Short sighted idiots who really don't care for this country.
I know we all laugh at Mr Conspiracy New World Order on here but some of our "leaders" actions do seem incomprehensible.
Interesting article on the Tories obsession with re-nationalising industry....
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/20/george-osborne-renationalisation-britain-nuclear-power-china-france-privatisation ]Osborne is all for re-nationalisation – so long as the nation isn’t Britain[/url]
[i]
You won’t hear the N-word from his lips, of course. Nor shall the chancellor go full Corbyn and seize some of the FTSE’s crown jewels. Instead, you can expect something far more in keeping with the spirit of 21st-century Britain. The government will indeed put some of our most vital infrastructure under state control – but the states in question will be France and China.[/i]
I would like:
2 x 69
1 x 43
2 x 21
1 x 5
1 x 9
"Oi Beryl, what was it you wanted?" 🙄
The safety/quality aspect hadn't really occurred to me,
If the design is sound with the correct specifications and good QA/QC then it really doesn't matter where it is built.
Also while we aren't doing the main build (which is a shame but blame the green/CND brigade for destroying public confidence) British companies and universities have been gearing up for new nuclear plant for about 10 years, so we will get benefits from this build.
Hey if everyone wants we could always build new coal power plants instead.
The vast majority of our gas imports (over and above what we produce ourselves) is imported from Norway, then Quatar.
Security,
I think it's brilliant it'll be great for our steel industry...... oh wait.
Stability,
electricity infrastructure owned by the french and chinese.
Opportunity.
How was this ever allowed to happen?
Tis the tory way.
Tis the [s]tory[/s] successive UK governments way.
Mostly because us Brits are all nimbys at heart and the environmental lobby that has so consistently got its science wrong, still holds a large sway over the government. Not one UK party has a sensible energy policy, all are an incoherent mess. Yet when you see some of the rubbish spouted on this thread it is clear that the general public have little in the way of understanding and so the debate just never happens and is brushed under the carpet. Far easier to debate the NHS yet again, even though when the power goes out their single % budget rise or fall, will mean little as all the kit powers down.
Also while we aren't doing the main build (which is a shame but blame the green/CND brigade for destroying public confidence)
Blame privatisation...our energy generating capacity was pretty good a generation ago, 30 years later it's been left to rot, there's no expertise to design or build our own reactor from scratch.
Well they can't exactly remove the plant once it's built, nor will they have any say in it's day to day running.
Sounds like they've had a big say in the price.
I don't have a specific idea of how it can go wrong, it's just that I'd have thought that with something like that you would keep as much of it in house as possible. If we don't have the capacity any more though I guess there's not much option.
If the design is sound with the correct specifications and good QA/QC then it really doesn't matter where it is built.
That's what I meant really- I have no concerns that it'll be any less safe than it would be if we'd built it ourselves.
We import very very little gas from Russia. The vast majority of our gas imports (over and above what we produce ourselves) is imported from Norway, then Quatar. These two alone were almost 82% of our imports in 2014.
Maybe not directly, but if Russia decides to put the squeeze on it'll shake up the market pretty seriously won't it?
Politics aside - China has rather a lot of nuclear power stations. I can't say I've heard of too many major disasters with them. No doubt low level stuff is covered up, but a power plant blowing up is hard to hide.
Judging by this list the USA on the other hand are not to go-to country for nuclear technology!...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
While the idea of "independent power generation" in terms of security seems a good place to be, surely the more rational answer is the more inter-dependent countries are, the better?
the sooner we all move from petty nationalistic ideas, the better for us all?
mikewsmith - MemberSauce on the 1600 first, as a lot more than that died are those all attributed to the nuclear plant?
Source is a study carried out for Mainichi Shimbun newspaper. They didn't try to take into account the impact on other disaster relief caused by the diversion of resource to Fukushima response, that's directly attributable evacuation deaths only. Does it really surprise you? Evacuating all those people including 800 hospital patients, and then permanent displacements, it's a massive deal.
mikewsmith - MemberIt's a little ambitious to use overall costs as an indication of modern civil nuclear,so they tell me...
Who was doing that? The point I was making was far simpler; claims of the cost of decommissioning have always proven to be total horseflops.
Maybe not directly, but if Russia decides to put the squeeze on it'll shake up the market pretty seriously won't it?
Not really as the produced gas will still need to be sold somewhere and make no mistake Russia needs the money so not selling the stuff isn't really an option. It's much much more of a problem for those in mainland Europe, especially those that don't have and LNG terminal...
Let's hope the Chinese builders give us a duplicate set of keys, eh?
I'm dubious about those reported 1600 numbers, for instance they included suicides, hard to say they are directly attributable to the nuclear plant.
Anyway the new nuclear reactor designs were supposed to have looked at what they can learn from Fukushima and the chance of the UK being hit by a similar natural disaster are virtually zero.
As far as I'm aware, every single nuclear incident has been as the result of human error; lack of foresight and frankly sheer bloody-mindedness and incompetence on the part of the operators.
Generally this involves overriding safety systems that are attempting to protect the reactor [Chernobyl, TMI, Fukishima etc] or shit design (Windscale). A major contributory factor is that in the past most reactors were used to breed plutonium for nuclear weapons, and the reaction tended to be harder to control.
That doesn't mean I'm happy that a state with well documented historic and ongoing human rights abuses should be handed X billion quid to build a nuclear reactor on the UK mainland. If the Labour party had pulled their fingers out 20 years ago we wouldn't having this discussion now because we'd have our own reactors.
This is an excellent book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atomic-Accidents-Meltdowns-Disasters-Mountains-ebook/dp/B00HVPI1IA/
Nuclear power station .Nuclear Target.
In this country we are pretty safe from things like earthquakes and tsunamis
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Channel_floods,_1607 ]Remind me where Hinckley Point is again?[/url]
Even [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima ]George Monbiot support nuclear power[/url], so I wonder why there's still a debate about it.
As for the Chinese being involved, well they could hardly do a worse job than we have done over the past 60 years. As with most aspects of the nuclear 'debate', prejudice and misinformation trump the hard scientific facts. It's one of those subjects where joe public probably shouldn't be allowed any sort of influence, and I say that as a critic of government and their industry cronies.
A few points here:
The Chinese have the technology, the will and the cash for this. Getting sniffy, and xenophobic, about it ignores the fact that they are better than us at this.
The price. The price is double the [b]current[/b] cost of producing energy and is guaranteed for a long period of time. This is the classic fixed rate/variable rate mortgage calculation. This is fixed rate so less risk, but potentially more expensive. That said, it's cheaper than renewable sources and I'm all for nuclear over wind/wave/etc at current costs.
The technology. It's a travesty that Britain has gone from a world leader in nuclear technology to buying it off other countries in 10-20 years. It must be said that the general negativity towards nuclear power by us, the voters, has caused the political decisions of the past. If successive governments had trusted their scientists over their pollsters, and been brave, then we would be selling this technology abroad for megabucks.
Safety. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong (old plant, earthquakes, tsunami, cooling failed,etc) in ****ushima and we're still arguing about whether the deaths are 1 or in the hundreds. Some perspective is needed. Nuclear is safer, both for miners, O&G workers, and the follow on problems from the pollution they cause. Coal mining in China claimed 931 deaths alone last year - and this is the number reported by Chinese media so likely to be higher!
Nuclear power station .Nuclear Target.
Tin foil hat for this chap.
Tis the tory way.
Erm, no, not really. This is a shared one.
Not really as the produced gas will still need to be sold somewhere and make no mistake Russia needs the money so not selling the stuff isn't really an option
By happy coincidence they just agreed a pipeline deal with the Chinese.
I work for a UK firm that out sources to China for 40% of our product lines all i can say is if we could we would bring it all back to the UK due to quality issues.
I would not trust them to build a B&Q shed never mind a reactor!
I work for a UK firm and 100% of our own product line is manufactured in China.
Also 100% of the third party products we resell are made in China.
We don't have any quality issues that you describe.
(Although I wouldn't ask the highly trained specialists that design and build our kit to assemble a B&Q shed, they are far too overqualified for that, it would be like asking a brain surgeon to cut up my dinner for me.)
Anyone else unimpressed with the racism in this thread?
Yes, there are cheap Chinese knock-offs in many markets that are poor quality. It's because they are competing in the cheap knock-off market, because they can due to lower costs. It's not because they are Chinese.
If you don't buy cheap knock-offs then there's no reason they should be lower quality, Chinese or not. I wouldn't have thought this needed pointing out.
Is suspicion of the Chinese state justified?
There's certainly parts of the government that believe it's worth worrying about
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22803510
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mi6-and-mi5-refuse-to-use-lenovo-computers-over-claims-chinese-company-makes-them-vulnerable-to-8737072.html
And there's certainly plenty of suspicion thrown about over the Chinese military's involvement in large scale hacking
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/12/hacking-personnel-data-4-million-federal-workers
Not sure how much is xenophobia and paranoia
But its not something that bothers Osborne
In not concerned about Chinese QC in the slightest, I've got on one carbon bars and lb rims on my gnar shredder
I've also worked with Chinese researchers, who've been just as competent as any other nationality.
One Chinese colleageu did claim that he had contact back home who would pay him for any unique techniques, patented or not etc that we knew of
I suppose that is a potential problem, China's not the worst country in the world for corruption, but quite high on the list of those we'd entrust with vital infrastructure projects !
[img] 
[/img]
Obviously as far as human rights etc goes that's not been something that our governments loose sleeo over either (Saudi, Al Yamaha, billions in arms sales etc)
http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm
Is suspicion of the Chinese state justified?
Did you watch the reports of the demonstrations in London for President Xi? The pro-China lobby had been bussed in by the commissariat from the universities. T-Shirts supplied from the diplomatic pouch (seals still on the boxes in the BBC video).
I think suspicion is justified.
Hopefully GCHQ have tagged them all and know who to monitor more closely.
I've no problem at all with the Chinese, but it seems a bit insane to me that we are getting them to build these.
what will we do when the gas starts running out"
What will we do when the uranium starts running out?
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2985972/ukchina_nuclear_deal_wont_keep_our_lights_on.html
LOL, I doubt any of these plants will ever hold a candle to the ****up that is/was Dungeness B. It was the first AGR plant to begin construction in 1965 and was the last of the first wave to be commissioned in 1983.
Generally this involves overriding safety systems that are attempting to protect the reactor [Chernobyl, TMI, Fukishima etc]
Fukushima wasn't an override, the systems worked perfectly. Up until the backup pumps were swamped by a Tsunami. Yes, latent design flaw, but not an active error.
A major contributory factor is that in the past most reactors were used to breed plutonium for nuclear weapons,
No it wasn't, the fuel cycle had nothing to do with it.
If the Labour party had pulled their fingers out 20 years ago we wouldn't having this discussion now because we'd have our own reactors.
Really? So why did we build a Westinghouse (US) design at Sizewell B with a Framatome (French) reactor vessel, Westinghouse (US) core components and GEC Alsthom (French/UK conglom until merge) turbines? The last "British" station was Heysham 2 and it was, as said, chuffing expensive as well.
Nuclear power station .Nuclear Target.
...is a shit argument. If bombs are getting dropped I think where one is targeted is the least of our worries.
What will we do when the uranium starts running out?
Is a sensible question which present rates of consumption mean should be addressed sooner rather than later. The simple answer is actually thorium which IIRC India (oh noes!) are developing and should keep the anti proliferation question off the table as a bonus. The alternative is using a breeder design which can convert and burn present plutonium stocks (both civil and military grade) to civil grade Pu which, again, is non-proliferable. In the longer term fusion reactors are being designed for a Tritium/Deuterium fuel cycle which should "solve" the supply problem considerably.
squirrelking - MemberFukushima wasn't an override, the systems worked perfectly. Up until the backup pumps were swamped by a Tsunami. Yes, latent design flaw, but not an active error.
Aye, at fukushima it was was a very different issue, and it wasn't even a mistake- the operators knew that flooding the reactors would prevent meltdown but would destroy them, so delayed and delayed in the hope of saving them, til eventually they were overruled- but too late. Even after the completely avoidable flooding the meltdowns were still completely avoidable, if not for TEPCO's greed.
So we say, oh we won't have a tsunami, we don't get those here. But we do get human error, and greed, and dishonesty. Which is why Sellafield LTD get fined £700,000 for sending nuclear waste to landfill, frinstance.
Fukushima wasn't an override, the systems worked perfectly. Up until the backup pumps were swamped by a Tsunami. Yes, latent design flaw, but not an active error.
http://www.scienceonthenet.eu/content/article/human-error-fukushima
OK, not necessarily overridden, but poor handling of the situation. The commission that wrote the report pulled no punches.
Sandwich - Member
Is suspicion of the Chinese state justified?Did you watch the reports of the demonstrations in London for President Xi? The pro-China lobby had been bussed in by the commissariat from the universities. T-Shirts supplied from the diplomatic pouch (seals still on the boxes in the BBC video).
I think suspicion is justified.
Hopefully GCHQ have tagged them all and know who to monitor more closely.
The Chinese don't even trust the Chinese yet you lot want to trust them ... 😆
So we say, oh we won't have a tsunami, we don't get those here.
Yeah we do, didn't you read that link?
I don't trust the [s]Chinkies[/s] Chinese, the [s]Russkies[/s] Russians, North Koreans, Cameron or Corbyn (any politician for that matter) & loads of others in between.
Why TF Cameron wants to build something (like this) with the chinese, in this country, that could be built by 100% UK investment, without any involvement from another country is beyond my comprehension.
Ok, I'm behind the the political times & pretty slow on the uptake of world events (I like riding bikes & sea fishing mainly) but is this what the UK has come to, really?
. But we do get human error, and greed, and dishonesty. Which is why Sellafield LTD get fined £700,000 for sending nuclear waste to landfill, frinstance.
The bags, which contained waste such as plastic, tissues and clothing,
Good spot, which is why no people ever should be given any responsibility, how we ever let them get in cars I don't know.
Like many things those who dislike nuclear will grab at anything to discredit and dissuade. However as the stats show its one of the safest form of energy generation. There was a comprehensive review post tsunami on all UK nuclear assets and sites which gave the all clear.
I get a bit sick of the sensationalist and misrepresentation having spent a good chunk of my working life dealing with the real issues and challenges. The picture painted bears very little resemblance to the UK nuclear industry.
that could be built by 100% UK investment, without any involvement from another country is beyond my comprehension.
Current UK Government won't invest long term as they are the enemies of the state, following the short termism lunacy emanating from the cancer at the heart of London.
El-bent - Member
that could be built by 100% UK investment, without any involvement from another country is beyond my comprehension.
Current UK Government won't invest long term as they are the enemies of the state, following the short termism lunacy emanating from the cancer at the heart of London.
How much does it cost to build?
Oh well ... we need more energy but we don't want to spend our money perhaps because we need the money else where?
Why TF Cameron wants to build something (like this) with the chinese, in this country, that could be built by 100% UK investment, without any involvement from another country is beyond my comprehension.
Maybe because neither British companies nor the government want to invest rather than any other reason. We certainly could do it but there isn't the political or financial will.
As for zero outside involvement, not happening, that horse bolted decades ago.
OK, not necessarily overridden, but poor handling of the situation. The commission that wrote the report pulled no punches.
As I said, latent errors. The facts presented there are also misleading, whilst it is true that public dosage should be no more than 1mSv per year the safe dose limit for workers is 20mSv per year (with special exceptions granted to allow 50mSv in a year with no more than 100mSv accumulated over a 5 year period). 5mSv, whilst clearly over the limit, is not considered an unsafe dosage (for healthy adults).
Aye, at fukushima it was was a very different issue, and it wasn't even a mistake- the operators knew that flooding the reactors would prevent meltdown but would destroy them, so delayed and delayed in the hope of saving them, til eventually they were overruled- but too late. Even after the completely avoidable flooding the meltdowns were still completely avoidable, if not for TEPCO's greed.
Source? I've never heard this before and any account I've heard completely contradicts this. Yes, there were delays, but that was down to the general condition of the entire prefecture rather than a man made issue. Are you sure you're not thinking of Chernobyl as that seems more likely?
Full disclosure up front: I work on this project. My real name is also fairly easy to guess from my name on here so for that reason I'll not be saying too much, except to note a few things:
1) I'll never stop being surprised at how nuclear can turn normally sensible people into complete tin foil hatters.
2) Quite right this project could have been a boon for the steel industry. In fact, we could have had only the second forge in the world (first being in Japan) capable of producing the largest forging for these reactors. But the current government [url= http://www.bbc.com/news/10341119 ]cancelled[/url] the loan to the company that was going to make it shortly after being elected.
3) The fear of radiation is more dangerous than radiation itself: "Interestingly, even the upper bound projection of the lives saved from the evacuation is lower than the number of deaths already caused by the evacuation itself." [url= http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/TenHoeveEES12.pdf ]Source.[/url]
Which, incidentally, gives the approximate number of evacuation deaths at 600, which given that it's in a peer-reviewed journal leads me to believe (perhaps optimistically) that the 1600 figure is likely to be a mis-quote of this paper.
2) Quite right this project could have been a boon for the steel industry. In fact, we could have had only the second forge in the world (first being in Japan) capable of producing the largest forging for these reactors. But the current government cancelled the loan to the company that was going to make it shortly after being elected.
...second forge in the world...so, in theory Forgemasters should have at least a 50% chance of gaining contracts in this area?
£80m isn't so much that it couldn't be funded commercially, airlines seem to manage [url= http://www.boeing.com/company/about-bca/index.page%23/prices#/prices ]Boeing's price list[/url]
Why should the the tax-payer fund what would be an easily attained commercial loan to one company, and set a precedent in the process?
My real name is also fairly easy to guess
Your outlook contact information is rather sparse, you could at least put a job title in 😉
I remember that Forgemasters pull out, bloody madness...
Timba - it wasn't an isolated loan, it was one of many that were offered as development loans at the time. It was also part of a larger package including £50m from Westinghouse and £20m in bank loans.
Yep, I see that now, it wasn't in the article linked to ^^
£70m was commercially attainable, t'was the other £80m that was needed and it wasn't as if we were planning to build our own nuclear power plants or anything...
Lifer - Member
The first line of the wiki isWestinghouse Electric Company LLC is a US based nuclear power company
?
...and yet only a few lines below that it says:
Westinghouse Electric Company's history 1999–present[edit]
1999: Westinghouse Electric Company officially began operations as BNFL's nuclear power business.
2000: BNFL bought ABB Group's nuclear power business, and merged into Westinghouse.
2004: Westinghouse bids for two Chinese reactor sites; the US Export-Import bank approved $5 billion in loan guarantees[11]
2006: Westinghouse acquired PaR Nuclear/Ederer Nuclear Cranes, providing fuel and cask handling equipment systems. Westinghouse Electric Company was sold by BNFL to Toshiba,
Nealglover
We don't have any quality issues that you describe.
I didn't describe any 🙄
The dismantling of the UK nuclear industry and shameful sale of the expertise necessary to undertake these projects was undertaken by Labour under the Blair/Brown government. The necessity to buy in the design from oversea is their fault.
I think it's great as I'm only 4 miles from it. The French side of the deal has already improved many local properties and offered education to all those wanting to benefit from the project. And they helped the mess up an already struggling road system to get all the gear through the nearest metropolis that is Bilgewater to get to the coastal building site.
And the thought of the Chinese being able to make Nuclear arms on my doorstep is fantastic. That should make it feel a little more cosy during the dark and cold winter nights now that rough cider is so unpopular these days. At least when they side with the Russians, they already have a Nuc in the area which will save on transportation costs. And I'll be able to get some more Mushroom pics.
