Talk:Dinorwig Power Station

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wales Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The opening paragraph states that: The original purpose of the scheme was to deal with the difficulty that National Grid would have had if the large numbers of nuclear power stations then planned had been built.

Does anyone have any references for that statement, as it conflicts with my visit to Dinorwig last year. I propose that it is amended, if no reference can be found. Narwhal2 (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a relatively recent visitor to Dinorwig myself,I agree that the commentary there is very much focussed on the way the plant is operated today, with no reference to any change from the original intent.

Lowen and Stevenson presented a useful paper "Operation of Dinorwig pumped storage station on the UK National Grid system" at the ICE 1990 conference on Pumped Storage (you can find snippets starting at page 199 here). They describe the role anticipated for Dinorwig at the time the plant was commissioned (albeit without reference to the nuclear building programme). This is substantially different from the very short-term frequency regulation role described in First Hydro's current publicity material (Lowen and Stevenson acknowledge the improved regulation of system frequency during TV pickups, but as a beneficial side-effect rather than the overall raison d'etre of the Dinorwig units).

In short, I think there is ample evidence that Dinorwig is now used rather differently from the way it was originally intended to be (you can see hints at this in some of IP's investor material as well). The current text probably oversimplifies the rationale for building the plant, without actually being inaccurate. I'll try to draft a change to this paragraph which tells a slightly fuller story.

--Zeusfaber (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all... An image used in the article, specifically Image:Dynorwic.JPG, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can see if anyone else has taken a photo and uploaded it to Flickr under a suitably free license, with {{Flickr free}}:

• Search Flickr for images with the keywords: Dinorwig under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa

That finds some exterior shots of the "Electric Mountain" area of old slate quarries. One photo caption mentions that photography isn't allowed within the Dinorwig plant, most of which is underground. --Teratornis (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought - if these pump storage facilites were intended to manage the "nuclear generation" scenario, does that mean that they need to be reinstated, i.e. the exmoor scheme, in view of the current enthusiasm for more nuclear power stations? IMHO it makes a nonsense of the claims that we acan't have wind because of its intermittency - nuclear's "always on" creates just as many challenges Lowattboy (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some images from the Commons, but close-ups of the power station would be good to have. Peterlewis (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new power station called Glyn Rhonwy is planned to be built near Dinorwig.

However, it is nothing to do with Dinorwig and should not be mentioned in the article in the way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.253.130 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, with a heavy trim.--86.166.6.146 (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it doesn't really belong here at all. But I've moved it to a better place within the article. Johnstoo (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it should not be in this article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that in generating mode, the station can supply up to 1728 MW for six hours. Could you please supply the corresponding information for pumping mode. What is the maximum total power usage when all the units are pumping, and how long would it take to completely refill an empty upper reservoir? I would also like to know how pumping is started without putting such a massive overload on the electrical system that the pump trips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.124.51 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the article does it state the energy storage capacity. I wanted to compare this to modern Lithium battery farms, but the article only states the energy production capacity, not storage capacity.

Is this available anywhere to be added to the articleLkingscott (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the water available to it. However, the article states that the installed capacity is 1650 MW and that it can run for "up to 6 hours" so it's fairly clear that the maximum energy that could be provided is 1.65x6 = 9.9 GW hours, or 9.9 milion "units".--Phil Holmes (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked this {{cn}} as it's contradicted by the properly referenced "Financial case" in the section above.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great amount of detail, but in parts it reads like an operating manual. Any suggestions for detail to be trimmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.108.203 (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No suggestions because it seems fine to me. Can you quote what you believe to be excessive detail please ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One example would be: "The generators are vertical-shaft, salient-pole, air-cooled units each having 12 electromagnetic poles weighing 10 tonnes each, producing a terminal voltage of 18 kV; synchronous speed is 500 rpm" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.108.203 (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

overall it seems fine. There are a few sections with technical info like the above, but I don't see a problem really. I'd suggest we remove the tag if one more persona agrees that it is not needed. --- Possibly (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, the tag is not needed. It's only part of the article with technical detail, which is IMO at the level I would expect from an encyclopedia (and not really needed to understand the rest). Pepe Ochoa (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, the tag is not needed. This level of technical detail is merely what all similar articles should have, particularly as grids move towards more fluctuating status. Perhaps "Operation" could be explained in a more accessible way, without losing technical detail. Some details still to clarify are: quantification of the ramp rate (zero to 1800MW in 16 seconds=100MW/s), duration (9.1/1.7=5.35 hours, not 6), and transformator ratio (400/18kV=22.2). The infobox is missing the duration and energy capacity. TGCP (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was none other than,fresh from Cambridge University Carol Vorderman 2.26.46.204 (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

זור987 Keeps deleting the cited reference to the TV Pickup, not just on this page but several others on the grounds that he thinks it is a myth. He does not supply any evidence for this assertion. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I began to think that the TV Pickup is a myth, because it isn't mentioned in other countries, and there may be other countries that may have similar phenomenon without a name for it, including my country, Israel. זור987 (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it isn't mentioned in other countries? Please provide evidence from reliable sources that it is a myth. The fact is that it is well referenced in several articles that you have tampered with.

As an aside, I used to work for ITV and we had to provide detailed schedules to the CEGB, noting exactly when commercial breaks would occur in popular programmes so they could make provisions for exactly this situation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article of TV pickup exists only in the English Wikipedia, not in other Wikipedias. זור987 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, please provide a reliable source to confirm it is a myth Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]