[Closed] Hinkley - non merci

I am not "anti-nuke" as such, just would like to see less dangerous solutions to support the cushy and wasteful lifestyle the lucky few in developed countries who are above the poverty line have become accustomed to.

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?

honestly would not care too much, would adapt somehow, and I value the cheap energy that I have acess to, in fact my energy supplier has visited several times to check my meter as the consumption is too low they say 🙂

At that point, the few deaths and side effects from the nuclear disasters that occur will be out weighed in their millions by the lack of electricity.

if we truly are concerned with the well being of the human race maybe we should help those without water/food/clothing/shelter/ and a way to support themselves with dignity before worrying about our ever increasing need for electricity and the possibility of having to turn out the porch lights in the near future?

[quote=iffoverload ]I am not "anti-nuke" as such, just would like to see less dangerous solutions

You did read the list posted above of the deaths/GWh? So I presume you're after something not on that list...

if we truly are concerned with the well being of the human race maybe we should help those without water/food/clothing/shelter/ and a way to support themselves with dignity before worrying about our ever increasing need for electricity and the possibility of having to turn out the porch lights in the near future?

Yeah what about them? You do realise this isn't about porch lights, lots of stuff you rely on not in your home also relies on electricity. Though we get into silly arguments here - reducing consumption was done upthread - I'm hugely in favour, but it won't solve the immediate energy problem even if it was all done tomorrow.

deaths/GWh?

sorry I'm off for a ride 🙂

With all the alledged problems peeps on here have with tradesmen and so called proffesional designers and arcitects, giving a blank cheque to a load of foreigners to design a brand new type of power station, on a site next to a highly dangerous existing structure, that is still required to work supplying energy, somebody is going to have many sleepless nights, and a huge bank balance to pay for it all failures and things going boom in the night.

A highly dangerous existing structure. Really? What do you know that we don't?

As for foreign designed and built, are we just pretending that the Westinghouse PWR on the Suffolk coast hasn't existed or operated safely for the past two decades?

And yes, comparing an architect churning out house extensions or garage mechanics with a highly regulated, overseen and legislated industry is totally valid.

Unless we can honesty, 100%, say that you can build, operate, decommission and dispose of the waste without ANY incident or pollution/upprocessable waste at the end of it then we have no right to use it as far as I am concerned.

squirrelking - Member
I'm sorry Andy, please don't take this as a slight on your character but you seem to be woefully ignorant on the subject of risk management. Every single one of those statements could apply to other things you are presumably happy to put faith in every day.

You've presented nothing to support that statement nor have you demonstrated any knowledge in risk management yourself. You'll be telling me next that project managers are infallible and venture capitalists are honest...

There isn't a risk that we will be left with nuclear waste or use god knows how much concrete in the construction it is a fact. We still do not have a permanent solution for the safe disposal of nuclear waste - fact.

A few quotes from the news today were EDF are having cold feet over whether they can deliver (yes, they are now seeing that the RISK of this ruining them is very real):

"The prize for EDF with Hinckley Point is a guarantee to provide electricity for decades at [b]three times the current price[/b]."

"To make matters worse, EDF's recent track record in delivering big projects is [b]poor[/b]. Reactor construction in France, Finland and China have run [b]over time and massively over budget[/b]."

"The dangers to the company's financial integrity are great enough to prompt EDF's chief financial officer to [b]resign[/b] in protest,"

" EDF Energy estimates its new Hinkley Point plant in the UK will cost $24bn, with the European Union putting the figure at closer to $36bn." that's 50% over budget!

All the warning signs are there for this to run over budget and over time. Do you really want nuclear to be built under those circumstances?

Exactly. Not only did they not build a higher wall at Fukushima, they didn't do anything to prevent the tens of thousands of deaths caused by the tsunami which were unrelated to Fukushima. Even if we include the deaths NW mentions, it's still only running at 3-4% of the total human cost of the tsunami - ISTM that by focussing on that the point is being missed somewhat.

The tsunami was a natural disaster and lots of people died in that area as a direct result of that. its very sad but it happened and that is that. I have never suggested we should have protected those people from that.

But the global picture is radioactive pollution that has spread all over the world due to the containment failure. I am talking the about the impact on other life on this planet, not just humans, that have no say in what we do and just suffers the consequences.

Will we never know the true cost of that on animals, plants and humans? I doubt it and it will keep on causing damage for decades. If we have no way to accurately predict damage, fix it or mitigate against it then common sense, not bullshit man made risk assessment, says we should not do something.

Risks of brown outs and black outs - well that is our fault for over populating and being too reliant on energy obtained by short sightedly and ignorantly destroying the planet.

I don't need to present anything, you have done well enough at demonstrating your own ignorance. The fact is you cannot eliminate any risk, only manage it. Financially this is governed by the law of diminishing returns as much as any other scenario.

I'm not sure what EDFs finances have to go with this in terms of safety.

Interesting stuff. I'm not expert enough in Nuke energy to really comment. I did once go on a school physics trip to Hinkley though and thought it was a cool place 😀 . Also the radiation detectors we were given said we weren't going to die. I'm still here decades later.

and I bet you 20 scottish pence

Surely 20 Scottish Euro cents by 2025? 😛

... If we have no way to accurately predict damage, fix it or mitigate against it then common sense, not bullshit man made risk assessment, says we should not do something...

Like burning fossil fuels?

Having Concerns over the safety of nuclear power is a reasonable position, but dismissing modern reactors because of the failures of past designs is stretching reason to breaking point.

(We didn't stop air travel because The DeHavilland Comet wasn't quite up to scratch)

I think we're all forgetting that all life on earth relies on a huge fusion reactor 93 million miles away, and it will eventually destroy the planet.

The criticism of EDF is unfair, the same managerial challenges occur on any mega project, particularly when it's not a repetition of a previous design.

Lots of the problems have been due to supply chain failures again which are not unique to the nuclear industry.

Comparing safety record from county to country is misguided as the safety cultures are very different

I think we're all forgetting that all life on earth relies on a huge fusion reactor 93 million miles away, and it will eventually destroy the planet.

Its not entirely been plain sailing for conventional power generation recently:

[img] [/img]

;-(

3 dead.....

but thats to do with the thing falling down when closed down and not a new build being built by foreigners, using money from a company being bailed out by its government and using more cash from a chinese company on the cheap, using a process not many of us dont want to produce energy.

[quote=Dibbs ]I think we're all forgetting that all life on earth relies on a huge fusion reactor 93 million miles away

Sadly the electricity conversion efficiency isn't very good.

[quote=project ]but thats to do with the thing falling down when closed down

Fair enough - can we ignore decommissioning then?

Of course not. It's one standard for nuclear power, and another for everything else.

Like we just ignore the hundreds of thousands of people who've died as a result of collapsing dams.

And the millions more who are at risk...

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35690616 ]it's ok, it's renewable energy, so it's perfectly safe...[/url]

Project - you've said that again but it is still as irrelevant as the first time you said it. You still haven't explained in what way Hinkley B is "highly dangerous" either.

Suggesting foreigners can't design and build stuff is insulting, what makes UK engineers above flaws? Anyway there are plenty of UK engineering firms involved.

If there have been problems with concrete and steel on other builds and picked up prior to operation then that isn't a failure. Putting something into service without detecting and correcting those problems would be a failure.

[quote=ahwiles ]Of course not. It's one standard for nuclear power, and another for everything else.

I'm wondering whether helmets and hi-viz should be compulsory for nuclear power stations 😈

Justifying the difficulties and issues of using nuclear technology by saying things like "well losts of people die from *[i]insert something[/i]*" is a bit silly.

also the likelihood is high that the *inserted fithy/lethal item* has also been created by the same types and groups of interested parties,investors etc. which makes me wonder why they should be trusted at all?

Their track record is pretty poor so far... they have made huge profits but enormous waste and pollution and we appear to accept this as OK.

The only real interest the energy companies have is making sure the demand is constant and increasing along with profits and that no viable alternatives beyond their control are developed.

how many deformed children/GWh was that again BTW?

[img] [/img]

Won't somebody think of the children?

Yeah, we know about Chernobyl - and we know why that happened there and why it wouldn't happen here (squirrelking can cover that one better than me, I'm just an interested amateur). Though the nuclear danger figures are already including that (if you like you can count each deformed child as a death - nuclear will still be the safest on the list).

Of course it's not silly to compare the dangers of nuclear technology with the dangers of other methods of power generation. Because if we're going to generate the electricity, then surely it's better to choose the method which will result in less people being killed. If we don't build nuclear then we'll have to build something else which looking at that list, for the same generation capacity will result in more deaths. You seem to be taking the position of just ignoring all the deaths from other things - because nuclear dangerous.

I'm not sure the energy companies control the demand - though I'm impressed at you posting on STW without electricity.

aracer - Member

Won't somebody think of the children?

not sure what you intended to say with this statement... anyway.

why that happened there and why it wouldn't happen here

Yes it was [b]human error[/b] that the [b]system failed[/b] to stop.

Are you saying that he is the only human capable of making an error or that current systems are able to [b]override human input[/b] and will [u]never[/u] fail under[u] any[/u] circumstances?
Maybe this is so and I would be happy to hear this is the case.

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.

yes it is silly, because if we are going to generate electricity would it not be better to aim for 0 casualties and 0 consequences rather than use the current energy system as the benchmark which is one of the biggest problems that the world faces, the cause of everything from wars to enviromental pollution and lots more besides?

I am not taking the position of ignoring the human costs of other things, they are just as unacceptable.

I'm impressed at you posting on STW without electricity.

again I am not sure what you are trying to say here, it just comes across as a pointless childish name calling type comment that reflects badly on you.

...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.

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.

[quote=iffoverload ]not sure what you intended to say with this statement... anyway.

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.

[quote=iffoverload ]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.

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?

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 Hin[b]k[/b]ley 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 [i]this[/i] 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?

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
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
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.

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.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

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.

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.

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

It looked nice when it was built though.

[img] ?w=736[/img]

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

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

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

[quote=iffoverload ]and I refer you to my earlier post about using cheap and dirty energy as a benchmark for other solutions

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.

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.

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.

[img] [/img]

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...

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

[quote=bigjim ]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

But it's an appeal to emotion - that sort of thing is always allowed.

[quote=dragon ]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.

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).

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