Nuclear @ Hinckley!

alleycat`

PollySouthend wrote: »

You talk a huge load of rubbish.

Nuclear is the most expensive form of electricity by far if you take into account the full cost of decommissioning and dealing with the waste for the amount of time it is unsafe.

Nuclear only looks good if you only look at the very short term.

Its a very selfish way to generate electric, we are going to create all this mess for the next 1000 generations to deal with.

Well you have a choice.

* You rebuild the entire grid to store windmill and solar power. Reality is they do NOT do peak power demand and the grid cannot store power in its current state.

* You accept that gas is going to get more and more expensive and that to run and operate a power station using gas requires it be operating at a minimum average to make it financially viable (in the 50+%) area.

You also need push on with "fracking" and accept all the environmental costs because you need to secure your supply?

* You re-open the mines and start burning coal, with all the associated environmental issues + the workers health problems, o and the CO2 release associated with that and i'm sure "acid rain" will be back on the menu also.

* You build nuclear power plants, which have their issues but address CO2 release into the environment which is the current "hanky waving" position as we stand today.

I suspect you use batteries, drive a car, use technology but care not a jot what nickel mining has done to large swathes of Canada?

So please pick your poison, no rush.

The entire situation is because nobody in successive governments made any decisions over the last 25 years with regards to sustainable power.

I suspect this is because everyone has an "opinion" but none of it appears to be vested in reality of keeping the lights on and people warm at an affordable price point.

To be honest you slagged off the last poster and put up ZERO alternatives that meet the problems we'll suffer in the next FIVE years which is the equivalent of what has gone on for the last 20 to 30 years.

lstar337

DragonQ wrote: »

Apart from your third arm, of course. :rotfl:

Don't knock it!

I can touch type and scratch myself at the same time!:rotfl:

Pincher

I would have though Cornwall would be a better location.
Loads of leftover opencast mines.

Dig/blast 100 meters down. When you don't want it any more, fill the hole in. If we plan the holes right, we can have a hundred holes ready for digging. Start harvesting the stones for paving stones and building aggregates, so by the time we want another reactor, the hole is already dug. Zone them in a small area and call it the Beehive Project. Might affect tourism to the Eden Project, though.

PollySouthend

alleycat` wrote: »

To be honest you slagged off the last poster and put up ZERO alternatives that meet the problems we'll suffer in the next FIVE years which is the equivalent of what has gone on for the last 20 to 30 years.

I pointed out a downright lie that the other poster made. Nuclear is not cheap energy unless your very short minded.

This deal to get the french and Chinese run and control a nuclear power station in the UK with a guaranteed price is no better than importing french nuclear energy using a pipe under the sea. Its not independence just because its on our shore.

alleycat`

PollySouthend wrote: »

I pointed out a downright lie that the other poster made. Nuclear is not cheap energy unless your very short minded.

This deal to get the french and Chinese run and control a nuclear power station in the UK with a guaranteed price is no better than importing french nuclear energy using a pipe under the sea. Its not independence just because its on our shore.

Disagree.

A connection can be shut down or removed.
The price can be changed at the whim of the foreign owner / power.

A power station is fairly much set in concrete (did you see what i did there?)

The government, should it wish, can just take over the station, assuming it can secure the fissile material it can then go on at the price margin it wants.

There are political and business ramifications but it can and has happened.

They are not intrinsically the same.

As to short term, everything that humans do is short term because short term is what most of us have.

You might call that a selfish position but it's very easy to be selfless when it isn't you going without.

ka7e

The strike price may seem reasonable given the time scale, but I read that it will be reviewed in 7.5 and 15 years and at completion. Plenty of time to tweak the price to ensure EDF and their Chinese backers make optimum profit.

The other problem is that by the time the reactor is operational, it's technology will be outdated. The latest EPR design doesn't have an operational reactor yet, but has already been superceded by developing integral fast reactors that are actually fuelled by nuclear waste.

alleycat`

ka7e wrote: »

The other problem is that by the time the reactor is operational, it's technology will be outdated. The latest EPR design doesn't have an operational reactor yet, but has already been superceded by developing integral fast reactors that are actually fuelled by nuclear waste.

Agree this is an issue but if we wait for every new more efficient technology to come on stream we'd never do anything.

An integrated plan would be looking to bring the ones "fuelled by waste" on stream to feed from the previous "new" generation that create it as a by product.

Assuming that it is a suitable feed material.

The entire situation seems to lack tactical pieces of work to bring it all together as a cohesive plan.

It's the same as the windfarms.
I don't have an issue with them in principal but the overall "grid" can't deal with the way they produce power.

The entire thing smacks of no overall strategy or thought, which is a bit of a worry.

lstar337

alleycat` wrote: »

if we wait for every new more efficient technology to come on stream we'd never do anything.

a.k.a PollySouthend's plan.

It's all well and good talking about pipedream technology that brings us cheap, safe energy, but we have a problem now, and all we can do is fix it with the technology we have right now.

Things already on PollySouthend's hit list:

1. Smart meters - So no way to help using load management.
2. Fracking - So we can't cheaply and securely fuel our gas fired stations.
3. Nuclear - So we can't add to our stock of ageing power stations.

So we can't have Nuclear power stations, we can't use our coal stations, and we can't supply fuel for our gas stations. What does that leave us?

Power when the wind blows (as long as it isn't too little or too much), and power during 3 summer months when the sun is in the right place.

Sounds a bit bleak to me. Since our flat is all electric, I guess we'll just die.:(

alleycat`

lstar337 wrote: »

a.k.a PollySouthend's plan.

It's all well and good talking about pipedream technology that brings us cheap, safe energy, but we have a problem now, and all we can do is fix it with the technology we have right now.

Things already on PollySouthend's hit list:

1. Smart meters - So no way to help using load management.
2. Fracking - So we can't cheaply and securely fuel our gas fired stations.
3. Nuclear - So we can't add to our stock of ageing power stations.

So we can't have Nuclear power stations, we can't use our coal stations, and we can't supply fuel for our gas stations. What does that leave us?

Power when the wind blows (as long as it isn't too little or too much), and power during 3 summer months when the sun is in the right place.

Sounds a bit bleak to me. Since our flat is all electric, I guess we'll just die.:(

Well the planet is a bit over populated.
Just do the right thing eh
Might sort out the environment at the same time.

Vote for me...

Richie-from-the-Boro

PollySouthend wrote: »

I pointed out a downright lie that the other poster made. Nuclear is not cheap energy unless your very short minded.

- which lie ?, it's not a lie, just a real - now world opinion !
- two brigades, the do something and the do sod all brigade
- and even the current GOV is crippled by the sandal LIB's
- when they go, the CON's will crush the green debate completely
- unless Labour get back in, in which case the farce will go on
- until now no GOV of any complexion in 3 decades has done anything

You are very short minded. We as a nation either own, produce, and benefit from non-carbon energy supply & security, or we will forever fleece the taxpayers and the bill-payers by paying 3 times the price for a product that once generated is wasted. That is very short minded, and precisely why we are in this position of fleecing those who can pay, while simultaneously using increasing amounts of that money to subsidise those who can't afford to pay to stay warm.

Do something and do it now, huggers should get their collective Vadoma heads out of the 1995 sands and look around at the real 'now' energy world crisis.