Rolls Royce plans 16 mini-nuclear plants for UK

Is nuclear fission going to make a comeback and plug the gap in our energy needs? Will nuclear fusion ever become energetically viable?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Post Reply
User avatar
careful_eugene
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:39 pm
Location: Nottingham UK

Rolls Royce plans 16 mini-nuclear plants for UK

Post by careful_eugene »

This is much better than 2 or 3 mega projects.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54703204
Paid up member of the Petite bourgeoisie
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 8376
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: North Somerset

Post by adam2 »

If these can delivered affordably, then it sounds a good idea.
I am not anti nuclear but am opposed to Hinkley on cost grounds and also opposed to chinese innvolvement on national security grounds and for qaulity control reasons.

440 Mw is not exactly small, it is only slightly less than the output of our existing nukes. Which are in the 500 Mw to 600Mw range.

One of these proposed reactors would meet nearly 1% of the peak demand, A dozen would have a similar output to the present nuclear fleet.

I am still a bit doubtful about this ever progressing beyond the stage of studies, reviews, and consultations.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12683
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

Who is going to pay for the security of these? Hopefully it will be the consumer rather than the tax payer because I don't want to have to pay for something that I don't use and have made considerable efforts not to use. Security should be a cost for the owner of the plant rather than the taxpayer or if security is provided by the taxpayer it should be charged to the owner as it is one of the costs of dangerous nuclear power.

Small nukes will be better than large ones from the point of view that if one goes down for any reason it won't have too much of a effect on the grid.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
careful_eugene
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:39 pm
Location: Nottingham UK

Post by careful_eugene »

kenneal - lagger wrote:Who is going to pay for the security of these? Hopefully it will be the consumer rather than the tax payer because I don't want to have to pay for something that I don't use and have made considerable efforts not to use. Security should be a cost for the owner of the plant rather than the taxpayer or if security is provided by the taxpayer it should be charged to the owner as it is one of the costs of dangerous nuclear power.
I was wondering about the possibility of putting them offshore, this would address some of the security concerns. It would also remove the need to purchase land, and as many people would object to living near to a nuclear facility it would take that issue away as well.
Paid up member of the Petite bourgeoisie
Initiation
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:29 pm

Post by Initiation »

careful_eugene wrote: I was wondering about the possibility of putting them offshore, this would address some of the security concerns. It would also remove the need to purchase land, and as many people would object to living near to a nuclear facility it would take that issue away as well.
Problem with offshore is you need to get the transmission network out there. That adds huge costs in terms of cabling and offshore substations. Access for maintenance is also an issue.
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 8376
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: North Somerset

Post by adam2 »

I think that offshore is a greater security risk, vulnerable to foreign naval forces and to terrorists in boats, and russian "trawlers"

If these are to be built, I would prefer to see groups of perhaps four or five reactors on land.
Security is cheaper per reactor if they are grouped together.
Transmission lines would aldo be cheaper, remembering that these need duplication for nukes.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Post Reply