Hinkley Point

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 23 May 2010, 09:01

The anticipated date for the Hinkley C planning application to the Infrastructure Planning Commission has slipped by four months from 2nd August to 1st December. This is the second delay in the application which was originally expected at the beginning of July.

The delay comes amidst new uncertainty over the project following the appointment of an anti-nuclear Energy Secretary Chris Huhne. In today's Times (1) Chris Huhne strengthened his assertion that new nuclear build will not receive any Government subsidies including in the event of a nuclear accident. This is a hardening of position from the previous Labour Government who had not insisted on full liability insurance for the proposed generation of reactors. The cost of full insurance may well be prohibitive to developers such as EdF Energy who want to build two giant reactors on the Somerset coast.

http://www.stophinkley.org/PressReleases/pr100516.htm

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 23 May 2010, 12:55

Shame they didn't build the wind farm there instead

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 24 May 2010, 02:27

[quote="JohnB"]

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 24 May 2010, 08:12

RGR wrote:Turn out everyone's lights for a week or two and ask everyone how they like it. I've always understood NIMBY nonsense in the US even if I wasn't happy about it, but I always figured the Brits had more sense than to tolerate that sort of nonsense.

The current nuclear power stations at Hinkley Point are at sea level. Not exactly the ideal place with rising sea levels.

.
A wind farm might get a bit rusty if it was under water, but would be a bit safer!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 24 May 2010, 13:52

What a great picture. It certainly shows that whoever decided on that site didn't know about global warming.

To want to build another nuke there because they know about global warming is bonkers.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 24 May 2010, 14:49

biffvernon wrote:What a great picture. It certainly shows that whoever decided on that site didn't know about global warming.

To want to build another nuke there because they know about global warming is bonkers.

Here are a few more. There's a public footpath that goes through part of the site, and beside the perimeter fence along the top of the beach. It's a big place.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 24 May 2010, 19:16

[quote="JohnB"]

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 24 May 2010, 19:26

[quote="biffvernon"]

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 24 May 2010, 20:07

So what's your view on this that was posted in another thread RGR?
http://www.peakoil.org.au/news/index.ph ... no_co2.htm
If accurate doesn't it make nuclear rather pointless?

Hinkley Point is in the Severn Estuary that has (I think) the second highest tides in the world. Ships do use it to get to Bristol, but LNG ships would be grounded for much of the day if they offloaded at Hinkley, if they could get there at all.

alex · Post by **alex** » 25 May 2010, 17:12

JohnB wrote: Hinkley Point is in the Severn Estuary that has (I think) the second highest tides in the world. Ships do use it to get to Bristol, but LNG ships would be grounded for much of the day if they offloaded at Hinkley, if they could get there at all.

Perfectly true!

Now think on this. The waste will be kept on site for 100 years past the "use-by date" being the anticipated life of the station, which will be 60 years. Added that will give you 160 years of contaminated nuclear waste, which in effent is a few inches above sea level.

EDF Are planning a jetty for the build period, but will be dismantled on commissioning of the plant.

Alex

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 25 May 2010, 18:16

Hi Alex and welcome to the forum.

In a separate incident, can I just point out how very nice Hinkley nuke station looks? A stunning monument to the New Brutalism in fact, with a hint of Le Corbusier in there somewhere. Of course we all know that wind turbines Don't Look NiceTM.

In another separate incident, I'm looking at the Carbon footprint of a sea wall. It's, erm, huge.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 25 May 2010, 18:40

Walking past on a concrete path with the sea wall on one side, and the security fence on the other, gives you that feeling that you shouldn't be there, and any minute someone is going to try to arrest you. Anyone who knows my lovely cuddly little monster will know that he gets extremely bouncy and noisy when approached by other humans, and his over friendliness would probably end up getting us shot! Lucky it's a public footpath, and this paranoia is all in my mind

.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 25 May 2010, 19:10

RGR wrote:The US has an entire city below sea level ...

... and we all know what happened there.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 25 May 2010, 19:30

RGR wrote: The US has an entire city below sea level...

Europe has more than half a country below sea level, the Netherlands, and they've started building new houses on rafts......

RGR wrote:..and we have more than a few nuke plants which operate hundreds of feet UNDER water....none of this sounds like a big deal.

But they are designed to work that way and have a maintenance program to stop them rusting away. They are also of a more manageable size and material.

Nice to have you back RGR. Now I've had my say I'll ignore the rest of this thread and any other where you are trying to provoke an angry response.

alex · Post by **alex** » 25 May 2010, 20:51

This is a poor image of scale. The whole thing can be viewed on the Link to EDF Energy Hinkley Site It is going to be HUGE