Nuclear Britain

Post by **clv101** » 11 Jan 2008, 10:40

On Thursday 10th January 2008 Business Secretary John Hutton announced to MPs that he was giving the green light for new nuclear build in the UK. He is inviting energy companies to bring forward plans to build and operate new nuclear power plants. However considering the nuclear cliff, has the decision come too late to maintain the nuclear contribution?

Read more: Nuclear Britain

STG · Post by **STG** » 11 Jan 2008, 11:03

Seriously this is a graph made by an environmentalist!

For a PWR reactor a lifetime of 60yrs is foreseen, in which power upratings can occur due to better steam gens or turbines.

And with some fast progress on the licensing side while placing orders for reactors which can be build rather fast (Westinghouse AP600, Westinghouse AP1000, PBMR (South African modular type)...) this won' give any problems.

In the case of a capacity need, operation of certain plants could be extended for a short while. Of course taking into account safety boundary conditions

Post by **clv101** » 11 Jan 2008, 11:07

STG wrote:Seriously this is a graph made by an environmentalist!

No it's not, it's made by me based on published data from the industry.

Anyway why would an environmentalist want early closure? I think pretty much everyone wants the existing plant to carry on as long as possible.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 11 Jan 2008, 11:09

STG wrote:Seriously this is a graph made by an environmentalist!

An environmentalist would want to maximise the life of a plant, as an argument against the need to build any more.

An industry lobbyist on the other hand, would probably want to shut down the old ones ASAP to get a new generation of 'better' ones built!

Adam1 · Post by **Adam1** » 11 Jan 2008, 12:04

Great TOD post Chris.

STG wrote:Seriously this is a graph made by an environmentalist!

STG - what you seem to be saying is that anyone who produces data that punctures your belief system is to be vilified. Not a very strong argument.

I think that, given the technical problems last year that Chris referred to, it would be optimistic to assume that there aren't going to be more over the next ten years, making that canyon in ten years' time even deeper.

There will be so much pressure to speed up the new nuclear build or not delay the projects that the risk of corner cutting will be high.

It's a depressing picture. If all that resource (financial, human and energy) were instead devoted to tapping as much of the family of renewable resources that the UK has in copious quantities, plus, if we really clamped down on wasteful, inefficient use, we could put ourselves in a much stronger position by the 2020s.

The www.zerocarbonbritain.org report looked at how this might be achieved, were the political will there. To my mind, the problems we would have to solve, were we to follow the ZCB report route, look to be more manageable than the ones we will be creating for ourselves if we go down this nuclear path.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 11 Jan 2008, 12:22

STG wrote:Seriously this is a graph made by an environmentalist!

I think he's referring to the fact that the Bottom Line is green

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 11 Jan 2008, 12:23

RenewableCandy wrote:
STG wrote:Seriously this is a graph made by an environmentalist!
I think he's referring to the fact that the Bottom Line is green

Ahahah you're so sharp RC!!! Especially for a Friday . . .