PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Proposed new nuke at Wylfa
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 8071
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A local political figure* recently said "if hitachi can not build decent trains, then I for one don't want one of their nukes"

Said person* has suffered somewhat from the new hitachi trains that are now running to/from the west country.
They are often shorter than the old trains, seem less reliable, have underfloor engines, no buffet and very hard seats.

*It is not my intention to name the politician in question, firstly because the remark quoted was "off the record" at a social event, and secondly I don't want this thread to degenerate into a party political bunfight.
_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 12264
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They have underfloor engines, Adam, because nationalised Network Rail couldn't build out the infrastructure for a fully electrified service anywhere near on time and anywhere near on budget. And people are calling for the whole network to be nationalised!!
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
BritDownUnder



Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Posts: 772
Location: Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would prefer the UK to have a nuclear baseload of 15 to 20 GW for 'energy security' reasons. I can fully understand that people actually living in the UK disagree with this. I am also living 6682km away from the nearest operating nuclear plant (in Southern Taiwan BTW) and I think people in the UK are less than 300km away from a nuke so may be more worried about the possibility of an accident. There is a small 'research' reactor in Sydney if that makes you feel better. I certainly do.

The alternative reliable baseload is unfortunately coal, Russian or Qatari gas with political and security ramifications or some form of tidal power. Tidal power seems about a likely as nuclear at the moment so I think the muddle through will be more offshore wind, more energy imports once the HVDC links to Norway and Belgium are opened, delay coal plant closures and more gas.

I think it is a shame that the UK industry could not have continued the AGR program even though it was fraught with construction issues but there you go.
_________________
G'Day cobber!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14615
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The whole of the fossil fuel industry, in which I include nuclear, should be being shut down now. Instead the opposite is happening.

Humans are thick and certainly don’t derserve the adjective ‘wise’.
_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 6480
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
The whole of the fossil fuel industry, in which I include nuclear, should be being shut down now. Instead the opposite is happening.

Humans are thick and certainly don’t derserve the adjective ‘wise’.

Your lumping in nuclear with fossil fuels is at least debatable but the immediate shutdown of the fossil fuel industry/economy without a replacement, up and working in place, would result in the premature deaths of billions.
Is that really what you want?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BritDownUnder



Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Posts: 772
Location: Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
The whole of the fossil fuel industry, in which I include nuclear, should be being shut down now. Instead the opposite is happening.

Humans are thick and certainly don’t derserve the adjective ‘wise’.


The problem is how to get the energy and remain an 'advanced' civilization. Not all fossil fuels go to make electricity. A lot are used in transport and manufacture. Making cement produces between 4% and 8% of CO2 emissions. I think the desire to drop fossil fuels is admirable but they are intricately linked to civilization. I think from a lot of your postings you are something of an anti-civilization person. Not everyone wants to reduce their energy intake. Just see how it works for an elected official or someone seeking office.

In the UK anyway, I think the population density is too high and the available sustainable food and energy per capita from the land area is too low to go renewable too quickly. So the UK is stuck with buying overseas energy with the risks that Russia will use it to develop new nukes or to buy from the middle East and risk becoming a Muslim dominated state in the long term. It is really a stark choice in the short to medium term, say 5 to 25 years, from where the UK can get its energy before renewables and storage can come into serious use.
_________________
G'Day cobber!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14615
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vtsnowedin wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
The whole of the fossil fuel industry, in which I include nuclear, should be being shut down now. Instead the opposite is happening.

Humans are thick and certainly don’t derserve the adjective ‘wise’.

Your lumping in nuclear with fossil fuels is at least debatable but the immediate shutdown of the fossil fuel industry/economy without a replacement, up and working in place, would result in the premature deaths of billions.
Is that really what you want?


Not my problem. It should happen, full stop.
_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14615
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BritDownUnder wrote:
I think from a lot of your postings you are something of an anti-civilization person.


It really depends on the definition of civilisation.
_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 8071
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This project now appears to be dead.
Hitachi have withdrawn from the project "due to rising costs" Reported on BBC TV evening news today 15 September.

IN THEORY the project might continue without Hitachi, but in practice it seems most unlikely.
If Hitachi are frightened of by rising costs, then it seems probable that their competitors would take a similar view.
Regulatory approvals might be a challenge also.

EDIT TO ADD LINK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54158091
_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"


Last edited by adam2 on Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 8738

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I actually think fully funding a couple of new nuclear builds would be a better use of public billions than HS2.

Nuclear is simply far too expensive, with the risks all front loaded, for the private sector.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 8071
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You might be right, but I have a fear that the cost of a publicly funded nuke would balloon even more quickly than a privately built one.
Hitachi for all their faults, do have a desire to stay in business and have decided against continuing when the costs became excessive.

IF HMG committed to a new nuke, then they could not "do an Hitachi" and cancel it. Too much loss of face, too many angry trade union members put out of work.
_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BritDownUnder



Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Posts: 772
Location: Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the government of the day probably tried to cancel Hinckley Point C but the Chinese government made a few threats and on it still goes. The problem is they will have one power station and no economies of scale. You could see that all the projects were for different PWR designs and there would have been no economies of scale among them all. Another reason for Department of Energy bureaucrats to be executed.

I would prefer to see the money going somewhere in baseload generation and nukes are an obvious choice for low carbon generation. I could be persuaded that tidal and wind/pumped storage could provide an alternative use/waste/spend (delete as applicable) of the peoples' money.
_________________
G'Day cobber!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group