[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Archive Top]

RE: [cdn-nucl-l] IESO press release: Ontario electrical generation in 2011

At Pickering A the channels can be repositioned by a threaded nut affair as far as I recall.  Back in the late 70's a bunch of us office drones suited up to measure the yoke clearances at Pickering A.  Another set of drones turned the nuts at a later date based on the measurements.  Given hormesis we drones are probably healthier for our exposure.

Bill

At 04:48 PM 09/01/2012, Andrew Daley wrote:

I have just been severely "coached"...;-)

The positioning assembly is apparently a Darlington/ CANDU 6 feature...

The design at Bruce apparently requires quite an elaborate effort to physically cut/ weld/ and pull the Channels!

In other words, pretty much exactly as you indicated Morgan, they need to re centre !

If anything this reminds me that standard designs would be great... go EC6!
On 2012-01-09 2:39 PM, "Brown, Morgan" <brownmj@aecl.ca> wrote:

UNRESTRICTED | ILLIMITÉ



Thanks for the correction, Andrew.  Of course!  The end fittings have to be positioned so that the outboard (fuelling machine side) and inboard (calandria side) journal rings remain in contact with their bearing sleeves.  Essentially, these journal bearings allow thermal and radiation-induced axial expansion of the pressure tube.  Presumably, the bearings are designed so that there is no feeder-to-feeder contact if the bearing surfaces are within their sliding range.



Some illustrations are found on the CANTEACH site at http://canteach.candu.org/library/19980102.pdf , pages 5 to 9 in particular.



cheers



Morgan



From: Andrew Daley [ mailto:daley.andrew@gmail.com]
Sent: January 9, 2012 1:52 PM
To: Brown, Morgan
Cc: cdn-nucl-l
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] IESO press release: Ontario electrical generation in 2011



Small correction/ clarification about the "west shift"... To accommodate the lengthening of the fuel channels (due to irradiation), the reactor is set up such that one end is fixed and one end is free... this is accomplished by locking the positioning assembly (or not locking).

When the pressure tube has grown such that there is no more room on the free end bearing, it is required to flip the free and fixed ends.

At Bruce, reactor faces are oriented east/ west and all the assemblies on a face had the same original position.

I am sure canteach has a diagram which will show how the positioning assembly is arranged but I am on my phone so I can't find it!

There are also alignment and clearance issues to consider but I don't think they are of primary importance.

(Ps, someone correct me if I am wrong!)

Andrew

On 2012-01-09 12:00 PM, "Brown, Morgan" <brownmj@aecl.ca> wrote:

UNRESTRICTED | ILLIMITÉ



Hello Jerry and Happy New Year to all.



Bruce-3 is currently in a 160-day outage (started Nov 6), spending $323 million primarily to perform a “west shift” of fuel channels.  This is not a refurb or retube (to the best of my knowledge they are not replacing any pressure or calandria tubes), but instead are adjusting the location of the channels in the core channels grow due to neutron irradiation and high--pressure (low temperature) creep during normal operation.  I believe that the channels need to be realigned with the centre of the reactor, to prevent feeder pipes contacting each other.  The project is to extend the life of unit 3 before requiring a full retube (as currently wrapping up in units 1 and 2).



Bruce 1 and 2 are set to be restarted this year (unit 2 leading the way) after a multi-year re-tube and re-boilering.  They were originally 769 MWe (net), 825 MWe (gross), and I believe that they will generate that amount in the future (the turbines and generators were refurbed, but not replaced).  In their earlier lives, these reactors also generated additional heat (equivalent to 79 MWe) used to supply steam to the Bruce industrial park (the heavy water plant, plus some greenhouses I think).  The steam requirement is gone, so the reactor core will presumably be run with a lower heat output (by ~250 MWth) than originally designed.



With the return to power of Units 1 and 2, I expect to see the annual net electrical output increase by ~5.7 million MWh (assuming an 85% capacity factor) for each of these reactors. I don’t know how long Bruce 3 and 4 will continue to operate until they are shut for refurbishment. I think there are plans to start to re-boiler and re-tube unit 4 within a couple of years.  The annual Ontario net generation should approach (maybe surpass) the record output of ~83.5 million MWh net, set in 1994 when Pickering 2 and 3 were also in operation (shut permanently in 1997).  Of course, given the lower electricity demand (unless manufacturing increases), we may see longer maintenance outages.



I believe the wholesale price of electricity is paid to the producers (3.15 cents/kWh).  The global adjustment (previously the “provincial benefit”) is “the difference between the total payments made to certain contracted or regulated generators/demand management projects, and market revenues” ( http://ieso.ca/imoweb/b100/b100_GA.asp).  I don’t pretend to understand this it appears to be aa complex obfuscation process.  According to http://ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/ga/Global_Adjustment-QAs.pdf :



The goal of the recent change to the global adjustment is to act as a further time‐of‐use incentive for large users to move their consumption in response to supply and demand conditions. It provides a financial incentive for large customers to use less electricity during hours when the grid is under its highest stress which subsequently provides demand response to the market without incurring additional costs. It also encourages customers to shift usage to off‐peak periods when low‐cost, low‐emissions supply is available.



I think the user ends up paying for the wholesale electricity PLUS the global adjustment.  I do not know who gets to keep the global adjustment portion (the IESO, OPA, provincial government?).  In addition, the user has to pay various delivery charges to the grid operating company (e.g., Hydro One, Ottawa Hydro), the debt retirement charge, and various taxes. It would be great to see a breakdown of who gets what: the electrical generator, the grid operator, the debt retirement fund, the IESO, the OPA, the various levels of government.  Anyone up to this task?



cheers

Morgan



From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA [ mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of JERRY CUTTLER
Sent: January 9, 2012 10:59 AM
To: cdn-nucl-l
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] IESO press release: Ontario electrical generation in 2011



Happy new year and thanks Morgan



This message is quite interesting.

I understand Bruce U3 is in an extended outage for partial fuel channel refurbishment.

How do you expect the numbers to change when Bruce U2 and U1 come on line this spring?

Can you clarify the meaning of the following sentence from the IESO message?

The total cost of power in 2011 was 7.16 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), up from 6.52 cents/kWh in 2010. This cost includes the average weighted wholesale market price of 3.15 cents/kWh and the average Global Adjustment of 4.01 cents/kWh (preliminary).



Regards, Jerry

 

From: "Brown, Morgan" <brownmj@aecl.ca>
To: cdn-nucl-l < cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA>
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 9:10:55 AM
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] IESO press release: Ontario electrical generation in 2011

UNRESTRICTED | ILLIMITÉ



http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/media/md_newsitem.asp?newsID=5930




Composition of Ontario's Electricity Supply Mix Continues to Change: Consumer Response Supports Reliability



January 6, 2012

The Independent Electricity System Operator's annual release of supply, demand and price data highlights three trends that helped shape the management of Ontario's power system in 2011: increasing production from renewable resources, reduced dependence on coal-fired units, and a more active role for consumers in managing their consumption.

With a total installed capacity of more than 1,700 megawatts (MW) at year-end, Ontario's wind generators are playing an increasingly important role in meeting demand for electricity. Total production rang in at 3.9 terawatt hours (TWh) - up substantially from 2.8 TWh in 2010. November 2011 marked the highest monthly wind output ever seen in Ontario, with production in that month alone exceeding 0.56 TWh. In annual terms, wind generation represented 2.6 per cent of total output across all fuel types of 149.9 TWh.

Production from Ontario's nuclear units continues to supply more than half of Ontario's power needs. Nuclear generation rose slightly in 2011 to 85.3 TWh, an increase of 2.4 TWh from 2010. By contrast, output from Ontario's coal-fired units dropped to 4.1 TWh in 2011, two-thirds lower than it was the year before. After unusually low water levels resulted in reduced hydroelectric output in 2010, production rebounded to 33.3 TWh from 30.7 TWh. Natural gas facilities rounded out the mix, with production of 22.0 TWh, up from 20.5 TWh in 2010.

The table below reflects total electricity output in 2011 by fuel type.

Year

Nuclear

Hydro

Coal

Gas

Wind

Other

2011

85.3 TWh

33.3 TWh

4.1 TWh

22.0 TWh

3.9 TWh

1.2 TWh

56.9 %

22.2 %

2.7 %

14.7 %

2.6 %

0.8 %

2010

82.9 TWh

30.7 TWh

12.6 TWh

20.5 TWh

2.8 TWh

1.3 TWh

55.0 %

20.4 %

8.3 %

13.6 %

1.9 %

0.8 %

2009

82.5 TWh

38.1 TWh

9.8 TWh

15.4 TWh

2.3 TWh

1.2 TWh

55.2 %

25.5 %

6.6 %

10.3 %

1.6 %

0.8 %

2008

84.4 TWh

38.3 TWh

23.2 TWh

11.0 TWh

1.4 TWh

1.0 TWh

53.0 %

24.1 %

14.5 %

6.9 %

0.9 %

0.6 %

Due to rounding, percentages may not add to 100.

Total electricity consumption in Ontario dipped slightly to 141.5 TWh, down from 142 TWh in 2010. A heat wave in late July pushed peak hourly demand to 25,450 MW on July 21 - a 375 MW increase from 2010's peak. This increase would have been even higher if not for demand response (DR) program participants, which include residential, industrial, commercial and institutional users that agree to reduce their consumption during peak periods with extreme weather conditions. During the peak hour, demand for electricity was reduced by more than 500 MW through various DR programs and pricing incentives.

"The supply mix is not the only thing that's changing," said Paul Murphy, President and CEO of the IESO. "By reducing their consumption during periods of high demand, and by using new tools and applications to monitor their usage, Ontario's electricity consumers are becoming key partners in maintaining system reliability."

The total cost of power in 2011 was 7.16 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), up from 6.52 cents/kWh in 2010. This cost includes the average weighted wholesale market price of 3.15 cents/kWh and the average Global Adjustment of 4.01 cents/kWh (preliminary).

Electricity trading activity between Ontario and its interconnected markets slowed, leading to lower imports and exports. Imports fell to 3.91 TWh from 6.4 TWh, while exports dropped to 12.9 TWh from 15.2 TWh.



Morgan Brown, P.Eng