Viewing 40 posts - 161 through 200 (of 576 total)
  • Hinkley – non merci
  • ahwiles
    Free Member

    …if we are going to generate electricity would it not be better to aim for 0 casualties and 0 consequences…?

    Of course.

    But that also rules out wind power / solar / hydro / geo-thermal / etc. etc.

    iffoverload
    Free Member

    No I am not ruling out anything and 0 consequences are not realistic for any activity.

    I was refering to using the current energy system, and the use of fossil fuels etc. as the benchmark for judging another system.

    aracer
    Free Member

    I’m sure others will get it, even if it’s gone sailing way over your head.

    Are you saying that he is the only human capable of making an error or that current systems are able to override human input and will never fail under any circumstances?

    I’m suggesting that it’s possible to have systems and procedures in place which will failsafe.

    Unfortunately the energy industries track record (as I mentioned previously) is not perfect and I see no good reason to give them benefit of the doubt in this case.

    The industry’s track record is reflected in the stats quoted above.

    What do you suggest comparing the dangers of nuclear power with then? The question is what should we build to generate our electricity, not what happens in utopia. You say no to nuclear because it’s dangerous, well go on then, what are you suggesting which isn’t dangerous when benchmarked against nuclear?

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    Northwind
    Full Member

    maxtorque – Member

    So, all the “anti nuclear” supporters, you’ll be fine to be the first on the electricity rationing list when the rolling blackouts and un-expected blackouts (due to a sudden lack of wind or sun) occur in a few years time?

    There’s a few problems with depending on nuclear to get you out of that hole, too- as I mentioned up the page, we’re decommissioning more than we’re building, even if Hinkley arrives on time, which nobody thinks it will because it’s already one of those projects which announces it won’t be completed on schedule, before it’s started.

    But I’ll say it again, you don’t have to be anti-nuclear to be anti this nuclear. Unproven and demonstrably troublesome design, wobbly financials, these aren’t nuclear specific concerns. Course, it could be that all the troubles of the existing projects were either unique to that build, due to some local issue, or were issues that have been worked out, and ours will go splendidly. Seem likely to anyone?

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    Been reading this one from bad signal….

    For all the crap about Sellafield, things like they don’t know whats what etc. try reading the Life Time Plan – go far enough into the references and my name will come up. It must have been 13 years ago I was reviewing and updating papers on the waste inventories there.
    Legacy vs Current – as a simple example compare the outdoor storage ponds (B29/B30) referred to here with the 80’s version


    Guess what people learned stuff and improved it. I also never read a report that was scary or ran into people who just looked stunned and shocked.
    I was also still in the industry when Fukashima happened, the review of everything was done, it was done properly. The what if’s were checked out.

    The world has more to fear from a coal plant than modern nuclear.

    iffoverload
    Free Member

    Those photos illustrate just how much what I assume at the time were considered to be safe and adequate practices for storage appear to have changed…

    edit: mind you, to the layman it kinda just looks like the same thing in a warehouse with less scaffolding and more lights. I’m sure that there must be a lot more to it than meets the eye though?

    Fukashima….it was done properly. The what if’s were checked out.

    maybe they asked the wrong questions?

    The world has more to fear from a coal plant than modern nuclear.

    the biggest difference is you can just shut down a coal plant and close the gates. Try that with a nuclear power plant or storage facility.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    For starters it’s inside, big change. There is also a lot going on there that you don’t see and as a layman your not expected to know but also as a layman your making a lot of judgements without being in possession of the facts.

    Edit on the coal you will also have killed thousands of people during its operations.

    iffoverload
    Free Member

    yes the facts are not in my possession.. true.

    It looked nice when it was built though.

    and I refer you to my earlier post about using cheap and dirty energy as a benchmark for other solutions

    Dibbs
    Free Member

    The Hinkley A station cooling ponds were outside in the early days too.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    and I refer you to my earlier post about using cheap and dirty energy as a benchmark for other solutions

    And I’ll refer you back to the you have to do something and something solid. The options are limited but the reality is the UK is turning of generating capacity and needs to build something.

    aracer
    Free Member

    You don’t yet seem to have provided a suggestion of what we should be comparing with – or taken up the challenge of doing it the other way by comparing with nuclear and suggesting a less dangerous option.

    DrJ
    Full Member

    As a non-serious aside – many moons ago I was doing a project studying fracturing of rock at Sellafield. I requested to look at some data, and they agreed I could do so. What happened was that I was stuck in a room with books of data and a very cute secretary with a very short skirt and very long legs. No idea what the books contained.

    iffoverload
    Free Member

    OK I’ll throw a few laymans ideas out there and would be interested to hear opinions.

    Agree that alternatives are needed,if the trend in the graph is accurate this should probably be something to try and control more effectively.

    less requirements for energy would probably be the cheapest and safest solution and make demand easier to meet.

    But how to do this? I wish I was smart enough to have a concrete answer!

    At an individual level we should try and do as much as possible to reduce energy usage, increase efficency and try to eliminate wastage. Lots of small ways to do this this that will add up over the long term.
    Many people are already thinking like this 🙂

    This should carry through to industry,manufacturing,distribution etc. with government enforced incentives and penalties perhaps? Bottom line means everything 😉

    At a National level small localised energy creation and distribution may be something worth looking at? Seems to have worked in some places I believe.

    In brief I think throwing money or building more facilites will not give a long term solution to the problem if we continue to use energy unwisely.

    No point in comparing nuclear to anything really as it is great idea but I think we are still playing with fire at the moment, maybe some day it will mature to a technology which does not have the drawbacks of generating long term problems with storage or accidental leakage.

    Not sure if a NPP at Hinkley is the best idea and the wisest use of available funds and possible investment.

    and yay! for cute secs…

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    The global graph is probably a little misleading in this context as it’s taking in to account the massive changes happening around the world.
    UK energy demands are not soaring off but generation capacity is dropping off, it’s at a scale where lots of small things won’t make a bug enough difference.
    Local generation may be a good start but not for the big industrial areas that need the big supply.

    In brief I think throwing money or building more facilites will not give a long term solution to the problem if we continue to use energy unwisely.

    In part not doing anything is why we are in this mess at the moment. The consequences of waiting till everyone remembers to turn the light off is not being able to build anything quick enough to meet the future needs – electric cars anyone?

    bigjim
    Full Member

    Hmm not sure a naked child is a great thing to have on computer screen for those of us in an office, maybe someone should put NSFW in the title? I think I got away with it but could cause problems for some

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    Also where I live at the moment they are chucking in diesel generators because the sub sea cable that tops up our power is damaged in the same year that drought is leaving our hydro dams empty. Couple that with asking industry to run a go slow to stop the island going a bit dark. What does happen when the power goes off?

    dragon
    Free Member

    At a National level small localised energy creation

    This always crops up but it isn’t very efficient. The UK has a national grid, so localised energy generation really isn’t all that necessary.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    iffoverload – Member

    Agree that alternatives are needed,if the trend in the graph is accurate this should probably be something to try and control more effectively.

    World power consumption isn’t very useful when you’re talking about 1st world consumption- it’s hugely influenced by industrialisation and growth elsewhere. I believe we could reduce our energy consumption to 0, and only put a dent in the rise globally.

    UK energy consumption is actually falling already- though whether that’s a longterm trend I don’t know, it could just be a series of one-offs. It rose pretty steadily from 1980 to 2005 but is now back to 1995 levels or thereabouts.

    aracer
    Free Member

    But it’s an appeal to emotion – that sort of thing is always allowed.

    Indeed – the way to go is likely to be more interconnects in order to make use of renewables more feasible. Had a chat with TJ about this last night and he suggested they’re putting in a connection from Scotland to Norway so Norway can store the surplus of renewables form there for use when the wind stops.

    If it’s OK with TJ (I’m sure he’s reading this) I’ll post up some of his comments – interesting to have an intelligent discussion with somebody who disagrees with me on nuclear.

    It doesn’t change the fact that even with lots of energy saving, all the stuff going offline means we need new capacity now (not that Hinkley will provide that, something should have been done decades ago, but it might at least ease the problems in 20 years time).

    bigjim
    Full Member

    Indeed – the way to go is likely to be more interconnects in order to make use of renewables more feasible. Had a chat with TJ about this last night and he suggested they’re putting in a connection from Scotland to Norway so Norway can store the surplus of renewables form there for use when the wind stops.

    See my post on page 2 of this thread

    Norwegian and Icelandic interconnectors still in early planning stages but others in place and very successful

    bigjim
    Full Member
    bigjim
    Full Member

    Hinkley decision postponed for two months http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35873786

    bigjim
    Full Member

    you guys just lose interest once you’ve had your argumentgasm don’t you

    Can’t read the leaked engineer report behind the paywall myself but looks interesting http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35925637

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    Well you should probably stock up on candles and a mini generator. Currently waiting for heavy rain to fill our dams to produce electric here as our mainland connection is down till mid June.

    iffoverload
    Free Member

    so (according to the BBC articles)

    the UK statagey to ensure we can meet projected demand has been:

    to sell British Energy to the French State owned company EGF,

    which seems to be in dire financial trouble

    which is…

    being bailed out by China’s government for a 33% stake in Hinkley C

    which is …

    based on technology that is not yet developed and has been delayed numerous time for safety concerns

    then …

    commiting to purchase the energy well above the market price

    and..

    wanting to ensure consumers foot the bill.

    Dr Wyman …. might look expensive today, she says, but she argues it boasts the advantage of being generated within the UK, helping the country become more energy self-sufficient.

    does this really make any sense?

    dragon
    Free Member

    It will be built their is French pride at stake, Hollande has personally said it will go ahead and EDF have been promised a cash injection from the french government apparently. EDF can’t afford to cock this one up, it is their demonstrator to the rest of the world of their nuclear capabilities.

    ninfan
    Free Member

    There’s lots of quotes about how the agreed price per MWH is higher than the going market rate for energy – but how does it compare with the price of other non-carbon based sources? (And I note here that that price might shoot up massively if renewables had to expand to provide base load)

    iffoverload
    Free Member

    why would the Chineese state want to buy into this?
    future bargaining chip?

    If it is such a good investment why does the UK not put in a 1/3rd?

    kimbers
    Full Member

    Can’t read the leaked engineer report behind the paywall myself but looks interesting

    basically says that the engineers building reckon it will over run by years after the deadline when our existing plants will be shut down

    it also says the chinese also think it will overrun and want guaranteed compensation from the uk government
    (osbornes bet the house on china helping us out, so Im sure theyll get it too, protecting china’s cheap steel imports are more important than jobs and communities in Port Talbot after all)

    Northwind
    Full Member

    kimbers – Member

    basically says that the engineers building literally everyone reckons it will over run by years after the deadline when our existing plants will be shut down

    FTFY. (I don’t like FTFY but I couldn’t resist, for this one)

    dragon – Member

    EDF can’t afford to cock this one up, it is their demonstrator to the rest of the world of their nuclear capabilities.

    Flamanville 3 is supposed to demonstrate their nuclear capabilities to the rest of the world. I suppose it has- 6 other countries have binned plans to buy these plants from France. Including France.

    bigjim
    Full Member

    There’s lots of quotes about how the agreed price per MWH is higher than the going market rate for energy – but how does it compare with the price of other non-carbon based sources? (And I note here that that price might shoot up massively if renewables had to expand to provide base load)

    it’s been touched on earlier in the thread and you can look up strike price of recent cfd’s online eg http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1335815/uk-awards-first-cfd-round. “CfDs guarantee developers a price for the electricity produced for 15 years. The average price awarded for onshore wind was £80.57/MWh while offshore projects averaged £117.14/MWh”

    Renewables price are falling all the time – the key things here are the length of the contract for Hinkley is very long in comparison, and the amount of energy we are committing to buying at that price is massively higher than that of renewables developments, making it a comparitively much more expensive investment, hence the fuss.

    An indication of prices falling is given by the German market:

    Compared to German offshore prices, the payment rate for projects going on line in 2015, 2016 and 2017 is €194/MWh for eight years, falling to €39/MWh (approximately equal to wholesale market price) for the following 12 years.

    Alternatively, project owners in Germany can choose a lower rate of €154/MWh for the longer period of 12 years followed by €39/MWh for the following eight years.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    If it is such a good investment why does the UK not put in a 1/3rd?

    Because it isn’t. All the talk of UK taxpayers subsidising nos amis in France was poppycock (see previous thread). Lots of aggro when your try to explain you investment maths works!!! reality comes home to roost eventually

    kimbers
    Full Member

    Actual footage from the trilateral negotiations has emeged

    Hinkley Point: Surprise delay for nuclear plant deal

    kimbers
    Full Member

    bigjim
    Full Member

    It’s hardly a surprise, EDF themselves only voted to go ahead by 10 votes to 7. I’d be more surprised if it goes ahead than doesn’t I think.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    How much has been spent on it already

    As I understand it the Johnson/Lumley Graden bridge has already had over £30m spent on it 😯

    Im willing to bet hinckley’s al;ready incurred many multiples of that

    bigjim
    Full Member

    A lot no doubt, it’s part of life with big developments though. Even the comparatively small offshore wind farms that RSPB successfully stopped last week will have had many many millions spent on them already.

    br
    Free Member

    A lot no doubt, it’s part of life with big developments though.

    Yep. Crossrail had folk working on it from before 1991, so a full 20 years before the project really ‘started’.

    curiousyellow
    Free Member

    IS this fallout from Brexit?

    I’ve heard of people buying houses based on the jobs this created. I feel very bad for those people if this is going to lead to large redundancies in the Southwest.

    monkeysfeet
    Free Member

    No drama. Parliament is due it’s summer break. New cabinet etc, so this will probably be discussed when the Government next meets after the break.

Viewing 40 posts - 161 through 200 (of 576 total)

The topic ‘Hinkley – non merci’ is closed to new replies.