Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
cashinmattress

Eight New Nuclear Power Stations For The Uk

Recommended Posts

link

The government today (June 23) revealed the plans to build eight new nuclear power plants across the UK by 2025.

The planned sites are at: Bradwell, Essex; Hartlepool; Heysham, Lancashire; Hinkley Point, Somerset; Oldbury, South Gloucestershire; Sellafield, Cumbria; Sizewell, Suffolk; and Wylfa, Anglesey. The sites are adjacent to existing power stations.

The plans, laid out in the finalised Energy National Policy Statements (NPSs), follow a public consultation and will now be debated in Parliament.

The decision to push ahead with nuclear power against the backdrop of the Fukishima disaster does not come as a surprise.

The government had earlier signalled that it would continue to consider nuclear as part of the UK's future energy supply mix after nuclear chief inspector Mike Weightman concluded there was no need to curtail the operations of nuclear plants in the UK.

He said: ""The extreme natural events that preceded the accident at Fukushima - the magnitude 9 earthquake and subsequent huge tsunami - are not credible in the UK."

Greenpeace has condemned the plans saying that nuclear power is expensive and naming sites is not a solution to dealing with radioactive waste.

Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner, Louise Hitchins, said: "It's illogical, and possibly illegal, for the Government to keep pushing for a fleet of new nuclear reactors before we've even learned the lessons from the Fukushima meltdown.

"Countries around the world are dropping their nuclear programmes as costs soar. And a growing number of our European competitors have turned their backs on nuclear power after calculating that it's just not worth the risk."

The NPSs also outline plans for investment in new energy sources, including 33GW of new renewable energy capacity.

Minister of State for Energy, Charles Hendry, said: "Around a quarter of the UK's generating capacity is due to close by the end of this decade.

"We need to replace this with secure, low carbon, affordable energy.

"This will require over £100 billion worth of investment in electricity generation alone".

Well, seeing as we haven't a reliable source of fissile material within the 'Kingdom', so you'd all better get used to Britain becoming the worlds toxic nuclear waste dump of the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plans, laid out in the finalised Energy National Policy Statements (NPSs), follow a public consultation and will now be debated in Parliament.

Yeah right.

Maybe they should "consult" again after Fukushima.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news, I like that all 8 sites are still available.

EDF energy has been penciled in for Hinkley Point and Somerset. Possibly 2 Areva EPR 1600MW reactors at each site.

Horizon(RWE and E.ON - the German utilities) has been penciled in for Oldbury and Wyfla. More EPR;s at both sites or possibly Westinghouse AP1000's.

NuGeneration was penciled in for Sellafield, with up to 2 Areva EPR's.

I have not heard for Bradwell, Sizewell, Hartlepool, Heysham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why haven't they sited one in the middle of London? After all that City State uses a great deal

of energy and a nuclear plant slap bang in the middle would greatly reduce the losses

due to transmission.

I can't see any problems with that scenario.

Edited by Olebrum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank God for that. Left to New Labour, Green idiots and Nimbies, I thought I was going to have to spend a few hours on a treadmill, in my old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. Nuclear energy is a potential source of cheap and reliable energy.

They should build all 8 nuclear power stations in the proximity of Essex, so if there was a nuclear meltdown it wouldn't be all bad news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This probably is the right decision, although it is a bit strange to announce it before the detailed lessons from Fukushima have been learned. A more sensible way of doing this would have been to have have a moratorium until a proper investigation had been performed, that way, decisions could be taken in the light of the best possible knowledge.

One thing that many people still fail to recognise is that we are rapidly leaving behind the time of 'cheap energy'. I strongly expect the price of oil and gas (especially) to rise dramatically over the next 2-3 decades. We will be increasingly competing for LNG (a very expensive technology) with more and more other countries, for supply from increasingly politically unstable countries. With North Sea oil and gas rapidly depleting, the amount of imported energy will need to rise dramatically, at severe cost to the country. Unless we dramatically decrease the country's usage of natural gas, I can forsee a time where 'fuel poverty' is the norm for the majority of the population.

New coal is unlikely to happen, fears of CO2 will see to that - as it is, coal power is more or less illegal in Europe, with existing plants limited to operating at 40-50% capacity. And anyway, the cost of 'carbon credits' will shortly make it totally uncompetitive.

Thorium reactors are, at this stage a total pipedream, barely closer to deployment than fusion:

1. The overall fuel cycle is dramatically more complex than uranium - requiring up to 3 different types of reactor in order to get a 'thorium' system operational.

2. At least one of those reactor technologies (the molten salt reactor described in the post above), while having obvious advantages, has so little real-world experience, and faces such profound challenges, that even the most optimistic researchers suggest at least 30 years more research would be needed before even a demonstration power plant could be constructed.

3. A functioning plutonium fuel cycle is needed to kick-start a thorium cycle, and thorium technology is 100% totally dependent on advanced and highly efficient nuclear reprocessing (that process that Sellafield has performed so well).

4. Thorium is a difficult to obtain material which is not usefully abundant, except in a few rare locations (India having unusually large quantities available). While there is considerably more thorium on earth, than uranium, it is evenly spread throughout the earth's crust. While uranium is scarcer, it tends to be found in relatively rich deposits, so is easily mined.

China and India are heavily researching thorium technology, but they face the need for an insatiable desire for energy, and are planning for the long (many decades hence) term.

I'm still somewhat surprised that the EPR is the favoured plant design - it is even more dependent on a reliable electricity supply than the Fukushima reactors, lacking even the steam powered pumps that cooled the reactors for 8 hours until control batteries ran down. If an EPR plant loses all its generators, it's done, and a lot faster than the Fukushima plants. At least with the AP1000 design, you're virtually guaranteed at least 72 hours before meltdown even with total loss of control systems/total power failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At Fukushima itself the reactor that caused the problems was an ancient design, it started construction in 1967! At that site there were 5 other reactors, including 3 newer reactors. The newer reactors survived just fine.

I would support building it in the center of a major city. However common sense is you build it out in a rural area. But the rural areas where these have been selected are very happy with the decision. Each Areva EPR 1600 provides 400 jobs. And not low paying minimum wage/no benefits job. We're talking full union, high paying, full benefits jobs. In addition local jurisdictions can probably expect a good £20 million a year in taxes from the plant itself.

France has built its reactors in clusters of 4. Those towns the reactors are in, are living it up with high paying jobs and endless tax money coming in.

Last point, is these EPR 1600's are so immense that each one provides enough power for 1 million people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I just noticed is none of the sites are in Scotland. Even though Scotland currently has 3 operating nuclear sites. Because the SNP is so radically anti-nuclear, Scotland isn't going to get any.

_53641045_nuclear_map464x560_4.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I just noticed is none of the sites are in Scotland. Even though Scotland currently has 3 operating nuclear sites. Because the SNP is so radically anti-nuclear, Scotland isn't going to get any.

_53641045_nuclear_map464x560_4.gif

I was about to say exactly the same thing. Although my thinking was - long term the expectation is perhaps for an Independent Scotland - so let's not build any 'British' reactors there while we have the chance ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good, the cost of building new nuclear power stations and decommissioning some old ones is currently one of the costs that is held off-balance sheet with regard to the UK public finances.

Now that they are about to go ahead I guess they will include the debt-funded costs of doing the work in the national debt figures to give us a clearer picture of how much money the UK doesn't have.

Edited by General Congreve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was about to say exactly the same thing. Although my thinking was - long term the expectation is perhaps for an Independent Scotland - so let's not build any 'British' reactors there while we have the chance ?

They would only hold the English to ransom so not worth the political hassle of dealing with them. Just get the damn things built and commissioned. The Scots can just wrap up well. cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a free lunch but nuclear seems to be hailed as such.

What's all this 'public consultation' business anyway?

Nobody knocked on my door and no leaflet dropping through the letterbox!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This probably is the right decision, although it is a bit strange to announce it before the detailed lessons from Fukushima have been learned. A more sensible way of doing this would have been to have have a moratorium until a proper investigation had been performed, that way, decisions could be taken in the light of the best possible knowledge.

One thing that many people still fail to recognise is that we are rapidly leaving behind the time of 'cheap energy'. I strongly expect the price of oil and gas (especially) to rise dramatically over the next 2-3 decades. We will be increasingly competing for LNG (a very expensive technology) with more and more other countries, for supply from increasingly politically unstable countries. With North Sea oil and gas rapidly depleting, the amount of imported energy will need to rise dramatically, at severe cost to the country. Unless we dramatically decrease the country's usage of natural gas, I can forsee a time where 'fuel poverty' is the norm for the majority of the population.

New coal is unlikely to happen, fears of CO2 will see to that - as it is, coal power is more or less illegal in Europe, with existing plants limited to operating at 40-50% capacity. And anyway, the cost of 'carbon credits' will shortly make it totally uncompetitive.

Thorium reactors are, at this stage a total pipedream, barely closer to deployment than fusion:

1. The overall fuel cycle is dramatically more complex than uranium - requiring up to 3 different types of reactor in order to get a 'thorium' system operational.

2. At least one of those reactor technologies (the molten salt reactor described in the post above), while having obvious advantages, has so little real-world experience, and faces such profound challenges, that even the most optimistic researchers suggest at least 30 years more research would be needed before even a demonstration power plant could be constructed.

3. A functioning plutonium fuel cycle is needed to kick-start a thorium cycle, and thorium technology is 100% totally dependent on advanced and highly efficient nuclear reprocessing (that process that Sellafield has performed so well).

4. Thorium is a difficult to obtain material which is not usefully abundant, except in a few rare locations (India having unusually large quantities available). While there is considerably more thorium on earth, than uranium, it is evenly spread throughout the earth's crust. While uranium is scarcer, it tends to be found in relatively rich deposits, so is easily mined.

China and India are heavily researching thorium technology, but they face the need for an insatiable desire for energy, and are planning for the long (many decades hence) term.

I'm still somewhat surprised that the EPR is the favoured plant design - it is even more dependent on a reliable electricity supply than the Fukushima reactors, lacking even the steam powered pumps that cooled the reactors for 8 hours until control batteries ran down. If an EPR plant loses all its generators, it's done, and a lot faster than the Fukushima plants. At least with the AP1000 design, you're virtually guaranteed at least 72 hours before meltdown even with total loss of control systems/total power failure.

Astroturf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was about to say exactly the same thing. Although my thinking was - long term the expectation is perhaps for an Independent Scotland - so let's not build any 'British' reactors there while we have the chance ?

I wonder why there aren't any plans to build one in Surrey ra, ra, ra?

Message to plebs: go and live near the Surrey Toffs. That's where the banksters, corrupt politicians and the landed gentry live. Locate in Surrey, if you want a clean environment.

Wonder why Surrey isn't going to be subjected to fracking either?

The UK is corrupt to its core

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was about to say exactly the same thing. Although my thinking was - long term the expectation is perhaps for an Independent Scotland - so let's not build any 'British' reactors there while we have the chance ?

I wonder why there aren't any plans to build one in Surrey ra, ra, ra?

Message to plebs: go and live near the Surrey Toffs. That's where the banksters, corrupt politicians and the landed gentry live. Locate in Surrey, if you want a clean environment.

Wonder why Surrey isn't going to be subjected to fracking either?

The UK is corrupt to its core

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This probably is the right decision, although it is a bit strange to announce it before the detailed lessons from Fukushima have been learned. A more sensible way of doing this would have been to have have a moratorium until a proper investigation had been performed, that way, decisions could be taken in the light of the best possible knowledge.

All that's been decided is the locations though - most lessons from Fukushima can still be built into the designs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. Nuclear energy is a potential source of cheap and reliable energy.

They should build all 8 nuclear power stations in the proximity of Essex, so if there was a nuclear meltdown it wouldn't be all bad news.

until you have to decommission them, then they cost an absolute fortune.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4140636.stm

_53641045_nuclear_map464x560_4.gif

Excellent so they'll all be near the sea. Ready for the next tsunami.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4397679.stm

Yes tsunami's can hit the UK.

There is nowhere nuclear power is "safe".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a free lunch but nuclear seems to be hailed as such.

What's all this 'public consultation' business anyway?

Nobody knocked on my door and no leaflet dropping through the letterbox!

They probably consulted with the current nuclear industry employees...

Italy (which, despite Berlusconi, is still far more democratic than the UK) just had a real public consultation (a referendum) about new nuclear power stations.

95% of the voters voted against new nuclear power stations. This is what I would call a public consultation, not the ones they do here in the UK where if the consultation outcome doesn't fit in the plans they just ignore the outcome.

Areva/EDF was supposed to build the new power stations in Italy, now that this will be no longer the case, I guess the Areva/EDF management has turned to the UK putting pressure on the UK government to get a rapid decision so they can budget their huge bonuses and private shareholder profits for the next 20 years at the expense of the UK tax payer instead of the Italian tax payer.

---

Edited by wise_eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. This should have been happening at least 5 years ago but Brown and Blair were too busy invading other countries to take to push it forward.

Who knows, in 10-20 years time it might even be an advantage.

"Hello, Mrs. Merkel?"

"What's that, there's no wind and the lights have gone out?"

"Sure, but please pay in pounds, not euros."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hello, Mrs. Merkel?"

"What's that, there's no wind and the lights have gone out?"

"Sure, but please pay in pounds, not euros."

More like the other way round:

"Hello Mr. Mandelson?"

"What's that, the uranium reserves have run out?"

"Sure, but please pay in Deutschmarks, not pounds."

There are less than 50 years of Uranium reserves left worldwide at current consumption levels!

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 311 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.