UKC

The news seems to get worse by the day

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/18/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-deal...

Does anyone here still think this is likely and a good deal?

In reply to Offwidth:

but... I thought the Tories were the party of fiscal responsibility ? Now I'm disillusioned.

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't really know anything about nuclear power but I wonder if anyone on here does and could answer a few questions.
Why is this reactor design so much better than alternative designs that are actually in use at the moment? is it safer/more efficient/higher capacity?
My understanding is that yes we need some form of large scale continuous power source and ideally one that produces relatively little CO2, but as it goes on this reactor at Hinkley seems so expensive, so uncertain and so far in the future we'll be needing something else up and running before this one comes on line.

In reply to gethin_allen:



It's hard to believe that's the case, given that the two reactors of this type currently being built are years late and billions over budget. Britain's nuclear energy policy has always been useless. This is simply a continuation of that uselessness.

In reply to gethin_allen:

As far as I can see it's a pressurised water vessel (nothing new there) which has additional safety measures including multiple redundant emergency cooling systems and secondary containment in case of meltdown.

Capacity wise it would be typical for a nuclear power station, around 3.2GW (in the same ball park as a big wall across the Severn estuary)

In reply to gethin_allen:

You might find these useful: http://www.niauk.org/briefing-papers (rest of website is interesting, too -obviously an angle, though)>

Our problems started with the energy white paper of 2003 ('get rid of nuclear'), got worse with the policy paper of 2008 ("well...maybe we were a bit hasty"), plus consequent/subsequent chaos with subsidies (now they're here, now they're not), deregulation, etc. etc. Went to a briefing on energy 'policy' and 'strategy' in the UK a few months. It genuinely frightened me.

In reply to Jimbo C:



Careful or you will give my SW Independence campaign some new ideas

In reply to Offwidth:

So if this hinkley c reactor is nothing that special why don't we build an identical reactor to the newest tried and tested reactor we already have running in the uk? Nothing massively disastrous has happened to them, they work and they are a known quantity so should be much easier and cheaper to build.
I know people will say "do you really want a cheap nuclear reactor" suggesting that in some way you are compromising safety, but surely dealing with a known quantity is going to be safer?

In reply to gethin_allen:


The last nuclear reactor in the UK was Sizewell B, started in 1987, and operational in 1995, so the knowledge and expertise developed for that has pretty much disappeared. In addition, it was a one-off - the only pressurised water reactor in the UK. All the other operational reactors are advanced gas cooled reactors, which are even older - Torness and Heysham B were the last ones built, being operational in 1988.

It seems that economies of scale don't appear to work with nuclear power, at least if the UK experience is anything to go by. When Torness and Heysham B were being built, it was said that Thatcher wanted a new nuclear power station every year, until she was told how much it would cost.

In reply to Jimbo C:


Taken from this site ... http://www.reuk.co.uk/Severn-Barrage-Tidal-Power.htm
"The tidal turbines along the barrage would generate the same amount of electricity as three of the latest nuclear power stations - 8.6 GW during flow and 2 GW on average. This would be sufficient to provide 5-6% of the current electricity usage of England and Wales - equivalent to 8 large coal-fired power stations. "

"8 large coal-fired power stations" ??? Drax bangs out 4GW all by itself!
Why do people have to try and bullshit us all the time?

In reply to Lusk:

I always think the PR person behind naming Drax should have been fired, you'd think they'd try and call it something which doesn't make it sound comically evil even though it is a massive smoke belching power station. It's a bit like the fracking firm "Quadrilla" no matter how good their record is or isn't a name straight out of a superhero movie is guaranteed to the the hippies going.

In reply to Lusk:
So s*d the Welsh and the Birds (they can just dig deeper). The wall is going to be built.

Yay - I'm rich!

In reply to gethin_allen:

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

In reply to gethin_allen:
I always thought that Alan Rickman would have made the perfect Hugo Drax character in Moonraker...
"Look after Mr. Bond, see that some harm comes to him"
"Jaws, Mr. Bond must be cold after his swim. Place him where he can be assured of warmth"

In reply to Lusk:

Interesting re Severn Estuary. It's not really comparing like for like, because Drax can bang out 4GW base load all day every day, whereas the barrage (although highly predictable) generates transient power levels. With the best energy management available, it'll still require some development and investment in large scale transient energy storage to smooth it out, esp. when tide is out of phase with demand.
Nonetheless, it presents brilliant value in addition to the rest of the energy mix. I'm just starting to participate on research projects in small-scale modular reactors which are starting to attract govt. investment and should bring costs down from current 1-off design methods, however, it's never going to be cheap.