Hinkley Point

[JohnB]

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

That's where the wind farm was going before the NIMBYs screwed it up, wasn't it?

I'm glad I've moved from West Somerset to nuke free West Wales!

[RGR]

[quote="JohnB"]

[kenneal - lagger]

They are going to construct a new sea wall. This will be the Maginot Line of sea walls. The flooding will out flank the wall coming in about a kilometre to the east of the site and then via Burnham on Sea and the river further to the east. This shows the extent of flooding at 7m http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.2062,-3.1316&z=3&t=1 and this at 14m http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.2062,- ... 3&m=14&t=1

With at least 160 years before decommissioning how do we know that EDF will be around to do the clean up (Clean up? What clean up?) and how do we know what the sea level will be then considering that Arctic Ice started melting at about 350 ppm of CO2 and governments are talking about levels of 450 to 550 ppm.

They should be made to build a sea wall around the whole site, including the existing power stations, to cater for a 15m sea level rise with provision to increase this as and when necessary. That might give us a truer cost of nuclear.

[biffvernon]

You can go on building sea defences higher and higher maintaining a constant risk of failure. But the higher the defence the greater the consequence of a failure. Moving up hill avoids the issue.

[alex]

They are going to construct a new sea wall. This will be the Maginot Line of sea walls. The flooding will out flank the wall coming in about a kilometre to the east of the site and then via Burnham on Sea and the river further to the east. This shows the extent of flooding at 7m http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.2062,-3.1316&z=3&t=1 and this at 14m http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.2062,- ... 3&m=14&t=1

Bit like the scene from Blazing Saddles where there is a toll gate in the Desert.

With at least 160 years before decommissioning how do we know that EDF will be around to do the clean up (Clean up? What clean up?) and how do we know what the sea level will be then considering that Arctic Ice started melting at about 350 ppm of CO2 and governments are talking about levels of 450 to 550 ppm.

Yes, who will be manning the “Clean-up” operation, and who pays for it? EDF are in financial trouble now. The environmental plan re tide levels and global warming only allows for 100 years.

The site may well have been earmarked for Wind farms, not too sure as there is a debate in the Woolavington Puriton areas a few miles up the road.

No point in moving it up hill. There is already Hinkley A on site (Being decommissioned) And the photos as earlier are Hinkley B opened in 1976. The new build will need to be by the sea for the cooling. They are driving 3 tunnels several miles out to sea by the way for the cooling, and there will be a large temporary jetty to bring in the aggregates etc. There is your carbon footprint.

Strangely I'm not against the building of Hinkley C; we have had nuclear plants at the end of our garden for the last 50 years. They have brought in some prosperity and quality employment opportunities to the area, and excellent training programmes. It was a brilliant catchment for engineers of all types.

Call me a Nimby if you like, but I live in a village 4 miles away & EDF intend to place camps of 320 itinerant workers in the village. Park & Ride for 900 cars & a freight consolidation depot operating 24/7. All this on green belt agricultural land. Whereas there are 3 empty factory sites in the neighbouring town of Bridgwater where all the above could be placed, the traffic on the A39 would be reduced as well as adding to the population of wage earners in the town of Bridgwater.

However EDF seem intent on placing all this in a village where the designated area is disproportionate to the size of the Village, and where are these workers going to go & unwind/relax?

Alex

[adam2]

I believe that IF the proposed plant is built, the intention is not only to build a sea wall, but also to elevate the plant on an artifical hill, in order to protect it from flood water.
It would be inconvienient if at high tide or during storms, the power plant became an island, but it should not be dangerous.
Proximity to the sea is desireable for cooling water.

IF this ever gets built, I dont see why wind turbines cant be erected on the same site or nearby in addition.
Wind turbines are sometimes considered to be ugly, so a good site is one already marred by large structures.
Coastal sites normally have a good wind resource.
Nuclear power plants are rail connected, as this is safer than road transport for new or spent nuclear fuel. Such a facility would be useful for components of large wind turbines.
Both wind turbines and nuclear plants require a high voltage grid connection, and this can be provided more cheaply if both are on the same site.

[JohnB]

The proposed wind farm at Hinkley was scrapped due to NIMBYism. The current power stations are an eyesore from both the Quantock Hills (AONB) and Exmoor (National Park). A new power station on an artificial hill will make it look far worse. How come that will be acceptable, when the far less obtrusive wind turbines weren't?

One of the arguments against the wind farm was that blades may break off and hit the nuke station!

[alex]

I believe that IF the proposed plant is built, the intention is not only to build a sea wall, but also to elevate the plant on an artifical hill, in order to protect it from flood water.
It would be inconvienient if at high tide or during storms, the power plant became an island, but it should not be dangerous.
Proximity to the sea is desireable for cooling water.

Only slightly elevate the plant though. Take a look at the artists impression at the end of this post. Better than that look at the website pdf files. Page 1 is the impression of the site. Page 6 relates to the proposed infrastructure in Cannington for the build period. Link to EDF Publicity Statement

IF this ever gets built, I dont see why wind turbines cant be erected on the same site or nearby in addition.
Wind turbines are sometimes considered to be ugly, so a good site is one already marred by large structures.
Coastal sites normally have a good wind resource.
Nuclear power plants are rail connected, as this is safer than road transport for new or spent nuclear fuel. Such a facility would be useful for components of large wind turbines.
Both wind turbines and nuclear plants require a high voltage grid connection, and this can be provided more cheaply if both are on the same site.

Makes perfect sense. Except there is no rail to the Site. Re windfarm, all the pylons and connection to National Grid is on site.



The brown bit in the front is the sea. Note the wall how it abruptly stops on the right. The buildings on the left is Hinkley B.

Alex

[kenneal - lagger]

From a reply to a previous submission to the consultation they are working on 500mm sea level rise by the end of the century. I suppose sea level will then either stay the same in perpetuity or go down!!! I'm not suggesting a sea wall is a good idea, I'm just putting more obstacles in the way.

The current proposal for the sea wall probably stops where it does because the cliffs change to a rock which will not erode readily. Would that be true, Alex?

The answer to JohnB's question about windfarms versus a Nuke is hysteria. There is a hysteria about NEW windfarms. Nukes have been around for years. If the nuke is vulnerable to a wind turbine blade, God help us all and don't tell Al Qaeda.

[JohnB]

The current proposal for the sea wall probably stops where it does because the cliffs change to a rock which will not erode readily. Would that be true, Alex?

This is the view looking west, I think from the proposed site

It does rise a fair distance above sea level, so is probably safe for long enough for no one alive now to care.

I was involved on the fringes of the pro wind farm campaign, but it was scrapped after I went travelling. Here's some stuff on what happened.

[alex]

Good photo.

You are in the right area, the cliff raises to about 12-18 foot and then considerably higher by the time you reach the first headland which is just before Kilve. However for the first mile or two, nothing significant in the way of rocks to start with. Mainly soil, grass & stones.

There is lots of loose shale nearer the Kilve end which was going to be open mined or extracted in the 1930's to produce oil. The idea was scrapped as the waste matter was greater than the product would have been. They even considered a railway up from Watchet.

The bit poking out on the horizon is Minehead, and you can just make out the "Bedouin Tent" of Butlins.

You can just see "Shurton Bars" which are the string of rocks right foreground. If you look at Google Earth, you will get an idea, but nothing to indicate height of the cliffs.

By the way I like the dog!

Alex

[JohnB]

By the way I like the dog!Alex

He's cute isn't he. He's just got a big mouth and bounces about too much. I was told he'd calm down by the time he was three, but he'll be twelve in August .

[biffvernon]

they are working on 500mm sea level rise by the end of the century. I suppose sea level will then either stay the same in perpetuity or go down!!!

On my side of the country the Environment Agency are modelling sea defences for 1.2m rise by end of this century. After that I assume that the Lincolnshire Marsh will be abandoned.

Before building a nuke we have to certain, like 100%, that it can be decommissioned and the site made safe before sea level floods it. We don't yet know what the worse case scenario for Greenland and WAIS melt speed might be.

[kenneal - lagger]

However for the first mile or two, nothing significant in the way of rocks to start with. Mainly soil, grass & stones.

They stopped there then because that is the end of their ownership. As long as the water doesn't come through their bit they will be alright. If it comes through some one else's I suppose they will sue!!

Bloody idiots! And we're entrusting then with our nuclear future? Was it EDF who's nuclear power station was closed down when a maintenance engineer(?) took a candle into a cable duct and burnt through some of the safety cut out cables?

[alex]

Rumour has it that EDF intend to start constructing a jetty out to sea up to 500m long ready for the build of Hinkley C. My source tells me the build is due to start 7th June. However I have since spoken to EDF local office, and they assure me there is no intention of the Jetty until planning permission has been granted, and to date they have not submitted an application

The L.A. (West Somerset District Council) tells me that EDF can make a start and apply retrospectively, but if declined they must re-instate everything back to as was.

It is common knowledge that EDF have no money, yet they are happy to squander an inordinate amount, and upset the population into the bargain.

Alex