Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 29 Mar 2016, 22:14:12

dissident wrote:Death of nuclear power in the west. Thanks to short-lived cheap gas and BS regulations designed to pacify hysterical rabble worked over by Hollywood fiction. Who cares. The NATO west is 11% of the world. So don't talk as if you are the whole world.
I didn't. I specifically said the US. As did the article I linked to.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Ulenspiegel » Wed 30 Mar 2016, 01:09:15

C8 wrote:
Ulenspiegel wrote:Nuclear power dies because of simple economic reasons, to dispute this is funny. As long as new reactors produce a kWh with much higher costs than onshore wind (plus netintegration), NPPs are econommically dead as dead can be. The current projects are not even sufficient to replace retired reactors.

The Russian numbers are, when we take the history as bar, hot air, only a small percentage of the announced projects are realised.


Actually no- costs have mainly to do with the legal system and tons of lawsuits by greens. YOU are making nuclear expensive (and moving us faster to global warming disaster- but its all good- right!)


That is a stupid excuse. Even in countries like France where NPPs have backing of the government they are too expensive. BTW nuclear indistry had 50 years of heavy financial support, now the products have a NEGATIVE learning curve, that is an epic screw-up. :-)
Ulenspiegel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 02:15:29

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Wed 30 Mar 2016, 15:26:00

Tanada wrote:Funny story, China is building new reactors on time and on budget.
...
Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain...err I mean pay no attention to the massive Earthquake and resulting Tsunami that devastated hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure including the Fukushima Daichi power plants.
But China is building them quickly and cheaply because they are using lower standards then in the west. The reactors in Europe being constructed that are delayed and over budget were delayed because of safety issues. I personally do not think it is such a good thing that safety is being given a lower priority in China in the name of profits and expedience. And it's not as if China is spared from earthquakes and tsunamis either. Most of it's reactors are being built on the coast so they can get easy access to cooling water. This however also leaves them in a vulnerable position to a tsunami.

Chinese government officials argue that nuclear technology has improved since the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents, He said, but that ignores the role human error and flawed safety regimes played in both cases.

The operator of Japan’s Fukushima plant has admitted that the company failed to take stronger disaster prevention measures ahead of the earthquake and tsunami, for fear of lawsuits and protests. “Japan has better technology and better management, and yet it couldn’t avoid an accident despite the fact that it tried very hard to learn from the US and USSR,” He said, adding that China’s nuclear monitor has sparser staffing than Japan’s, and offers low salaries that will not attract the best young scientists.

China had considered and then rejected stronger standards, He said, because of the huge pressure for a rapid expansion and companies powerful enough to put corporate profits ahead of national security. “There were internal discussions on upgrading standards in the past four years, but doing so would require a lot more investment which would affect the competitiveness and profitability of nuclear power,” He said. “Nuclear energy costs are cheap because we lower our standards.”

China is short of water, and areas with enough water to cool a plant in daily operations or an emergency are densely populated. If they build plants in places with a lot of water, the consequences of a nuclear leakage would be extremely grave.”
China warned over 'insane' plans for new nuclear power plants

Take the construction problems and delays at the two current EPR sites in Europe at Flamanville, France, and Olkiluoto, Finland, both now running about three times over original cost estimates. Many of the delays have been caused by safety failures. Over, for example, the flawed metallurgy of the Flamanville reactor vessel and concerns over the reliability of key valves in the cooling system. Now of course, if you simple ignore such problems and press ahead with construction to meet the targets set down a five-year plan, construction is a whole lot quicker and cheaper. But the chances of reactors popping in years to come is also considerably greater.

Just how safe is China anyway
Now if China had a fantastic record of safety in its construction and other industries, maybe the odds should be made a bit longer. But that's not China. This August past we had the massive fire and multiple explosions at the Port of Tianjin, that killed almost 200 people and devastated several square kilometres of the industrial zone. It later transpired that over 7,000 tonnes of hazardous chemicals were stored there, among them sodium cyanide, calcium carbide and ammonium and potassium nitrate, many of them kept in breach of regulations. The owners had links to the highest echelons of the Chinese state - something that may have ensured very light touch regulation.

China has also experienced some recent high speed train crashes. Two bullet trains collided head-on on a viaductin Wenzhou, Zhejiang province owing to faulty signalling, killing 40 people. The accident was blamed by the Chinese government itself on "design flaws and sloppy management." China also has a notoriously poor safety record in a range of industries from construction to coal mining.

If anything we should expect China's nuclear industry to be rather less safe that the western average, especially given the cacophony of new reactor designs and variations thereof under construction simultaneously at multiple sites with absolutely no history of operation - safe or otherwise.

Another factor is the secrecy that surrounds nuclear construction and operation in China. These matters simply are not reported on other than in glowing terms in the official press. And secrecy is all too often a cover for poor practice and cut corners.

Tsunami risk - not if but when
It's also instructive to look at the map of nuclear reactors scheduled for completion. If the full plan for 400 reactors by 2050 is fulfilled, probably some 300 of them would be sea-facing. China's south and east coasts face out to seismically active waters. And as the Japanese discovered at Fukushima, nuclear power, earthquakes and tsunamis make a dangerous combination. What is certain is that the tsunami hazard is real and substantial. Literature of historical seismic records of this region is "abundant", the authors write. The northern Manila Trench near Taiwan is "is likely to have a very large earthquake in the future. In addition the regionis a volcanic belt. If volcano and earthquake occur in concert, a much larger tsunami disaster would develop.
Fukuzilla? China's nuclear boom threatens global catastrophe
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 31 Mar 2016, 02:27:26

Thanks for the many excellent points ralfy, Ulenspiegel and kublikhan!
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16303
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Thu 31 Mar 2016, 06:54:49

Anti nuke and pro nuke each use a different standard for their facts so there can be no meeting of the minds.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 02 Apr 2016, 16:31:05

Yeah, it does seem like people are talking past each other. Rather unfortunate.

Meanwhile, there's this from PONews: ‘Ice Wall’ Is Japan’s Last-Ditch Effort To Contain Fukushima Radiation

What could possibly go wrong??
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16303
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 08 Apr 2016, 20:40:32

An open letter from Dr. James Hansen to Bernie Sandars.

The last few weeks have seen an orchestrated campaign to mislead the people of New York about the essential safety and importance of Indian Point nuclear plant to address climate change. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has repeatedly certified the safety of Indian Point. The scaremongers have taken minor maintenance questions and wrongly suggested they point to significant problems with the plant.

"Now, Bernie Sanders says he wants to shut down the plant. If that happened, it would be replaced in substantial part by fracked natural gas that would create the equivalent carbon emissions of adding roughly 1.4 million new cars to the road.

"Sanders has offered no evidence that NRC has failed to do its job, and he has no expertise in over-riding NRC’s judgement. For the sake of future generations who could be harmed by irreversible climate change, I urge New Yorkers to reject this fear mongering and uphold science against ideology.”


http://epillinois.org/news/2016/4/6/jam ... dian-point
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Sat 14 May 2016, 15:37:22

The Nuclear Industry in the west is Collapsing for obvious reasons that nuclear engineers cannot even begin to grasp. They simply refuse to accept the obvious:

https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comment ... eir_first/

[–]StarvingLion 1 point 2 hours ago*

How do you know? Ans: See Saudi Arabia, US Consumer.

Totally dependent on instant wealth effect of quality crude oil. Where else is the wealth coming from?

Why are the Saudi Royals running around with their heads cut off despite having lots of natural gas? Ans: Because the quality crude oil is turning into oily water and the instant wealth effect of natural gas does not exist.

Why is the US Consumer becoming the Jobless "Consumer"? Ans: Because they can't their hands on quality crude oil and shale gas doesn't work (recent financial implosion, Aubrey McClendan commiting suicide).

Instant wealth of quality crude oil: Huge Transaction Volumes, Multiplier effect, Embeddable, Easily Transportable, Immense returns on Investment.

Does uranium have any of that? Nope. Its a trojan horse (see Hinkley in Britain) that is meant to bleed you dry. It rides on top of crude oil which it no longer can do because of depletion and quality degradation of crude oil. The illusion of wealth from uranium is over. Thats why it shut down in Germany and soon France. With Fiat money, confidence is everything. So they hide the insolvency behind green baloney and scientific "progress". That useless junk called Wind mills gets priority on the grid because like nuclear it is useless as source of organic wealth. "Renewables" is a financialization scheme, wealth transfer.

An export engine requires quality coal. That doesn't exist much either.

Consumer <---> Export Engine

Crude Oil <----> Coal

Both are going down for the count. China is fighting the entropy by slave labor and wiping out ecology. It doesn't matter what nuclear reactor type is designed. They don't have any utility besides smog control and trojan horse schemes.

The only energy alternative presently is hydro dams and geothermal. And we are seeing what excessive demands result in with Venezuela and Tasmania. But this does not replace the wealth effect of crude oil It simply "meeting the needs of the people"...7 billion of them. Good luck with that pipedream.
EV's are fuel-less automobiles and Thorium Reactors are fuel-less reactors. Perfect.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 25 May 2016, 19:17:52

FRANCE is fighting the Banking Criminals...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-franc ... SKCN0YG0KW

Frances 19 Nuclear Plants have voted to go on strike tonight at 8:00PM
EV's are fuel-less automobiles and Thorium Reactors are fuel-less reactors. Perfect.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby vox_mundi » Thu 02 Jun 2016, 19:29:01

Exelon Shutting Two Nuclear Plants After Legislation Fails

Exelon Corp., the largest U.S. generator of power from nuclear energy, said it will close two money-losing Illinois plants as competition from renewable energy and low-cost natural gas continues to pressure generators.

The Clinton Power Station will shut June 1, 2017 and the Quad Cities Generating Station will close June 1, 2018 after the state failed to pass legislation that would stem their financial losses, Exelon said Thursday in a statement. The plants lost a combined $800 million over the past seven years, the company said. Power companies in Illinois have announced the closing of coal and nuclear plants that account for more than 10 percent of generating capacity, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The retirements are the latest sign of how historically low power prices, competition from wind farms and solar panels and stagnant or falling demand are threatening the viability of U.S. reactors. In more than a dozen states that deregulated their electricity markets, owners of aging nuclear and coal generators are reeling under growing competition from generators burning gas. Electricity providers in places like Ohio and New York are asking for millions of dollars to keep their units running.

“The lesson here is that there’s not going to be much subsidizing of merchant nuclear plants,” Kit Konolige, a utilities analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, said by phone Thursday.

Image

Entergy Corp. closed its Vermont Yankee Reactor in 2014 and announced it will shut two other nuclear plants in the northeast. The Omaha Public Power District in Nebraska is scheduled to vote June 16 on shutting its Fort Calhoun reactor. Exelon announced in early May it would close the Clinton and Quad Cities plants unless the state adopted new policies by May 31 to make them profitable.


All Belgians to get iodine pills in case of nuclear accident: report

Belgium is to provide iodine pills to its entire population of around 11 million people to protect against radioactivity in case of a nuclear accident, the health minister was quoted as saying Thursday.

The move comes as Belgium faces growing pressure from neighbouring Germany to shutter two ageing nuclear power plants near their border due to concerns over their safety.

Iodine pills, which help reduce radiation build-up in the human thyroid gland, had previously only been given to people living within 20 kilometres (14 miles) of the Tihange and Doel nuclear plants.

Health Minister Maggie De Block was quoted by La Libre Belgique newspaper as telling parliament that the range had now been expanded to 100 kilometres, effectively covering the whole country.

The head of Belgium's French-speaking Green party, Jean-Marc Nollet, backed the measures but added that "just because everyone will get these pills doesn't mean there is no longer any nuclear risk," La Libre reported.

Belgium's creaking nuclear plants have been causing safety concerns for some time after a series of problems ranging from leaks to cracks and an unsolved sabotage incident.

Security fears have also risen after investigators last year discovered surveillance footage of a Belgian nuclear official in the apartment of a suspect linked to the Brussels and Paris attacks.

Last week Germany asked that the 40-year-old Tihange 2 and Doel 3 reactors be turned off "until the resolution of outstanding security issues".

The reactor pressure vessels at both sites have shown signs of metal degradation, raising fears about their safety. They were temporarily closed but resumed service last December.


Netherlands to hand out iodine pills in case of nuclear accident

The Dutch government has ordered 15 million iodine pills to protect people living near nuclear plants in case of an accident, officials said Friday, as concerns rise over ageing reactors across the border in Belgium.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3490
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby toolpush » Thu 02 Jun 2016, 20:54:31

Exelon Corp., the largest U.S. generator of power from nuclear energy, said it will close two money-losing Illinois plants as competition from renewable energy and low-cost natural gas continues to pressure generators.



I will pose the same question I put up on POB. I will be interested in any feed back.


What amazes me about nuclear power plants, is that the expensive parts of the operation is building, and decommissioning the plant. The actual running of the plant is suppose to have very low marginal cost, and during this, time the operating company was suppose to collect enough money to pay for construction, and decommissioning.

As the 40 year original licences approached retirement, and the operating companies had not saved enough money to cover decommissioning, they applied for 20 year extensions to their licence, to allow more time to fill their piggy banks. This 20 year extension was suppose to be all gravy, and yet now we hear that numerous nukes are closing down because they can’t operate profitable during their cheapest time of operation.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, unless, to continue operation, the planned retired nukes require some major capex to keep them going. If this is the case, I suspect the operators probably don’t want to go into too much detail, as the only things I see that they would be forced to spend large sums of money on will be for the safety of the plant, and I am sure from the operators point of view, the less talk of Nuke safety the better.
toolpush
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon 06 Jan 2014, 08:49:16

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 02 Jun 2016, 21:23:40

Its simple really, Solar and Wind get very large subsidies for every Watt of electricity they produce. On the other hand Gas fired combined cycle plants, both ICE and Turbine types, are are modular and can be started up and shut down rapidly, or run as combined cycle baseload giving a great deal of flexibility. Right now natural gas is incredibly cheap and if you want to install a gas fired electric plant the local governments almost anywhere in the USA will give you major tax breaks to select them for your location.

All told this puts Nuclear fission at a financial disadvantage because their tax break period has expired almost everywhere, standard at least in Michigan and Ohio is to offer a company a 20 year tax abatement to locate in your area. These plants are all long past that so they are paying lots of property taxes. The people operating the nuclear plants are also highly skilled so they get paid a lot more than say the board operators at a conventional fuel power station.

Worst of all when the EPA passed their CO2 regulations two years ago they listed solar/wind/renewables as being best and Natural Gas as being acceptable but did not specify Nuclear for CO2 offset credits with the government. If you shut down a non CO2 emitting Nuclear plant and build a CO2 emitting Natural Gas burning plant you get a nice regulatory status from the EPA. The plan was originally suppossed to encourage transition away from coal to lower polluting energy, but by excluding nuclear they took away all the federal incentives to keep these plants in operation. IOW they shot the climate in the foot by encouraging the building of natural gas power to replace nuclear power, replacing a zero CO2 source with a moderately high CO2 source.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13766
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Fri 03 Jun 2016, 08:48:34

America lacks the leadership and vision. Russia has plenty of cheap gas, cheaper than the USA and is in the process of testing (BN-800 is now at full output) for the deployment of a fleet of large fast neutron breeder reactors in the 2020s. What is needed is strategic thinking and not penny counting short term knee-jerk reactions. Spending more can save you in the long run. Saving more can cost you more in the long run. In the US this lesson is being willfully ignored.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4873
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 03 Jun 2016, 17:57:27

toolpush wrote:What amazes me about nuclear power plants, is that the expensive parts of the operation is building, and decommissioning the plant. The actual running of the plant is suppose to have very low marginal cost, and during this, time the operating company was suppose to collect enough money to pay for construction, and decommissioning.

As the 40 year original licences approached retirement, and the operating companies had not saved enough money to cover decommissioning, they applied for 20 year extensions to their licence, to allow more time to fill their piggy banks. This 20 year extension was suppose to be all gravy, and yet now we hear that numerous nukes are closing down because they can’t operate profitable during their cheapest time of operation.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, unless, to continue operation, the planned retired nukes require some major capex to keep them going. If this is the case, I suspect the operators probably don’t want to go into too much detail, as the only things I see that they would be forced to spend large sums of money on will be for the safety of the plant, and I am sure from the operators point of view, the less talk of Nuke safety the better.
When "too cheap to meter" was the slogan for nuclear it did have low operating costs. However this is no longer the case. The world has changed in the decades since then. Natural gas prices are ultra low, renewables are being built out at a rapid rate, and Fukushima and 9/11 have forced expensive safety & security upgrades onto the industry. Nuclear O&M costs are no longer low:

Operating and maintenance costs for nuclear plants escalated rapidly in the 1970's and 1980's, surpassing coal-fired power plants. Industry-wide average O&M costs per MWh(expressed in 1992 dollars) were $10.43 in 1981 and $15.37 in 1992, 47 percent higher.

What Factors Contributed to Increased O&M Costs?
Staff size is a large component of O&M costs. It has been estimated that about tho-thirds of O&M costs are labor related. Industry-wide, the labor force per MWe of capacity has doubled over the past decade[1981-1992]. Contributing to staff growth have been enhanced security requirements, expanded training programs, the need for additional design work and system analyses, preventative maintenance programs, and additional design documentation and quality assurance programs. Not only did staff size grow, but real labor rates in the nuclear industry increased as well.
Operating and Maintance Costs for Nuclear Power Plants in the United States

Reactors were supposed to provide near-limitless electricity at low prices. But as they've aged, their costs have climbed. From 2002-2014, the cost to run the nation's 99 nuclear reactors leapt by 28 percent. Fuel costs have climbed, but age is also a chief culprit: The plants are an average 36 years old, requiring expensive and more frequent repairs.

nuclear's peak may have passed, perhaps as far back as the 1970s and 1980s. "Natural gas prices were high, wind hadn't built up yet, Fukushima hadn't happened." He called the period a "coincidental ... sweet spot"
Nuclear Power, Once Cheap, Squeezed by Mounting Costs

Gas turbine ($20 per kW)
Large-scale solar photovoltaic ($25 per kW)
Subcritical coal power ($43 per kW)
Onshore wind power ($46 per kW)
Large-scale hydropower ($53 per kW)
Nuclear power ($198 per kW)
As well as representing a hefty capital commitment to build, nuclear power plants are not cheap to operate and maintain. For every kilowatt generated there is an average of $198 spent on O&M in Europe, with every other region bar China (consistently the cheapest country for power plant O&M costs) recording costs of over $100. Even China's $80 per kW is expected to spike to $112 by 2020.

The processing, enrichment and fabrication of uranium into fuel elements represents a significant expense, not to mention the cost of waste disposal. Ensuring the integrity of equipment is also a major task, with nuclear plants operating with a large number of pumps, valves, cables, circuit breakers and a host of other mechanical and electrical components that must work under tough conditions.

Of course, the repercussions for safety failures are particularly catastrophic in the case of nuclear power, so ongoing risk management is essential and there is justifiably a high bar set for safety standards. Despite these significant O&M costs, nuclear energy's other advantages - reliability, lack of carbon emissions, low fuel prices - will likely see the technology continue to play a major part in the energy mix of the future, especially as reactor technology improves and the psychic scars created by Fukushima begin to heal.
Power plant O&M: how does the industry stack up on cost?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby toolpush » Fri 03 Jun 2016, 18:25:55

kublikhan,

Thanks for the info. This is what I was looking for. I am surprised that operating costs have risen so much, as the nuke industry was build on high capex, low opex. All the nuke plants were built for a 40 year licence period, and they all seemed to just get a rubber stamp for a 20 year extension, no matter how bad their safety record had been. There was even talk of many asking for a second 20 year extension. Some how I don't think too many will be still looking for that.
In hindsight these 20 year extensions may not have been such a great idea, as equipment went past their design life and dramatically increased costs.
toolpush
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon 06 Jan 2014, 08:49:16

Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby sparky » Fri 29 Jul 2016, 04:48:47

.
the British government is delaying a firm decision on approving the Hinkley nuclear power plant .
this is a huge project both in building cost and rated output
the leading contractor EDF is having some strong opposition to build it ,
after the EDF financial officer resignation some time back , a board member resigned just before a vote to proceed
the vote passed by 10 votes to seven , hardly a rigging endorsement
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... es-project

The project rely on a very long term price guarantee for the electricity produced ,the greens are against it on general principle , while the National grid company is worried about baseline supply
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36918151
meanwhile EDF is having cold feet but keep walking into the blizzard ,
probably because they don't know what else to do

it's the usual stuff , some fear and loathing ,some worry about mega-projects and some dislike of contract bondage
It all end up as politics , as it should and the electorate is a bit fragile just now .
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3266
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 29 Jul 2016, 17:55:47

Right on sparky. Nothing to see here, nobody is bankrupt, all is well, where is the snooze button?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.
EV's are fuel-less automobiles and Thorium Reactors are fuel-less reactors. Perfect.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby sparky » Fri 29 Jul 2016, 20:16:48

.
the UK energy plan 2050 mandated a reduction of 60% of the carbon footprint ,
the decommissioning of large coal fired power plants is scheduled , several nuclear plants are also due for shut down
it would create a production gap of several Gigawatt for the grid
the plan was for offshore wind to provide some and Hinkley point to ensure base-load .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnNwBpr ... e=youtu.be

now it's back to the drawing board, the new government would rather ditch the whole 2050 plan
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3266
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 30 Jul 2016, 07:09:00

sparky wrote:.
the UK energy plan 2050 mandated a reduction of 60% of the carbon footprint ,
the decommissioning of large coal fired power plants is scheduled , several nuclear plants are also due for shut down
it would create a production gap of several Gigawatt for the grid
the plan was for offshore wind to provide some and Hinkley point to ensure base-load .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnNwBpr ... e=youtu.be

now it's back to the drawing board, the new government would rather ditch the whole 2050 plan


Do you think the new government is prepared to ditch the green renewables a the future mantra and resume large scale fossil fuel use? If they do that would be a political earthquake of large proportions.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13766
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Hinkley point nuclear power plant

Unread postby sparky » Sat 30 Jul 2016, 17:28:37

.
Yes I believe the Tony Blair plan will be whittled down slowly , one cut at the time .

The plan was grandiose and so far into the future that it basically was passed on for future governments to deal with it
without the Hinkley point ,the offshore part is vulnerable
probably , more Natural gas power plants will be brought on line

This government is conservative , they care nothing for carbon footprint , only for voters reactions
a bit of spin , some token gesture and a lot of obfuscation should see the whole program killed
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3266
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests