UK To Approve New Generation of Nuclear Power Plants

[neonlyte]

The UK needs to replace 13000MW of Nuclear generation by 2023. The government will announce new plants today. 13000MW equates to 2600 x 5MW wind turbines that generate power at a cost marginally higher than coal and gas. Why chose the nuclear route?

 

[Handprints]

The UK needs to replace 13000MW of Nuclear generation by 2023. The government will announce new plants today. 13000MW equates to 2600 x 5MW wind turbines that generate power at a cost marginally higher than coal and gas. Why chose the nuclear route?

Cost: lower construction costs, lower running costs, longer lifetimes of service, greater reliability of supply in service, cheaper connections to the national grid. Plus, it's quite useful to have a lot of onshore expertise in nuclear materials handling if you're also keeping a deterrent, whether missiles or subs.

I'm a pro-nuclear green, by the way...

Best,
H

 

[keeblercrumb]

Cost: lower construction costs, lower running costs, longer lifetimes of service, greater reliability of supply in service, cheaper connections to the national grid. Plus, it's quite useful to have a lot of onshore expertise in nuclear materials handling if you're also keeping a deterrent, whether missiles or subs.

I'm a pro-nuclear green, by the way...

Best,
H

I am not sure about the lower construction costs..... but I totally agree that nukes are the way to go. The key (and a common flaw in the last great nuclear boom) is in the standardization of standards and technology.

In the US, anyway, it was the constantly changing standards, rules and regulations which made nukes prohibitively expensive. But that was due to our scientific and engineering naivety at the time.

My favoring Nuclear power is all about it being substantially cleaner and far less damaging to the environment (even given the waste problems) than conventional fossil fuel plants....

Alternative power technologies do not scale up to be at all cost competitive.

In the last 30-40 years major improvements in the technology should result in cleaner, less waste producing nuclear plants then the last generation.

Personally, I abhor the endless thousands of wind mills covering the country side. It is an aesthetic disaster, in my opinion. But if you don't care.... that is an option too.

But I actually worked at BNFL for a couple of years so maybe the UK doing this is not such a great idea..... They probably ought to sort out Seliafield before the go building more nukes....

-KC

 

[Weird Harold]

In the US, anyway, it was the constantly changing standards, rules and regulations which made nukes prohibitively expensive. But that was due to our scientific and engineering naivety at the time.

That may have ben the obvious and direct cause of the obstruction of Nuclear Power expansion in the US, but the root cause was the millions of baby boomers and hippies that grew up on B-Movie science fiction movies about monster mutants created by radiation exposure.

The changing standards, ever-increasing environmental impact statement requirements and endless lawsuits weren't the result of confusion or naivete, they were semi-organized paranoia intended to prevent Fifty-Foot Women, Shrinking Men, and Giant Spiders.

The best thing to happen to Nuclear Power in recent history is The Simpsons because it shows everyone that mutant three-eyed fish are actually kind of cute and not even a complete idiot like Homer can make a nuclear plant blow up (or melt-down.)

 

[neonlyte]

Most of my reservation over nuclear is the waste disposal issue. Crack the long term problem and I could be persuaded.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The UK needs to replace 13000MW of Nuclear generation by 2023. The government will announce new plants today. 13000MW equates to 2600 x 5MW wind turbines that generate power at a cost marginally higher than coal and gas. Why chose the nuclear route?

I suppose there's lots of coal, but gas will only get more dear. Plus it really makes more sense to use it for chemical feedstock intead of burning it. As far as wind, it is nice to have power when the wind's not blowing. Basically, a wind or solar requires you to build the nukes as a backup anyway, so wind up being an expensive and largely meaningless gesture to stroke the aesthetic sensibilities of post-materialist voters.

Most of my reservation over nuclear is the waste disposal issue. Crack the long term problem and I could be persuaded.

From a post of mine on an previous thread. Obviously directed at the US situation, but relevent:

"The nuclear waste issue, and the quantity of waste in in this country itself, is due to politics, not physics. Jimmy Carter canceled fuel recycling, but more than 98% of the material in a spent nuclear fuel rod is recyclable, and elsewhere in the world that's what they do. About 97% of spent fuel is uranium: 2% of that is the fissionable U-235 isotope, which powers the reactor, and the other 95% is U-238, the same non-fissionable isotope that comes out of the ground. This can't be used for bombs. Yes, it has a very long half-life, which is why environmentalists think they have to sit and watch it for a million years, but it's the same stuff that's in granite. The isotope of concern is plutonium-239, formed when small amounts of U-238 absorb neutrons during the three-year cycle. It makes up 1% of spent fuel. Separating it and putting it back in a reactor as "mixed oxide fuel" (uranium plus plutonium) is no problem. France, where 78 percent of electricity is generated by 58 nuke plants, recycles all its fuel rods. The remaining 2% of the fuel rod--the highly radioactive transuranic elements and fission byproducts-- are is all stored in a single room in Le Havre."

 

[neonlyte]

I suppose there's lots of coal, but gas will only get more dear. Plus it really makes more sense to use it for chemical feedstock intead of burning it. As far as wind, it is nice to have power when the wind's not blowing. Basically, a wind or solar requires you to build the nukes as a backup anyway, so wind up being an expensive and largely meaningless gesture to stroke the aesthetic sensibilities of post-materialist voters.

The UK idea seems to be to use night time wind energy to pump water to hydro reservoirs, might work but generally, we consume the energy available to us.

From a post of mine on an previous thread. Obviously directed at the US situation, but relevent:

"The nuclear waste issue, and the quantity of waste in in this country itself, is due to politics, not physics. Jimmy Carter canceled fuel recycling, but more than 98% of the material in a spent nuclear fuel rod is recyclable, and elsewhere in the world that's what they do. About 97% of spent fuel is uranium: 2% of that is the fissionable U-235 isotope, which powers the reactor, and the other 95% is U-238, the same non-fissionable isotope that comes out of the ground. This can't be used for bombs. Yes, it has a very long half-life, which is why environmentalists think they have to sit and watch it for a million years, but it's the same stuff that's in granite. The isotope of concern is plutonium-239, formed when small amounts of U-238 absorb neutrons during the three-year cycle. It makes up 1% of spent fuel. Separating it and putting it back in a reactor as "mixed oxide fuel" (uranium plus plutonium) is no problem. France, where 78 percent of electricity is generated by 58 nuke plants, recycles all its fuel rods. The remaining 2% of the fuel rod--the highly radioactive transuranic elements and fission byproducts-- are is all stored in a single room in Le Havre."

Don't know if the reactors will be based on the French model, one would hope so since the UK hasn't made a good job of dealing with the waste it's produced thus far.

 

[oggbashan]

The UK idea seems to be to use night time wind energy to pump water to hydro reservoirs, might work but generally, we consume the energy available to us.



Don't know if the reactors will be based on the French model, one would hope so since the UK hasn't made a good job of dealing with the waste it's produced thus far.

Locally we use French nuclear power when they have a surplus and they have our surplus wind power when we aren't using it.

I knew that there was some point to the Channel Tunnel.

The UK energy supply needs to have diverse sources so that peaks of demand can be met even when a particular fuel source is interrupted. Medway Council (in Kent) have just given planning permission for a new coal-fired electrical power station. Gravesham Council, also in Kent, have given planning permission to an extended switching station to bring wind power ashore from the new London Array in the North Sea. That wind power will be connected to the National Grid.

A new LPG terminal is being built at Milford Haven in Wales. That will take massive LPG tankers from Qatar. The North Sea gas fields are becoming depleted and we will have to import gas to supply our gas-powered electricity stations.

Europe is vulnerable to political pressures from fuel exporting countries. It makes sense to increase the range of generating systems and diversify from oil and gas.

Nuclear is a significant part of the jigsaw.

Og

 

[kendo1]

The gas supplies from Russia are not dependable.

Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) are building a hydro power plant over at Glendoe near Fort Augustus in Invernesshire. It should supply just under a quarter of Scotland's power requirements by the end of 2008.

It should make a significant contribution to the Scottish Executive's target of generating 40% of Scottish electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

 

[colddiesel]

Nuclear Fuel re-processing

The first commercial nuclear power station in the UK was built on land owned by my parents. It was built between 1956 and 1963. It then produced power until 1989 when it was closed down.

It is still being decommissioned.

The reactor cores will retain hazardous levels of radioactivity for another three hundred (repeat 300) years. (Source, Decommissioning authority)

It is essential that the UK has nuclear power but as a prerequisite to that it is also essential that the spent fuel be reprocessed. The French reprocess but the British government lacks the political courage to do so. Why ? because the reprocessing reduces the volume by 99% but the reduced material is potentially weapons grade.

Perhaps we could sub-contract to Iran!

 

[trysail]

...Don't know if the reactors will be based on the French model...

It will if Areva has anything to say about it!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The UK idea seems to be to use night time wind energy to pump water to hydro reservoirs, might work but generally, we consume the energy available to us.



Don't know if the reactors will be based on the French model, one would hope so since the UK hasn't made a good job of dealing with the waste it's produced thus far.

The frenchies are all presumably 1st or 2nd generation 'kludges" - inefficient, not very safe, probably productive of more waste. These will be presumably be 3rd and/or 4th generation designs that are light-years more advanced, efficient, safer, cleaner.


BTW, the resevoirs is a cool idea, but I'm betting the capacity is limited and back-up is still needed.

 

[neonlyte]

The frenchies are all presumably 1st or 2nd generation 'kludges" - inefficient, not very safe, probably productive of more waste. These will be presumably be 3rd and/or 4th generation designs that are light-years more advanced, efficient, safer, cleaner.


BTW, the resevoirs is a cool idea, but I'm betting the capacity is limited and back-up is still needed.

The French energy company announced plans for 4 nuclear plants in the UK following yesterdays government announcement. All plants are to be built by private companies, the UK government will set up a contingency fund to deal only with nuclear emergencies arising from construction and operation.

On reservoirs, people in the UK will infinitely prefer creating reservoirs for hydro schemes over 'littering' the hillsides with wind generation plant. Wales is hilly and no one lives there or really likes it <ducks and runs for cover>

 

[oggbashan]

The frenchies are all presumably 1st or 2nd generation 'kludges" - inefficient, not very safe, probably productive of more waste. These will be presumably be 3rd and/or 4th generation designs that are light-years more advanced, efficient, safer, cleaner.


BTW, the resevoirs is a cool idea, but I'm betting the capacity is limited and back-up is still needed.

French nuclear power has been developing fast and their nuclear energy programme may well be ahead of the US because they are not so harassed by protesters. Their waste is already well managed. Any French reactors built in the UK are likely to be very modern and high performance.

Og

 

[oggbashan]

...On reservoirs, people in the UK will infinitely prefer creating reservoirs for hydro schemes over 'littering' the hillsides with wind generation plant. Wales is hilly and no one lives there or really likes it <ducks and runs for cover>

Lakes are more scenic than windfarms. Lakes can be used for recreation (with some simple safety precautions).

Wales has a long history of opposing reservoirs built just to benefit the English. The Welsh hills and mountains are a significant tourist attraction.

If no one really liked the hills, Wales wouldn't have to manage the tourist traffic.

Og