BanksyBoy BANNG-ing on: the Video Blog

Yes, OK, I have neglected this blog for way too long!

The trouble / excuse / reality is I have been incredibly busy. Pretty much since 2016 I have managed to become embroiled in local politics as a result of standing for the Green Party in May 2016. My principal, and principled, policy was as an anti new nuclear build campaigner for which I am hugely grateful for the welcome I received into the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) fold. This has led to being able to meet key players in national government and the various regulators, enabling me to become a contributor to the debate as well as someone always willing to glean more information.

My latest endeavour is video blogging for BANNG. My initial project was to capture the spirit of the day the CND Symbol Tour visited both the former Bradwell Power Station site and then popped over the Blackwater to my home town of West Mersea... here's the evidence set to Café Musica's rendition of the traditional tune Blackberry Blossom:



This dropped me into the deep end of basic video editing (iMovie) and subsequently I attempted to talk to camera (iPhone SE) for the true vBlog at the top of this page on Nuclear Waste.

So I would be delighted if can check it out (in joke) and let me know what further subjects you consider would be future topics?

P

FED is DEAD... Renewables give new life...

---

Fuel Element Debris (FED) Dissolution ended 17th June 2017

Government fined £100 million - Taxpayers foot bill

---

Of course, the headline reflects the relief that the process of FED Dissolution at Bradwell has finished yet also effectively leaves a bitter ‘taste’ of potentially radioactive sludge in the Blackwater estuary. This was just one of the significant items of news from the latest Local Community Liaison Committee (LCLC) meetings held Wednesday 21st June 2017 attended by members of BANNG, West Mersea Town Councillors, representatives from other local councils and, notably, Cllr Paul Smith, leader of Colchester Borough Council.

Historically the LCLC meetings have always been relatively inconclusive with an apparent defensive response from questions raised by attendees. This time the atmosphere was tangibly different, presentations celebrated progress made rather than delivered with an air of concealment and, significantly, questions raised from the floor were answered with a clarity and detail that hitherto had been absent.

After the usual opening formalities new site closure director Bob Nichols (Bob) was introduced and he proceeded to deliver his report. Within this the news on FED was made and it was clear that there is a palpable sense of relief that all FED has now left the site. A total of 1000 batches of FED waste were processed through the dissolution plant, 140 tonnes were classified as Low Level Waste (LLW) and sent to Drigg whilst 65 tonnes were classified as Intermediate Level Waste (ILW).

Additionally, other concerns raised in the December 2016 LCLC about site security once in Care & Maintenance (C&M) were also allayed along with one of my specific requests to carry out a ‘dry run’ of the movement of Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) containers from Southminster to the ILW store. To date 134 Bradwell ILW packages have been completed out of an expected final total of 146 Bradwell packages to go into the store. The inbound shipments from Dungeness and Sizewell are expected to start arriving in September of 2 shipments per month of 3 containers each.

With the Bradwell site decommissioning progress the phrase “Lead and Learn” was quoted a few times as, essentially, work at Bradwell leads the way and this information will be shared to aid the work on the other 11 Magnox sites. Technically the whole site has been sub-divided into 20 areas including sections such as earth mounds outside the current perimeter fence (Area 9) where some contamination was found from a pre 2002 leak from a drain. Utilising this zoning process will result in the development of a knowledge base that will be held for future technicians to consult when the final dismantling takes place around the year 2100. Does my daisy look big in this?!!

With the substantial progress made Reactor 1 will be C&M ready by October this year and, subject to Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) inspection, fully in C&M by 2018 with Reactor 2 following 6-9 months later. 62 buildings have been removed since April 2016 and large quantities of asbestos disposed of from the reactor buildings. The issue of the type of cladding was tackled within Bob’s report and has the highest fire resistance rating making it clearly different from the type used around Grenfell Tower.

 Bob suggested that, in his unofficial view, security guards should be employed but, as yet, that is not confirmed, He did confirm there will be some staff (I hesitat to use the description ‘skeleton staff’!) remaining on site.

It should be noted that seismic activity was included twice in the talk.

During questioning Bob confirmed the concrete bases supporting the remaining boilers are undergoing major structural strengthening. He also confirmed the FED Dissolution plant will be dismantled over the next 4-6 months once its components have been decontaminated. The pipework will still be used to discharge rainfall.

Next up was Jonathan from the NDA who gave more background into the monumental bungle the government over awarding the contract to Cavendish Fluor. Whilst he reinforced assurances that this will not happen again and the setting up of an enquiry lead by former National Grid’s Steve Holliday the fact is the taxpayer will be paying £100 million pounds. This is yet another sum to be added onto the true cost of Nuclear Power, the most subsidised form of electricity generation (pause to imitate Jeremy Clarkson) “In The World”.

This section was a bit gloomy but Jonathan both answered questions comprehensively and has offered to be a contact within the NDA to find the best person to forward subsequent enquiries to.

The Environment Agency Phil Heaton’s turn followed who gave no substantive new information or data. I questioned him about the Track of the Port of London Authority survey vessel which he knew nothing about, however, a Magnox member of staff answered that it had been employed to check seabed scouring.

This was followed by a presentation from Simon Napper from the relatively newly formed Radioactive Waste Management, part of the NDA. This included a comprehensive image of the process of developing a final repository for the full range of existing radioactive waste. Professor Andy Blowers was mentioned and praised as one of the contributors to the overall plan.

Simon handed over to a colleague and, despite the massive importance of this project, his unscripted talk rambled on and on to such an extent that the plot became more like a script from ‘Yes Minister’ where I imagined Sir Humphrey attempting to explain to Jim Hacker the need to have a consultation period on a forthcoming consultation yet be unable to specify costs because how could one estimate something that hadn’t happened yet! I think this was the low point as it is clearly so critical to move forward in having a definite plan to deal with waste.

Overall I would conclude that this LCLC marked a turning point. Whilst there were only crumbs to glean about Bradwell B at least we know that the Blackwater Estuary will no longer receive radioactive pollutants and that the site will be more robustly secured once in C&M. However, there is still the issue of intermediate level waste within the graphite cores still in-situ.

A closing paradoxical thought is that Bob mentioned that Magnox will never release FED dissolution effluent into the wild again, confirming fears that it should never have happened. This demonstrates that BANNG and companion protesters were right all along.

Now there is ONLY one way to avoid future radioactive deposits being released into the Blackwater estuary and that is to prevent Bradwell B ever being built...

P

Bradwell B: expensive, dangerous, unnecessary

The Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG)

will hold an

Open Meeting on 25 April at 7.30 pm

at

United Reform Church Hall, Market Hill, Maldon CM9 4PZ

(parking at central White Horse Lane or Butt Lane public car parks, £1 in evenings)

A new nuclear power station
at Bradwell – expensive,
dangerous and unnecessary

Speakers

Prof. Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich, Expert in Energy Policy Prof. Andy Blowers, OBE, Open University, Chair of BANNG, author of The Legacy of Nuclear Power (2017) Prof. Keith Barnham, Nuclear & Solar Physicist, Imperial College London, author of The Burning Answer: A User’s Guide to the Solar Revolution (2015)

There will also be a Question and Answer session.

Nature not Nuclear - Presentation Notes

Over the last 60+ years commercial nuclear power stations in the UK have produced a vast amount of energy that we readily consumed along with other similarly huge quantities generated by coal and gas fired plants. Now there are also the ‘green’ renewable sources such as tidal, solar and wind in the mix.

With central government and lobbying groups all vying for our attention along with honourable aspirations for an environmentally survivable future are there answers to the conundrums that pervade the energy landscape? With the rapid developments in technology and the popular will to defend our planet are we also ready to contribute to a greater plan by reducing our own consumption?

So in this article I want to provide some tools to navigate a way through these questions. Whilst this will not be particularly complex the arithmetic itself may be best tackled with a calculator.

Energy and Power - spot the difference

A useful starting point would be to consider what is the distinction between energy and power and the comparison between the various sources.

Our electricity usage is measured in kilowatt hours (kWh). This is the energy we’ve used. Power is the rating of a particular device or process. So a 100W bulb needs 100 watts of power to make it work. If we have leave this 100W light on for 10 hours the simplest of calculations looks like this:

100 Watts (power) X 10 hours (time) = 1,000Wh which, in turn, is equal to 1kWh

Another example is making a hot drink. I timed my 3kW rated kettle which took 3 minutes to boil. 3 minutes equates to 1/20 of an hour (3/60 in minutes) so the full calculation looks like this:

3kW (power) X 1/20 hours (time) = 0.15kWh, therefore 10 boils per day = 1.5kWh

At first glance it would appear these consumer based examples are fairly irrelevant as far as industrial scale electricity generation by power stations. However, when these examples are scaled up nationally it gives a sense of what the National Grid needs to be capable of addressing. Here are the quantities of measurement that are in use:

1,000 W (watts) = 1 kW (kilowatt)

1,000,000 W or 1,000 kW = 1 MW (megawatt)

1,000,000,000 W or 1,000,000 kW or 1,000 MW = 1GW (gigawatt)

1,000,000,000 kW or 1,000,000 MW or 1,000 GW = 1TW (terawatt)

Now we can compare the output for the UK’s power stations and microgeneration:

Type / Fuel	Name / Location	Maximum Output	Staffing
Coal / Biomass	Drax	3960MW	830
Nuclear	Sizewell B	1195MW	520
Wind Farm	London Array	630MW	90
Gas / CCGT	Enfield Power St	400MW	35
Solar Farm	Langenhoe	22MW	5
Domestic Solar	On the roof	0.004MW	0
Nuclear (closed)	Bradwell A	246MW	500
Nuclear (new?)	Bradwell B	2300MW	500-5,000
Nuclear (new?)	Hinkley Point C	3200MW	500-25,000

List (incomplete) of former and current electricity generating power stations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_England

UK Nuclear Power Stations Daily Statuses: www.edfenergy.com/energy/power-station/daily-statuses

Energy Demand and Mix

Since the 1920s the demand for energy gradually increased until 2006 and has started to fall ever since:

This is due to a number of factors including product efficiency, LED lighting, wind turbines, solar power and other renewables. The energy contribution from solar power, even in March, makes an identifiable dip in the daytime:

Source: gridwatch.co.uk

For a breakdown of sources here is a snapshot taken at 11:50 March 14th 2017:

Source: www.mygridgb.co.uk

The proposed target for CO2 emissions is ~100g/kWh by 2030 yet the largest component of the Energy Mix is gas, a fossil fuel. Furthermore this is just the picture of Electricity generation, it does not include all the gas used for heating and industrial processes. During last summer (2016) coal was eliminated by the contribution of solar and wind, but on certain days during the winter months coal use was up to 17% and gas regularly around 50% during the daytime peak.

The relative contributions can be followed in this graph from data collected over the last 12 months. Whilst renewables very much part of the mix it is clear they cannot yet match current demand:

Challenge versus Compromise

So the question is how to fully address the two apparently conflicting issues of reducing Carbon whilst providing sufficient generation to matching demand?

Central government is hell bent on answering this apparent paradox by securing overseas investment in untried and experimental technology for massive nuclear power stations. Whilst in operation it is unarguable that the electricity produced would be low carbon, the lifetime CO2 is off the scale along with the price tag. It is established there is no long term solution for nuclear waste beyond temporary storage for 1000s of years.

Meanwhile the same government is claiming Fracking is environmentally friendly and the answer to the need for energy security in gas procurement. Concurrently the government’s investment in developing renewable technologies is derisory, even though viable projects, such as tidal lagoon generation, await the go ahead.

So let’s have a look at the two renewables that are very much in place.

Renewables - wind

Whilst wind and solar are variable and intermittent in the short term, they are surprisingly predictable over extended periods. However, as wind and solar are two of the most visible renewable systems, they come in for the most criticism.

Here is a capture from 1010uk.org/winddial taken on 14th March 2017. The live webpage includes the ability to scroll back and forth to compare output:

Source: 1010uk.org/winddial

Renewable - domestic solar

Being a bit of a statistics geek I have plotted the output from my roof based solar Photovoltaic (PV) 16 panel system. This graph compares the predicted output to the five year average of actual generation along with input from the National Grid:

		kWh/year
A	Typical Annual usage	3960
B	Usage for house with 16 panels Solar PV	2506
C	Electricity Saved (A-B)	1454
D	Solar PV Generation	3512
E	Returned to GRID (D-B)	1006

Therefore as my standard solar system produces 1MW per annum we could make an assumption that if every one of the 25 million homes in the UK had a similar solar array then that would yield 25TWh, 7% of the ~360TWh annual demand. However, around midday in the summer, allowing a conservative 2kWh output per roof, the generation would be 50GWh, more than matching demand.

This is idealistic, but the cost of carrying this out is 1/80th of Hinkley Point C!

Maximum Load and Load Factor

We use these units to compare different sources of power and then apply formula to estimate how much each is both capable of and what their expected output could be. These are then placed in this formula to determine the Load Factor:

Let’s start by taking a look at the Load Factor for Wind Turbines. Although the UK has 40% of Europe’s wind a criticism of Turbines is they only run a ⅓ of the year.

An offshore wind turbine (3mW) on the coast the calculation would look like:

There are 8760 hours in a year - 365 days x 24 hrs per day = 8760 hours per annum

The turbine on full output all year round is 8760 x 3mW = 26,280mWh or 26.28GW

It actually produces 30% (26.28GW X 30%) = 7.884GW (because of amount of wind)

7.884

    Load factor -------  x  100 = 30%

26.28

The load factor only really compares efficiency rather than output, nevertheless it reveals another component to be considered in the electrical generation mix. Downtime for maintenance reduces the load factor considerably:

Load Factor of Nuclear, Coal and Gas ~50%

One of the least impressive load factors is of cars, which works out around just 2%.

Typical annual mileage 12000

--------  x  100 = 1.96%

8760 x 70 (mph)      613200

Forward Facing Formulae

Whilst carrying out some of the back of envelope arithmetic as in this article it is not easy to present an obvious and simple solution for a low carbon energy mix. During last year the overall consensus from the Energy Live 2016 conference exhibitors and presenters was about these three missions:

Energy reduction - use of LEDs, demand management (see below)...

Local generation - community projects and rooftop microgeneration…

Storage - from pumped storage to batteries including electric vehicles...

Energy Demand Management

For many of us growing up in the 50s and 60s and even later will remember power cuts. These were relatively frequent compared to today when they are apparently both rare and random, usually accompanied by extreme weather conditions. Furthermore the way electricity provision was managed was solely governed by the guaranteed, regular generation at any given time, referred to as ‘Base Load’. With the huge advances in software control the opposite approach is now taken to manage demand rather than capacity.  

In addition, as battery storage becomes more financially viable, temporary storage of surplus electricity from wind and solar smooth can be utilised to smooth the peaks and troughs of demand. Large scale hydro pumped storage has been around for the last decade or so. Recently new projects have been given the green light to be constructed that essentially pump water to a higher reservoir when demand is lower than supply. Sophisticated software now can reduce the consumption of a larger hotel for a short period to supplement demand and provide payments back to the hotel, see more here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfwMxtdoOnM

Every weekday the National Grid face a critical supply 5 minutes, called a TV pickup, when millions of people switch on their kettles after the drums roll in the credits as Eastenders finishes. Typically this 3GW surge is controlled by a duty manager who actually watches the programme to best predict the optimum time to increase supply. This illustrates how vital and instant Energy Demand Management is at the very heart of the National Grid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTM2Ck6XWHg

In conclusion...

This is an outline document to give perspective to the discussions around the foolishness, anachronism and fiscal recklessness of massive new nuclear projects in the UK. It doesn’t cover topics such as comparative Strike Prices and the role of capitalism in optimising profits for the benefits of shareholders rather than the customers. This latter point effectively reduces the safety margins, especially in huge price tag power stations such as Hinkley Point C.

Equally I hope this piece will encourage reasoned thinking to avoid making assumptions based on little or no mathematical evidence. I trust it has been helpful, you are welcome to respond, details below.

© 2017 - Peter Banks B.Sc.

Peter Banks is the Events Officer for the Colchester & District Green Party and will be standing in the forthcoming Essex County Council elections for the West Mersea & Tiptree district. He serves as a councillor on West Mersea Town Council and is on the Core Steering Committee of the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG).

---

Promoted by Robbie Spence on behalf of Peter Banks, both of 124 Morant Road, Colchester CO1 2JD

---