able to save our entire gas consumption through insulation.
I’d also wonder how much of these alleged easy wins are still out there. https://assets.publishing.service.g...1061644/Energy_Consumption_in_the_UK_2021.pdf notes

Energy consumption per person fell from 0.8 ktoe in 2000 to 0.6 ktoe in 2020
…
The improvements to energy intensity in this sector are likely related to higher energy efficiency of homes resulting from improvements to insulation measures, boiler, and other appliance efficiencies.

 

[HSTEd]

Money is not the issue

Attempting some kind of collosal insulation programme requires huge numbers of workers that simply don't exist.

Money can't make hundreds of thousands of suitable staff appear in a labour tight economy.

Also nuclear taking so long is just a statement on the insanity of Thatcherite energy policy, nothing to do with how long it takes to build nuclear plant in a sane world

 

[Annetts key]

All power figures are given are the instantaneous values.

Just taking about the electrical side, Hinckley Point C will have a 3,260 MWe generating capacity.

Average (across a year) demand for the British grid is 30.1GW.

If homes and buildings were more energy efficient in their use of electricity (primarily better insulated to reduce the amount of electricity used for hot water and space heating, but including other methods as well), a 5% reduction would save 1.5GW and a 10% reduction would save 3.01GW. That’s appropriately half of a Hinckley Point C type power station or a complete Hinckley Point C type power station. I think that is a realistic aim.

If you also manage a 10% reduction in the use of gas for hot water and spaceheating of buildings as well, then we would use 10% less gas as well. For the whole of the country that’s a significant amount.

Yes, it will take time for buildings to become more energy efficient. I think we can at least get to 10% over ten years.

Over time it should be possible to get much bigger reductions. Maybe beyond 25%.

We already know how to build new property that needs very little if any heating to be used. Although it’s harder to adapt existing property to these standards, there is an enormous amount of buildings where significant improvement can be made.

I don’t disagree that some new nuclear power stations are required. We do need some new installations to replace the existing life expired nuclear power stations.

Even if we could build eight new nuclear power stations, that alone can’t replace our current gas and oil consumption. And due to climate change, we need to reduce our use of fossil fuels, not keep it at the same levels or increase use.

The greenest and cheapest (over the long term) method is always to find ways of reducing energy use.

Embarking on a extremely expensive programme of building eight new nuclear power stations is not IMHO the solution. Just making the amount of cement needed for this on its own will use a large amount of energy and release carbon into the atmosphere. Then there is the logistics, currently all heavy lorries run on diesel fuel. Nuclear is not, and cannot ever be seen as a good green energy source on its own.

 

[Mag_seven]

We seem to have drifted way off the original purpose of this thread which was about the treasury blocking electrification plans.

If anyone wants to discuss energy policy/strategy then I invite you to contribute to the thread over in General Discussion i.e.

Government publishes energy strategy (07/04/22)

Tomorrow is expected to be the release of the long awaited energy strategy, which was initiated in response to trying to gain energy independence by moving away from Russian reliance, but has also been delayed over finer details including cost. There is now a preliminarily article here revealing...

www.railforums.co.uk

As regards the treasury and electrification plans if anyone has any updates on this then please contact a member of the forum staff and we will look to reopen this thread.

thanks