Oldbury Shut-down

Подписаться 160

Просмотров 26 тыс.

50% 1

After 44 years of safe operation, Magnox's Oldbury power station - the world's oldest operating nuclear power station - ceased generation at 11am on 29 February 2012.
To-date, the site has generated over 137.5 TWh of electricity, enough to power one million homes for over 20 years (one TWh is a billion units of electricity)!
In November 2011, the proactive decision to shut down Reactor One was taken after careful consideration by operators Magnox, EnergySolutions - the owners of Magnox Ltd, and the site owners the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). The decision was made on the grounds that further operation of one of the world's oldest nuclear reactors is no longer economically viable.
Originally, Oldbury was due to shutdown in 2008. Since the scheduled closure date, the plant has generated an additional 7.4TWhrs of electricity, worth an estimated £350 million to the taxpayer and saving around 3.5M tonnes of carbon from being released into the atmosphere.
Phil Sprague, Oldbury Site Director, said: "Oldbury has been a terrific success story for the UK nuclear industry. We have generated safe, carbon free electricity for 44 years which is a remarkable achievement when you consider that the original plant design life was just 25 years.
"The plant has had a number of enhancements over the years, however continued generation is largely down to the excellence of the staff that have operated the plant for those 44 years. This fantastic record is one that all staff both past and present, can rightly be proud. Today marks a safe and dignified end to the generation of electricity at Oldbury.
"Our main focus for the coming months is to prepare our staff and the plant for the defueling of the reactors, whilst continuing to maintain the very high standards for safety that we have created here. On-going support for our staff as we make these changes will be key for the rest of this year."

Опубликовано:

29 окт 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 40

@johnfarmer3506 4 года назад

Highest growth in Carbon release is because good reactors are getting shout down. Germany the US even Russia all good reactors and we continue to close them. NuScale wont have their first reactors up till 2029. We need to hold off on closing working reactors.

@the_expidition427 3 года назад

Except those who are screeching nuclear isn't good for the enviroment are going toward a dirtier options and companies are cool with it

@johnfarmer3506 3 года назад

@@the_expidition427 The Market still rules regardless of long term outcome

@alexanderjones7414 8 лет назад

I very much hope Magnox will record the final shut down of Wylfa at the close of the year, its a fantastic achievement its working life has given not only to it's contribution into the grid, but as a outstanding engineering triumph, living in North Wales myself, many of Wylfa's quality standards have slipped into are local area and set the benchmark about how well managed engineering should be (mike Jones Engineer Abergele)

@veyso32 7 лет назад

What a waste shutting down a perfectly good reactor

@kylesenior 5 лет назад

They're quite old. They're probably not cost competitive anymore to run.

@9TDF 5 лет назад

@@kylesenior There is also things that can't be fixed like cracked graphite.

@wazza33racer 4 года назад

@@9TDF yes, the graphite only lasts so long before needing replacement.

@caav56 Год назад

@@wazza33racer AFAIK, Magnox cores were still in the good state when they were shut down.

@oNe-TwO-fReE 3 месяца назад

My Father worked there between 1968-1984. Health Physics Foreman. As a kid I had a few tours around the station. Facinating place. Dr Who Episode The Hand Of Fear was filmed in part there. My Dad had to look after Tom Baker and crew

@sideshowbob1544 5 лет назад

You've all done very well!

@212MPH 3 года назад

Sad to see, we lost Bradwell A magnox many years ago, the Reactors still stand and will do for 100 years.

@ClassicalRips 9 лет назад

Why do they scram it instead of doing a slow ramp down like they would for a normal shut down?

@RileyWileyTomato 8 лет назад

Classical Rips because it's quick and safe and easier

@agt155 3 года назад

They probably did, and then hit the scram at the end.

@jasonmurawski5877 3 года назад

Because theres no need to ramp down, they are disconnected from the grid so theres no need to ramp it down to let other power stations accommodate

@dragonfireproductions790 2 года назад

Gradually shutting it down can have problems like runaways and it overcomplicates the process. Scramming it is quicker and makes sure nothing gets wrong

@cjmillsnun Год назад

That was the norm for Magnox. There's no cavitation issues because it's not water cooled. Magnox and AGR are gas cooled.

@agt155 3 года назад

RBMK scram is much more exciting.

@Wafflepudding 3 года назад

I prefer my nuclear power plants boring tyvm

@TheStevenWhiting 6 лет назад

I assume everyone gets made redundant except for the people that are kept on to keep the place safe?

@TheStefanskoglund1 3 года назад

Why make them redundant ? Some will get help to change career but a lot will be needed to keep the place running. A lot of the building will need maintenance the next 20 years. The reactor building the next 80 years including that it must be kept heated. At least PWR and BWR reactor's buildings needs to be kept warm and dry. It is fair deal easier disassemble them if lighting, pneumatic air and cranes is service worthy. A big problem will be attracting the necessary people to keep the knowledge about how to disassemble the thing in 70 years.

@TheStevenWhiting 3 года назад

@@TheStefanskoglund1 I believe that was my point, that they should keep a lot of them on but the way these things work, the people that are "mates" normally get kept, sod everyone else.

@wazza33racer 5 лет назад

solid fueled reactors..............less than 1% of fuel burned versus the Thorium cycle that has a +99% fuel burn..........its like a Model T Ford against a Ferrari.

@krashd 5 лет назад

Then how come none of the 50 or so countries with nuclear power has ever built one? And don't say it's because uranium leads to weapon material since the majority of nuclear-using countries don't have or want nuclear weapons.

@PentaxSource 5 лет назад

@@krashd Because thorium was a later development, there where already 100's of other solid type reactors build and much knowledge gathered. A liquid reactor had the disadvantage of being a costly development over something known and wildly used despite being better - like an electric car nowadays.

@wazza33racer 4 года назад

@@FowlorTheRooster1990 in the US, outside of the DoD Hartford facility (which is now closed) all the spent fuel, is still in its fuel rods, stored in casks, none is reprocessed. It happens elsewhere but it is a big regulatory concern for plutonium diversion, for nuclear power to be more widespread across the world. In the case of Thorium, there is no plutonium and Uranium-233 is completely useless for making weapons.

@Tuberuser187 5 лет назад

44 years of operation, now begins a cleanup process that will take a 100 years!

@krashd 5 лет назад

Less than a decade.

@cytrynowy_melon6604 3 года назад

@@krashd Still decomissioning nuclear power plant is a lot of money and effort. Solar and wind don't need such decomissioning.

@cytrynowy_melon6604 3 года назад

@@krashd ,,Defuelling and removal of most buildings is expected to take until 2027, followed by a care and maintenance phase from 2027 to 2095. Demolition of reactor buildings and final site clearance is planned for 2096 to 2101."

@krashd 3 года назад

@@cytrynowy_melon6604 Were you planning on doing something with that specific piece of land before 2101? Nuclear power plants make up about .00001% of a country, that leaves you with the other 99.99999% to do as you please.

@MrChinasyndrome 10 лет назад

1607

@MrChinasyndrome 10 лет назад

44 years of safe operation. Woo Hoo! As we've seen it at Fukushima it only takes one bad day. Can one of you 'experts' remind me for how long the waste and contaminated equipment is lethally dangerous? Why the edgy security at Berkeley? Something dodgy in the decomposing and flood prone active waste vaults perchance?

@randomworld1 9 лет назад

MrChinasyndrome Please don't be an idiot.

@krashd 6 лет назад

No one can remind you because seeing the future is not possible, the ability to make an irradiated substance safe could come in 100 years or it could be discovered by someone at CERN tomorrow.

@krashd 3 года назад

@Stephen Graham No, but we get better at it with every year. The third generation reactors that have been built over the last decade and which continue to be built don't have such dangerous by-products as previous reactors. Also the generation 4 reactors that are only in the design stage and hope to be ready by the 2040's should be able to run on the spent fuel of older reactors, meaning nuclear waste might finally have a use. Nuclear waste stockpiles might finally go down rather than up in the second half of this century.