EDF - Hinkley Point 'C'
Discussion
Scuffers said:
hidetheelephants said:
If Brian George, the guy who brought Sizewell B in to commission within a couple of months of the 7 year schedule and underbudget, is still alive, give him a cheque book and set him to it. He can hardly make a bigger arse of it than EDF.
amazing article..Just how did we f**k it up so badly from then to now?
here we are 21 years later still f**king about over the next one.
Scuffers said:
you're probably right, the project is doomed to fail on all sides.
they are proposing to build a reactor system that's yet to be proven, the two currently in build are already disasters.
what I don't get (and I await the flack) is why we can't just simply build ones like we already have? - hell we build enough different ones!
based on the experience of running them for 20+ years, pick the one that's done best, and duplicate it, several times.
they have all worked pretty well overall, they may not be cutting edge, but can we as a country afford to be cutting edge when money is tight and the big blackout is coming?
The reason we won't be building any more Hinkley Point Bs (or Sizewell Bs etc.) is because, in short, they're crap and dangerous.they are proposing to build a reactor system that's yet to be proven, the two currently in build are already disasters.
what I don't get (and I await the flack) is why we can't just simply build ones like we already have? - hell we build enough different ones!
based on the experience of running them for 20+ years, pick the one that's done best, and duplicate it, several times.
they have all worked pretty well overall, they may not be cutting edge, but can we as a country afford to be cutting edge when money is tight and the big blackout is coming?
These are, of course, relative terms. HP B and S B aren't about to blow up, and they do produce useful amounts of power. However, newer designs are safer, more efficient, longer lived, smaller, cheaper, etc. , to the extent that building to an older design would never be permitted. Lessons learned from the construction and operation of Gen II plants have led to these improvements; it would be foolish to ignore them.
handpaper said:
The reason we won't be building any more Hinkley Point Bs (or Sizewell Bs etc.) is because, in short, they're crap and dangerous.
These are, of course, relative terms. HP B and S B aren't about to blow up, and they do produce useful amounts of power. However, newer designs are safer, more efficient, longer lived, smaller, cheaper, etc. , to the extent that building to an older design would never be permitted. Lessons learned from the construction and operation of Gen II plants have led to these improvements; it would be foolish to ignore them.
not arguing that the newer designed are better, but as they simply do not exist in working form, that's a bit of a stretch. These are, of course, relative terms. HP B and S B aren't about to blow up, and they do produce useful amounts of power. However, newer designs are safer, more efficient, longer lived, smaller, cheaper, etc. , to the extent that building to an older design would never be permitted. Lessons learned from the construction and operation of Gen II plants have led to these improvements; it would be foolish to ignore them.
Sizewell B got built on time and under budget (£2bn) and is still working just fine.
handpaper said:
The reason we won't be building any more Hinkley Point Bs (or Sizewell Bs etc.) is because, in short, they're crap and dangerous.
These are, of course, relative terms. HP B and S B aren't about to blow up, and they do produce useful amounts of power. However, newer designs are safer, more efficient, longer lived, smaller, cheaper, etc. , to the extent that building to an older design would never be permitted. Lessons learned from the construction and operation of Gen II plants have led to these improvements; it would be foolish to ignore them.
There's not much in it; EPR isn't any safer intrinsically, it's just got much more redundancy which makes it appallingly complex and expensive. Hinkley B is much safer than either Sizewell or EPR as it's more or less passively safe, the low power density of the core means catastrophic coolant loss can be tolerated and there's no water dissociating itself and blowing things up or setting things on fire.These are, of course, relative terms. HP B and S B aren't about to blow up, and they do produce useful amounts of power. However, newer designs are safer, more efficient, longer lived, smaller, cheaper, etc. , to the extent that building to an older design would never be permitted. Lessons learned from the construction and operation of Gen II plants have led to these improvements; it would be foolish to ignore them.
Scuffers said:
hidetheelephants said:
If Brian George, the guy who brought Sizewell B in to commission within a couple of months of the 7 year schedule and underbudget, is still alive, give him a cheque book and set him to it. He can hardly make a bigger arse of it than EDF.
amazing article..Just how did we f**k it up so badly from then to now?
here we are 21 years later still f**king about over the next one.
k should we be giving away medium and long term employment, long term energy security and long term financial revenues to the French and Chinese?If you prohibit coal, the only thing that is going to realistically power the world is nuclear or gas, if cost and build speed are a factor, it has to be gas.
Renewables have an appalling capacity factor, intermittent - requiring 100% backup, vast expense, and whilst they are being subsidised/promoted and given preferential supply to the grid, no one will invest in gas.
Our energy supply market and generation infrastructure has been completely fked up by the green nutters, for a problem that doesn't even exist.
Renewables have an appalling capacity factor, intermittent - requiring 100% backup, vast expense, and whilst they are being subsidised/promoted and given preferential supply to the grid, no one will invest in gas.
Our energy supply market and generation infrastructure has been completely f
ked up by the green nutters, for a problem that doesn't even exist.Mr GrimNasty said:
If you prohibit coal, the only thing that is going to realistically power the world is nuclear or gas, if cost and build speed are a factor, it has to be gas.
Renewables have an appalling capacity factor, intermittent - requiring 100% backup, vast expense, and whilst they are being subsidised/promoted and given preferential supply to the grid, no one will invest in gas.
Our energy supply market and generation infrastructure has been completely fked up by the green nutters, for a problem that doesn't even exist.
and the problem with gas is that we have to import it from Russia.Renewables have an appalling capacity factor, intermittent - requiring 100% backup, vast expense, and whilst they are being subsidised/promoted and given preferential supply to the grid, no one will invest in gas.
Our energy supply market and generation infrastructure has been completely f
ked up by the green nutters, for a problem that doesn't even exist.ie, we need to stop the crazy green s
t and build coal & nuc'sScuffers said:
and the problem with gas is that we have to import it from Russia.
ie, we need to stop the crazy green st and build coal & nuc's
We can import from the US now (& elsewhere no doubt) by sea, and we need to get fracking ourselves, with haste, and we have the new Shetland (2m homes worth) just come on-line.ie, we need to stop the crazy green s
t and build coal & nuc'shidetheelephants said:
There's not much in it; EPR isn't any safer intrinsically, it's just got much more redundancy which makes it appallingly complex and expensive. Hinkley B is much safer than either Sizewell or EPR as it's more or less passively safe, the low power density of the core means catastrophic coolant loss can be tolerated and there's no water dissociating itself and blowing things up or setting things on fire.
As I understand it, one of the targets of current (Gen III & III+) designs is reduced complexity, especially in the cooling system. Another is the ability to cool with natural convection at post-SCRAM power levels (which would have saved Fukushima). Reading up on EPR, it looks like a bit of a bodge. Four emergency cooling systems - but they all require power...
Scuffers said:
to be fair, Hinkley Point B has been working for 40 years and not gone 'Chernobyl' on us.
by the time it's finally taken offline it will have been working for 45 years, so in my books, that's a successful reactor.
And I expect it will get another life extension in 5 years, like many others. I never said it was a bad design. As hidetheelephants pointed out, it's very safe.by the time it's finally taken offline it will have been working for 45 years, so in my books, that's a successful reactor.
On a bit of a tangent, I'm not sure I'd characterise any nuclear power plant as 'unsafe'. Even the RBMK (Chernobyl), which even the Russians wouldn't build today, required serious levels of clueless f
kwittery to screw up.
I sincerely hope they don't build it, massively expensive, massively risky, massively French and a firkin ridiculous idea from start to finish. Here's hoping EDF pull out, pay the release clause fee on the contract and we can spend that money on some solar, wind or tidal project. Here's hoping the Chinese also have second thoughts on their project.
Cost of capital has been edging upwards and liquidity decreasing plus the other player in the game China is in a vastly different position today than it was so batten down the hatches mode.
Plus Fucishima leading to Germany banning all Nuclear in Germany.
Personally I don't get why the UK govt don't finance it for them or even pay them directly to deliver the working plant.
Another oddity is its a one reactor.... Um build a 6 reactor or even 10 planning ahead huge clean capacity.
Plus Fucishima leading to Germany banning all Nuclear in Germany.
Personally I don't get why the UK govt don't finance it for them or even pay them directly to deliver the working plant.
Another oddity is its a one reactor.... Um build a 6 reactor or even 10 planning ahead huge clean capacity.
eldar said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
We can import from the US now (& elsewhere no doubt) by sea, and we need to get fracking ourselves, with haste, and we have the new Shetland (2m homes worth) just come on-line.
And in 15 to 20 years time?Edit, AND we haven't even started on methane hydrates.
Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Monday 7th March 21:24
FredClogs said:
I sincerely hope they don't build it, massively expensive, massively risky, massively French and a firkin ridiculous idea from start to finish. Here's hoping EDF pull out, pay the release clause fee on the contract and we can spend that money on some solar, wind or tidal project. Here's hoping the Chinese also have second thoughts on their project.
Are you for real?Wind solar or tidal?
Really?
Do you not understand how we are already in the poo because of this green obsession?
FredClogs said:
I sincerely hope they don't build it, massively expensive, massively risky, massively French and a firkin ridiculous idea from start to finish. Here's hoping EDF pull out, pay the release clause fee on the contract and we can spend that money on some solar, wind or tidal project. Here's hoping the Chinese also have second thoughts on their project.
What happens when it's a calm day?What happens when it's a storm?
Those wind turbines produce nada.
What about the ecological impact of tidal power?
Solar seeing huge farms of these in the SE, would be interested to see their productivity year round and specifically middle of winter shortest day how much power they add.
What about thorium power?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff