Hypothetical Scenario re wiring uk rail network

[onyxcrowle]

Ive been thinking after watching several news items of late and finallly hearing one while driving the other day about mass wind farms both off and on shore.
One huge scheme now thankfully on hold off the stunning western coast of Scotland.
Here at the end of my road iin Crowle N lincs is a tiny lane that leads down.to Thorne Moors and crosses the mainline from Cleethorpes to Doncaster (closed earlier in the year for a while).
Now as a side note ( bear with me. My friends on the town council are starting a rail heritage society and eager to get volunteers to help reopen the Thorne moor peat railway linked to Crowle. But are held back by Ssi mob trying to stop them yet seemimgly ok with more turbines).
Anyway At the meetjng it was discussed about the tragic loss of so many homes from the tidal surge. Odd thing is for the past 18 months word on tbe street was the council had got computer simulations of just such an event on the back of which they raised all these defences against it.
As it was it was the older sections that blew put the banks and caused so much misery.
Now I know that may not seem related to the thread but its a back story to my question. Given the sheer number of wind farms being built now, Looks a liitle like they know far more than they ate letting on about how stable our energy supplies are.
Without the coalmines shut by thatcher we import more than is still down in the mines. Those seems that simply didnt get reached are now going to be frakked.
So do you think central Government has realised with the combination of oil prices meaning that there is a not too out there sci fi scenario where the costs of running a traditional car will mean car and hgv use will sudfenly plummet toward levels not seen since the 40's.
They are already seemingly by british standards suddenly reopening lots of old lines. And building HS2.
So what happens if all this wholescale pretty much full network electrification is completed. What areas will be left unwired. And then if crunch time comes and we have power shortages as windfarm power would be running the country.
What happens to all the Electric Uk rail network?. With dwindling diesel locos and sets by then. Would steam have to force its way back albiet engineered in a modern way.
.I know this probably sounds like a pointless post. But if you look at how in 50 years weve lost our mjnes our industry privatised the rail industry to then twenty years later we now have huge over subscription. Not nearly enough rolling stock and still thousands of miles of disussed tracks to restore.
If our nation faced such a huge energy crisis how would our rail system cope?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Nuclear

 

[swt_passenger]

...you're forgetting bionic duckweed.

 

[Grumpy]

Without the coalmines shut by thatcher

To say nothing of the far greater number shut by Wilson/Callaghan.

 

[gordonthemoron]

you don't frack coal, you gasify it

 

[HSTEd]

Total electrification would add only a few hundred megawatts to peak demand.

A single atomfurnance would handle it easily.

 

[TheEdge]

A single atomfurnance would handle it easily.

It would but current political consensus when it comes to nuclear is to bury one's head in the sand, shout "Chernobyl and Japan", appease the loony left where electricity just magically appears from the plugs and doesn't need to be generated by wind/dam/coal/gas/oil/nuclear/tidal* and then go back head first into the sand

*Delete as appropriate for the viable solution you are opposed to today.

 

[DownSouth]

It would but current political consensus when it comes to nuclear is to bury one's head in the sand, shout "Chernobyl and Japan", appease the loony left where electricity just magically appears from the plugs and doesn't need to be generated by wind/dam/coal/gas/oil/nuclear/tidal* and then go back head first into the sand

*Delete as appropriate for the viable solution you are opposed to today.

Key word is current - it's only that way at the moment because there's no energy crisis at this time. Throw an oil crisis (a proper crisis with fuel rationing and so on, not just a minor rise in the price) into the mix and the political consensus will shift.

 

[TheEdge]

Key word is current - it's only that way at the moment because there's no energy crisis at this time. Throw an oil crisis (a proper crisis with fuel rationing and so on, not just a minor rise in the price) into the mix and the political consensus will shift.

The problem is with the ridiculous amount of red tape in this country to meet the energy demands of 15 years from now the current politicians need to be signing on the dotted line for new plants now.

Rolling blackouts are the future.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Without the coalmines shut by Thatcher

Remember Sizewell and all the enquiries. She wanted to build a lot more nuclear. But in the 80s in particular the left were dead against anything with the word nuclear in it. Meanwhile the French just kept on building them.

 

[Gadfly]

Within a couple of decades I expect thorium reactors to be developed enough to begin to be deployed. It is claimed to be far safer and more efficient than uranium / plutonium nuclear, and can consume legacy waste. We will probably be buying the technology from the Far East. There is enough thorium in the world to provide energy for thousands of years.

 

[HSTEd]

Thorium reactors are a waste of money.
There is no Uranium shortage and there never will be, the seawater extraction of uranium has put a hard limit on how high the price of uranium can climb, at a level that removes the economic need for them.

Existing designs are cost efficient if the red tape required to build them can be cut down, and if dozens of identical reactors can be built.

 

[Class172]

Agreed, there is no specific shortage of Uranium; most if the fuss comes from sourcing the fissile U-235 isotope. This picture shows that in comparison with the other rare earths, Uranium in much more abundant.

http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/relative_abundance.jpg

 

[quantinghome]

It would but current political consensus when it comes to nuclear is to bury one's head in the sand, shout "Chernobyl and Japan", appease the loony left where electricity just magically appears from the plugs and doesn't need to be generated by wind/dam/coal/gas/oil/nuclear/tidal* and then go back head first into the sand

*Delete as appropriate for the viable solution you are opposed to today.

Actually current policy (which I believe Labour back also) is to develop 8 new nuclear power stations next to existing sites. Preparatory work is proceeding at quite a pace and is likely stretch the UK's resources of nuclear engineering specialists (yes, there are some, probably more than you'd imagine, but still probably not enough).

 

[HSTEd]

Those plants will either never be built or will be built to multiple designs (AP1000, EPR, ABWR, ESBWR et al) resulting in the plants inevitably being economic basket cases in the unlikely case that they are built.
A reactor Zoo is not how you produce cheap electricity as the disastrous programme in the US and the succesful programme in France demonstrates.

8 power plants of the sizes proposed simply won't cut it, instead of the simple solution of using state money to build the plant we have to stuff money into the pockets of foreigners so they get to earn 20% on what amoutn to loans to the state.

 

[TheEdge]

Actually current policy (which I believe Labour back also) is to develop 8 new nuclear power stations next to existing sites. Preparatory work is proceeding at quite a pace and is likely stretch the UK's resources of nuclear engineering specialists (yes, there are some, probably more than you'd imagine, but still probably not enough).

But building 8 new reactors just isn't enough. There are currently 9 operating plants in the UK. But 2025 there will only be 1 (Sizewell B). That's only twelve years away. It took 7 years from first sod to commercial operation for Sizewell B. Add that to the red tape and whiny people and those 12 years are all but gone.

Then with coal, oil and gas plants also being shut down we are going to hit a real bad energy crisis. Unless something happens very quickly and very decisively in about 10 years we are in the brown stuff.

The current UK approach to energy is moronic and we are going to pay for it.

 

[fowler9]

It would but current political consensus when it comes to nuclear is to bury one's head in the sand, shout "Chernobyl and Japan", appease the loony left where electricity just magically appears from the plugs and doesn't need to be generated by wind/dam/coal/gas/oil/nuclear/tidal* and then go back head first into the sand

*Delete as appropriate for the viable solution you are opposed to today.

Oh god, a loony left comment! How old are you?

 

[krus_aragon]

Those plants will either never be built or will be built to multiple designs (AP1000, EPR, ABWR, ESBWR et al) resulting in the plants inevitably being economic basket cases in the unlikely case that they are built.
A reactor Zoo is not how you produce cheap electricity as the disastrous programme in the US and the succesful programme in France demonstrates.

Having three or four different designs of reactor isn't going to be much worse than the reactor zoo we had built by the CEGB: always building a new reactor with a few tweaks and the latest bells and whistles. That's contribute to the massive decommissioning headache we have at the moment: they were all built to a different design, and none were built wirh decommissioning in mind.

The handfull of different designs are all approved by the NDA on grounds of safety and, perhaps more importantly, designed to be decommissioned easily. Now that the likes of the AP1000 and ABWR have been given the rubber stamp of approval, a private company *should* be confident enough to build a buisness case for building and operating a nuclear power station. (Ah, the wonders of privatised power generation.)

The trouble is that just about every company is getting cold feet about starting such a big project in the middle of a reccession. Whitehall has recognised the problem (the lights will go out if we don't start building NOW) and has tried to offer a guaranteed price for energy generated by the new reactors. This is where it's turned into an economic basket case scenario.

The French regard energy generation to be important enough to be done by the state, like our old CEGB, with the public purse taking on the risks and profits. Sadly that approach doesn't fit with the politics of modern Britain.

 

[onyxcrowle]

I still wonder though. Given.modern technology, Better alloys Better piping etc etc.
Would be a lot lighter to build. Would a new generation steam powered system be possible ?. Are there alternatives to old fashioned coal ?.
And if so would steam be cheaper. As eventually oil will be scarce, Some predict in the span of 50 years.
Now if you look back at the 50 just gone we have gine from Steam with engines like Mallard that could in the right hands provide a challange even to.a modern Dmu.
and in that 50 years weve had the Hst. built and able to run under wires obv its diesel.
( on a side note I wish Northern would buy a few for the Scunthorpe line). , Now we have Pendalino and Javelin.
But with all eyes on saving fuel , Could a modern take on a steam engine be a winner?

 

[fowler9]

I still wonder though. Given.modern technology, Better alloys Better piping etc etc.
Would be a lot lighter to build. Would a new generation steam powered system be possible ?. Are there alternatives to old fashioned coal ?.
And if so would steam be cheaper. As eventually oil will be scarce, Some predict in the span of 50 years.
Now if you look back at the 50 just gone we have gine from Steam with engines like Mallard that could in the right hands provide a challange even to.a modern Dmu.
and in that 50 years weve had the Hst. built and able to run under wires obv its diesel.
( on a side note I wish Northern would buy a few for the Scunthorpe line). , Now we have Pendalino and Javelin.
But with all eyes on saving fuel , Could a modern take on a steam engine be a winner?

Trying to put my engineering degree head on at this time of night but I'll give it a go in simple terms. I doubt it would be possible to make a modern steam engine that is more efficient than a modern diesel electric or straight electric train. By the economy of scale a lot of electricity is created by steam at the power station and then transmitted to the train down the wires, the train doesn't have to carry its fuel around with it. Creating the power whilst not moving the fuel around as much saves energy.

Someone can probably put it far better.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I still wonder though. Given.modern technology, Better alloys Better piping etc etc.
Would be a lot lighter to build. Would a new generation steam powered system be possible ?. Are there alternatives to old fashioned coal ?.
And if so would steam be cheaper. As eventually oil will be scarce, Some predict in the span of 50 years.
Now if you look back at the 50 just gone we have gine from Steam with engines like Mallard that could in the right hands provide a challange even to.a modern Dmu.
and in that 50 years weve had the Hst. built and able to run under wires obv its diesel.
( on a side note I wish Northern would buy a few for the Scunthorpe line). , Now we have Pendalino and Javelin.
But with all eyes on saving fuel , Could a modern take on a steam engine be a winner?

25kV AC OHLE is an extremely efficient way of distributing power to the rail network. The most efficient fossil-fuel burning power stations will always be the ones which aren't required to move themselves. Add the two together and there's basically no way a new-design mainline steam locomotive will ever be needed.

It's not a particularly romantic view of rail technology, but it's realistic.

 

[LWB]

The one HUGE benefit that a static steam generating power station has is in having ENORMOUS cooling capacity (river or bank of massive cooling towers). With this capacity the plant can operate in condensing mode which recovers the Latent Heat of Fusion from the steam. This is exactly why condensing boilers are now almost compulsory for new build properties. Condensing mode in a turbine allows thermodynamic efficiencies as well (lower outlet Temp gives wider Δt without having to raise Tmax.

 

[TrainfanBen]

25kV AC OHLE is an extremely efficient way of distributing power to the rail network. The most efficient fossil-fuel burning power stations will always be the ones which aren't required to move themselves. Add the two together and there's basically no way a new-design mainline steam locomotive will ever be needed.

It's not a particularly romantic view of rail technology, but it's realistic.

Not even as a backup on a small scale?


I think solar power should be better utilised, but how it could be better improved I'm not sure, unless we stick them on the top of absolutely everything that already exists/incorperate them into new vehicles.

Crackpot theory: Solar panel trains that use their energy to boil water and produce steam.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Not even as a backup on a small scale?


I think solar power should be better utilised, but how it could be better improved I'm not sure, unless we stick them on the top of absolutely everything that already exists/incorperate them into new vehicles.

Crackpot theory: Solar panel trains that use their energy to boil water and produce steam.

Electricity is the best medium of power transfer that we can forsee for the next few centuries. Any possible source of power you can imagine can be plumbed into the National Grid, without having to worry about changing the design of what uses it so long as the voltages and frequencies remain the same.

A single Eurostar will use 12.2MW, which is about the same as two of the largest wind turbines in the world. Trains which have to generate their own power will always be slower, heavier and less efficient than ones which draw from an efficient distribution network. Compared to electricity, steam power for tractice effort is ridiculously inefficient.

 

[fowler9]

Not even as a backup on a small scale?


I think solar power should be better utilised, but how it could be better improved I'm not sure, unless we stick them on the top of absolutely everything that already exists/incorperate them into new vehicles.

Crackpot theory: Solar panel trains that use their energy to boil water and produce steam.

Haa ha, I think using solar panels to boil water to use steam power has been scratched off the list.