Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Toto deVeer

Is The Future Nuclear?

Recommended Posts

Heard from a discussion with a colleague last night that a large amount of government funding for development and implementation is being set aside for nuclear power generation in the UK's future, perhaps 80% of future power from this source will be the policy, not yet announced...

Anyone come across this info in the media?

Edited by Toto deVeer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard from a discussion with a colleague last night that a large amount of government funding for development and implementation is being set aside for nuclear power generation in the UK's future, perhaps 80% of future power from this source will be the policy, not yet announced...

Anyone come across this info in the media?

Wouldn't be surprised, even a number of Green luminaries are coming to the conclusion that nuclear power has the lowest overall environmental impact for the amount of power it generates.

Not a big fan myself, but I can see the argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo eventually most electrical generation will go nuclear. Someone I read recently said basically the atomic bond contains 1 million times the energy as the chemical bond.

France with 75% of its electricity coming from nuclear, has the cheapest power in western Europe. And EDF gives the French government a hefty annual dividend of 10 billion Euros.

Its hard for developing nations to go nuclear though as it takes a great deal of expertise, and is very capital intensive up front. But it seems to me for a developed nation it is a no-brainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard from a discussion with a colleague last night that a large amount of government funding for development and implementation is being set aside for nuclear power generation in the UK's future, perhaps 80% of future power from this source will be the policy, not yet announced...

Anyone come across this info in the media?

I expect it'll be kept as quiet as possible, to stop all the NIMBY's and nuclear energy paranoia brigade going bonkers before it's got off the ground. Personally I'm happy with nuclear power as an energy source, but think plant security is appalling. A friend of the family who was working at Sellafield told me that before 7/7 there was no security beyond a guard and small barrier at the gate. After 7/7 they dragged some large plant pots across the entrance to reception, job done!

Any one have any idea what would happen if someone got into the perimeter and launched an RPG towards the reactor building? Or crashed a light aircraft into the reactor building? Are they built to withstand this sort of impact? What about a hijacked 737? Surely that'd be game over for the whole UK?

Edited by General Congreve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any one have any idea what would happen if someone got into the perimeter and launched an RPG towards the reactor building? Or crashed a light aircraft into the reactor building? Are they built to withstand this sort of impact? What about a hijacked 737? Surely that'd be game over for the whole UK?

RPG wouldn't scratch it.

Light aircraft - no damage

Large passenger plane - clearly massive damage to the surrounding turbines, cooling etc - so a bad accident, but you'd be unlikely to lose primary coolant. Control would be an issue, but these things shut down automatically. Unlikely to breach the containment - it is designed to withstand the core letting go, so is actually damn strong. Very hard to hit square on, given the roundness....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDF Energym Hinkley Point C, Somerset EPR x 2 3340MW

EDF Energym Sizewell C, Suffolk EPR x 2 3340MW

Horizon (RWE + E.ON) Oldbury B, Gloucestershire EPR x 2 or AP1000 x 3 3340-3750MW

Horizon (RWE + E.ON) Wylfa B, Wales EPR x 3 or AP1000 x 4 Approx 5000MW

NuGeneration (Iberdrola, GDF Suez

+ Scottish & Southern Sellafield, Cumbria ? Up to 3600MW

Btw here are the proposed sites that are moving forward.. and have been moving forward for the last several years. The Germans(RWE + E.ON), the French(EDF).. and the Franco-Spanish-British conglomerate have serious plans.

If all these reactors do get built it would be 19,000 MW. To put that in perspective, currently 18% of Britain's electricity comes from the 11,000 MW of nuclear we currently have operating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with coal?

I understand it is the cheapest way of generating steam, and the bonus is that it puts out a lot of CO2 which helps our plants grow. It is the green gas.

They're supplied by rail, so probably stop every time it snows.

Point about the NIMBY argument - well, personally I'd rather have a nuclear power station just down the road from me than plaster the countryside with pointless wind turbines. And in some areas (usually where there is or was a plant anyway) I get the impression that there would be more support for a new one than against it. I don't imagine massive local opposition to a modern plant at Sellafield, for example.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't be surprised, even a number of Green luminaries are coming to the conclusion that nuclear power has the lowest overall environmental impact for the amount of power it generates.

Not a big fan myself, but I can see the argument

Thing that scares the shite out of me is, how they gonna decommission them say 40 or 50 years from now, when there will be empty spigbots of oil.

Edited by smiffy1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect it'll be kept as quiet as possible, to stop all the NIMBY's and nuclear energy paranoia brigade going bonkers before it's got off the ground. Personally I'm happy with nuclear power as an energy source, but think plant security is appalling. A friend of the family who was working at Sellafield told me that before 7/7 there was no security beyond a guard and small barrier at the gate. After 7/7 they dragged some large plant pots across the entrance to reception, job done!

Any one have any idea what would happen if someone got into the perimeter and launched an RPG towards the reactor building? Or crashed a light aircraft into the reactor building? Are they built to withstand this sort of impact? What about a hijacked 737? Surely that'd be game over for the whole UK?

Nice story. Not sure it's true. In the 80s I went for an interview at a large BNFL site. Double layer of 10ft high fencing around the place patrolled by police with guard dogs. Police on guard at the gate house. Nobody allowed to walk around the place - everybody driven around. I failed the interview by dropping my pass as I got in a car to be driven to the interview, later finding myself in the uncomfortable position of being deep inside a fuel enrichment plant with no security pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice story. Not sure it's true. In the 80s I went for an interview at a large BNFL site. Double layer of 10ft high fencing around the place patrolled by police with guard dogs. Police on guard at the gate house. Nobody allowed to walk around the place - everybody driven around. I failed the interview by dropping my pass as I got in a car to be driven to the interview, later finding myself in the uncomfortable position of being deep inside a fuel enrichment plant with no security pass.

I was told that someone on a suicide mission would probably be able to floor a decent sized vehicle through the gate (police wouldn't be able to react in time), race to the reactor building, then burst in pretty much unopposed, if they acted quickly and were armed. Obviously the doors inside the facilities buildings have security codes etc. on them, but if someone's got a gun to your head then I imagine you'll happily punch in the number/swipe the card for them. Obviously you aim to get as close to the core as possible, before pulling the rip cord and KA-BOOOOOOM!!!!

Unlikely to cause a full-blown meltdown (unless you manage to damage enough of the right control systems), but would cause a hell of a problem with public opinion and the future of nuclear power in the UK at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with coal?

I understand it is the cheapest way of generating steam, and the bonus is that it puts out a lot of CO2 which helps our plants grow. It is the green gas.

I think you have your basic chemistry wrong there...

Chlorine is the green gas and it helps our swimming pools smell ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder and hope so too becuase on the surface it seems to be something that the greens/CND cant moan about.

http://www.telegraph...or-thorium.html

plus during nights the nuclear power stations could generate hydrogen or some hydro carbons so we do not need to waste the natural oil anymore ...

it would be also good idea to use the nuclear electricity for the house heating ... better than moving gas in pipes from Siberia to Europe ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple, put up road barriers just like here in front of the gates of buck palace and in Downing Street. You also forget the police are armed at all nuclear establishments.

My link

Yes, but they didn't, they just dragged some largish plant pots outside, the main building, that they happened to have lying around the place, after 7/7. The fact that proper barriers weren't already in place really begs some questions about forward planning. If we're going to support rogue states like Israel and get involved in thinly disguised Resource Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, we should be smart enough to realise we might make a few enemies on the way.

As regards the police, slow down as you approach the barrier, then floor it and burst through. A bit of 1 inch steel plating installed behind the seats would probably stop the low velocity rounds from the polices sub-machine guns as they fire into the back of the vehicle, then you're home free. Remember, we're talking about a suicide mission.

Edited by General Congreve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A neuclear reactor is basically a very expensive method of producing steam.

That expense is relative.

When we have no more coal, oil & gas left how are we going to produce it?

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with coal?

I understand it is the cheapest way of generating steam, and the bonus is that it puts out a lot of CO2 which helps our plants grow. It is the green gas.

As far as cost goes, at the moment it comes down to the cost of capital. Essentially, if you go from natural gas to coal to nuclear, you get a decrease in fuel costs but an increase in capital costs.

And yes, CO2 does help plant growth (in those cases where it is the limiting factor, obviously). Weeds especially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good, we can build them from Taxpayer money and then sell them to the French.

Oh wait a second...

Dave doesn't have any relatives who work for EDF by any chance?

Edited by retz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple, put up road barriers just like here in front of the gates of buck palace and in Downing Street. You also forget the police are armed at all nuclear establishments.

My link

Better still, put 1 inch of snow on the road – apparently nothing can get through that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but they didn't, they just dragged some largish plant pots outside, the main building, that they happened to have lying around the place, after 7/7. The fact that proper barriers weren't already in place really begs some questions about forward planning.

That anecdote you've heard about plant pots in front of the gates is a load of balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what happens if they pull the control rods out and can't get them back in again?

Depends on the reactor design.

For a reactor like RMBK (cf Chernobyl), you have what is known as a 'positive void coefficient', which basically means that as soon as the coolant starts to boil as a result of having no control rods, the reactor starts reacting faster, leading to a runaway reaction and explosion.

Modern designs are based around a negative void coefficient, so in this situation the reactor slows down. The thing would still be damaged past repair, but it would not blow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that there are nuclear-powered submarines sailing around the world in such numbers that they have trouble avoiding each other, and yet to build a reactor on land is anathema to many.

Both India and China are regularly launching nuclear submarines and building new bases. Surely the technology has moved on since the Chernoble design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 295 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.