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 

Hinkley Point
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex wrote:
This is a poor image of scale. The whole thing can be viewed on the Link to EDF Energy Hinkley Site It is going to be HUGE


That's where the wind farm was going before the NIMBYs screwed it up, wasn't it?

I'm glad I've moved from West Somerset to nuke free West Wales!
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RGR
Banned


Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2011
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="JohnB"]

Last edited by RGR on Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9808
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

They are going to construct a new sea wall. This will be the Maginot Line of sea walls. The flooding will out flank the wall coming in about a kilometre to the east of the site and then via Burnham on Sea and the river further to the east. This shows the extent of flooding at 7m http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.2062,-3.1316&z=3&t=1 and this at 14m http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.2062,-3.1316&z=3&m=14&t=1

With at least 160 years before decommissioning how do we know that EDF will be around to do the clean up (Clean up? What clean up?) and how do we know what the sea level will be then considering that Arctic Ice started melting at about 350 ppm of CO2 and governments are talking about levels of 450 to 550 ppm.

They should be made to build a sea wall around the whole site, including the existing power stations, to cater for a 15m sea level rise with provision to increase this as and when necessary. That might give us a truer cost of nuclear.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can go on building sea defences higher and higher maintaining a constant risk of failure. But the higher the defence the greater the consequence of a failure. Moving up hill avoids the issue.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
alex



Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 61
Location: Cannington Somerset

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
They are going to construct a new sea wall. This will be the Maginot Line of sea walls. The flooding will out flank the wall coming in about a kilometre to the east of the site and then via Burnham on Sea and the river further to the east. This shows the extent of flooding at 7m http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.2062,-3.1316&z=3&t=1 and this at 14m http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.2062,-3.1316&z=3&m=14&t=1


Bit like the scene from Blazing Saddles where there is a toll gate in the Desert.

kenneal wrote:
With at least 160 years before decommissioning how do we know that EDF will be around to do the clean up (Clean up? What clean up?) and how do we know what the sea level will be then considering that Arctic Ice started melting at about 350 ppm of CO2 and governments are talking about levels of 450 to 550 ppm.


Yes, who will be manning the “Clean-up” operation, and who pays for it? EDF are in financial trouble now. The environmental plan re tide levels and global warming only allows for 100 years.

The site may well have been earmarked for Wind farms, not too sure as there is a debate in the Woolavington Puriton areas a few miles up the road.

No point in moving it up hill. There is already Hinkley A on site (Being decommissioned) And the photos as earlier are Hinkley B opened in 1976. The new build will need to be by the sea for the cooling. They are driving 3 tunnels several miles out to sea by the way for the cooling, and there will be a large temporary jetty to bring in the aggregates etc. There is your carbon footprint.

Strangely I'm not against the building of Hinkley C; we have had nuclear plants at the end of our garden for the last 50 years. They have brought in some prosperity and quality employment opportunities to the area, and excellent training programmes. It was a brilliant catchment for engineers of all types.

Call me a Nimby if you like, but I live in a village 4 miles away & EDF intend to place camps of 320 itinerant workers in the village. Park & Ride for 900 cars & a freight consolidation depot operating 24/7. All this on green belt agricultural land. Whereas there are 3 empty factory sites in the neighbouring town of Bridgwater where all the above could be placed, the traffic on the A39 would be reduced as well as adding to the population of wage earners in the town of Bridgwater.

However EDF seem intent on placing all this in a village where the designated area is disproportionate to the size of the Village, and where are these workers going to go & unwind/relax?

Alex
_________________
If it wasn't for pick-pockets & frisking at airports, I'd have no sex life at all .................Rodney Dangerfield.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 6206
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe that IF the proposed plant is built, the intention is not only to build a sea wall, but also to elevate the plant on an artifical hill, in order to protect it from flood water.
It would be inconvienient if at high tide or during storms, the power plant became an island, but it should not be dangerous.
Proximity to the sea is desireable for cooling water.

IF this ever gets built, I dont see why wind turbines cant be erected on the same site or nearby in addition.
Wind turbines are sometimes considered to be ugly, so a good site is one already marred by large structures.
Coastal sites normally have a good wind resource.
Nuclear power plants are rail connected, as this is safer than road transport for new or spent nuclear fuel. Such a facility would be useful for components of large wind turbines.
Both wind turbines and nuclear plants require a high voltage grid connection, and this can be provided more cheaply if both are on the same site.
_________________
"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
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The proposed wind farm at Hinkley was scrapped due to NIMBYism. The current power stations are an eyesore from both the Quantock Hills (AONB) and Exmoor (National Park). A new power station on an artificial hill will make it look far worse. How come that will be acceptable, when the far less obtrusive wind turbines weren't?

One of the arguments against the wind farm was that blades may break off and hit the nuke station!
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alex



Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 61
Location: Cannington Somerset

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

adam2 wrote:
I believe that IF the proposed plant is built, the intention is not only to build a sea wall, but also to elevate the plant on an artifical hill, in order to protect it from flood water.
It would be inconvienient if at high tide or during storms, the power plant became an island, but it should not be dangerous.
Proximity to the sea is desireable for cooling water.


Only slightly elevate the plant though. Take a look at the artists impression at the end of this post. Better than that look at the website pdf files. Page 1 is the impression of the site. Page 6 relates to the proposed infrastructure in Cannington for the build period. Link to EDF Publicity Statement

adam2 wrote:
IF this ever gets built, I dont see why wind turbines cant be erected on the same site or nearby in addition.
Wind turbines are sometimes considered to be ugly, so a good site is one already marred by large structures.
Coastal sites normally have a good wind resource.
Nuclear power plants are rail connected, as this is safer than road transport for new or spent nuclear fuel. Such a facility would be useful for components of large wind turbines.
Both wind turbines and nuclear plants require a high voltage grid connection, and this can be provided more cheaply if both are on the same site.


Makes perfect sense. Except there is no rail to the Site. Re windfarm, all the pylons and connection to National Grid is on site.



The brown bit in the front is the sea. Note the wall how it abruptly stops on the right. The buildings on the left is Hinkley B.

Alex
_________________
If it wasn't for pick-pockets & frisking at airports, I'd have no sex life at all .................Rodney Dangerfield.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9808
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From a reply to a previous submission to the consultation they are working on 500mm sea level rise by the end of the century. I suppose sea level will then either stay the same in perpetuity or go down!!! I'm not suggesting a sea wall is a good idea, I'm just putting more obstacles in the way.

The current proposal for the sea wall probably stops where it does because the cliffs change to a rock which will not erode readily. Would that be true, Alex?

The answer to JohnB's question about windfarms versus a Nuke is hysteria. There is a hysteria about NEW windfarms. Nukes have been around for years. If the nuke is vulnerable to a wind turbine blade, God help us all and don't tell Al Qaeda.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
The current proposal for the sea wall probably stops where it does because the cliffs change to a rock which will not erode readily. Would that be true, Alex?

This is the view looking west, I think from the proposed site

It does rise a fair distance above sea level, so is probably safe for long enough for no one alive now to care.

I was involved on the fringes of the pro wind farm campaign, but it was scrapped after I went travelling. Here's some stuff on what happened.
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alex



Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 61
Location: Cannington Somerset

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good photo.

You are in the right area, the cliff raises to about 12-18 foot and then considerably higher by the time you reach the first headland which is just before Kilve. However for the first mile or two, nothing significant in the way of rocks to start with. Mainly soil, grass & stones.

There is lots of loose shale nearer the Kilve end which was going to be open mined or extracted in the 1930's to produce oil. The idea was scrapped as the waste matter was greater than the product would have been. They even considered a railway up from Watchet.

The bit poking out on the horizon is Minehead, and you can just make out the "Bedouin Tent" of Butlins.

You can just see "Shurton Bars" which are the string of rocks right foreground. If you look at Google Earth, you will get an idea, but nothing to indicate height of the cliffs.

By the way I like the dog!

Alex
_________________
If it wasn't for pick-pockets & frisking at airports, I'd have no sex life at all .................Rodney Dangerfield.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex wrote:
By the way I like the dog!Alex

He's cute isn't he. He's just got a big mouth and bounces about too much. I was told he'd calm down by the time he was three, but he'll be twelve in August Rolling Eyes.
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
they are working on 500mm sea level rise by the end of the century. I suppose sea level will then either stay the same in perpetuity or go down!!!


On my side of the country the Environment Agency are modelling sea defences for 1.2m rise by end of this century. After that I assume that the Lincolnshire Marsh will be abandoned.

Before building a nuke we have to certain, like 100%, that it can be decommissioned and the site made safe before sea level floods it. We don't yet know what the worse case scenario for Greenland and WAIS melt speed might be.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9808
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex wrote:
However for the first mile or two, nothing significant in the way of rocks to start with. Mainly soil, grass & stones.


They stopped there then because that is the end of their ownership. As long as the water doesn't come through their bit they will be alright. If it comes through some one else's I suppose they will sue!!

Bloody idiots! And we're entrusting then with our nuclear future? Was it EDF who's nuclear power station was closed down when a maintenance engineer(?) took a candle into a cable duct and burnt through some of the safety cut out cables?
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
alex



Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 61
Location: Cannington Somerset

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumour has it that EDF intend to start constructing a jetty out to sea up to 500m long ready for the build of Hinkley C. My source tells me the build is due to start 7th June. However I have since spoken to EDF local office, and they assure me there is no intention of the Jetty until planning permission has been granted, and to date they have not submitted an application

The L.A. (West Somerset District Council) tells me that EDF can make a start and apply retrospectively, but if declined they must re-instate everything back to as was.

It is common knowledge that EDF have no money, yet they are happy to squander an inordinate amount, and upset the population into the bargain.

Alex
_________________
If it wasn't for pick-pockets & frisking at airports, I'd have no sex life at all .................Rodney Dangerfield.


Last edited by alex on Fri Jun 04, 2010 10:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
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, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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