UK plans eight new nuclear reactors to boost production

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

ho hum

**LINK**

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

[Stuart Smith 5Participant @stuartsmith5]

It’s just a pity that the existing reactors weren’t replaced on each site as they came to the end of their lives.

We wouldn’t then have used up our gas reserves making electricity.

Governments can’t see long term though, and are too easily influenced by lobbying.

Stuart

[David-Clark 1Participant @david-clark1]

I hope they do netter than they did back in the 1970s. I worked on a Bridgeport mill next to someone who was making telescopic arms for Windfrith nuclear establishment in Dorset. They were large stainless tubes about 5 inches diameter. Every so often you heard “shit” followed by a bit of riveting where he had drilled a hole wrong and had to fill it.

I knew this was wrong but did not know why or even what nuclear energy was back in those days.

any system is only as safe as the weakest link.

And the weakest link is “Boris”.

[Henry BrownParticipant @henrybrown95529]

So, we have over 200 years worth of coal under us, I can't understand why some serious effort isn't put into making it a cleaner fuel. I worked in the coal mining machinery industry (Dowty) back before Mrs T decided she didn't like the miners, so switched us to the then more expensive foreign gas.

The hazards and costs from nuclear are well known, I'm guessing they will be French or Chinese installations and we'll be paying over the odds per kw/h and there won't be many of the new stations located in the South East or where most of the demand will come from.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Tidal, geothermal, wind, all go forever, no pollution, and just need maintenance

But we spend100s of billions on disposable nuclear duracell batteries which need binned after 50 years and cost another 100 billion to dispose of

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Henry Brown on 07/04/2022 11:47:35:

So, we have over 200 years worth of coal under us, I can't understand why some serious effort isn't put into making it a cleaner fuel.

Serious, serious effort has been put into making coal a cleaner fuel for well over 50 years now. So far, no significant progress. There is a lot of money to be made if coal could be made into a "clean" fuel, so rest assured no stone has been left unturned. But still no great progress. It's a bit like alchemy, someone is always on the brink of working out the secret, but nobody ever seems to get there, or even close.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

It took 5 years from thinking a power producing reactor would be a good idea to Calder Hall going on line. It then ran fit about 40 years. Why does it take so long now? . Modern reactors produce far less radioactive waste. Despite the scaremongers, nuclear is one of the safest means of making electricity. Today's statement is that 'up to' 8 reactors will be approved within 8 years. Meaningless polito jargon.

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

We could certainly make coal a 'clean enough' fuel to use economically to make electricity , until such time as the cleaner alternatives could replace it..

However , that is too simple , it is not in the future plans of our leaders for us.

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

Governments love big vanity projects and infrastructure plans. I bet a huge order for brown envelopes is imminent.

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Posted by J Hancock on 07/04/2022 14:27:27:

We could certainly make coal a 'clean enough' fuel to use economically to make electricity , until such time as the cleaner alternatives could replace it..

However , that is too simple , it is not in the future plans of our leaders for us.

 

I think it should be clear enough there's no simple way through this. We have to maintain the capability to scale all the generation technologies to suit the environmental requirements and geopolitical strategies as they evolve and change. Fossil fuel, carbon capture, hydro, fission, fusion all have a potential part to play and governments can't afford to ignore any of them.

Edited By Mick B1 on 07/04/2022 17:09:49

[old martParticipant @oldmart]

If only coal was carbon free.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by old mart on 07/04/2022 18:36:08:

If only coal was carbon free.

but they haven't invented carbon free coal yet, perhaps HMG will suggest it next

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

Where did the 'off-the-shelf ' small modular reactors go ?

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Rolls Royce reckon they could have one running by 2029 if they start now, but it will take until then to get all the public enquiries and court cases over with. We pay politicians to take these sort of decisions, but they continually dodge responsibility

[JAParticipant @ja]

Posted by J Hancock on 07/04/2022 19:07:07:

Where did the 'off-the-shelf ' small modular reactors go ?

No where. This is what RR is considering, essentially a factory built reactor. They have been trying to sell the idea for years.

JA

Don't worry, nuclear fusion will solve all our problems, the day after tomorrow.

Edited By JA on 07/04/2022 20:03:01

[Roderick JenkinsParticipant @roderickjenkins93242]

Posted by duncan webster on 07/04/2022 19:35:41:

Rolls Royce reckon they could have one running by 2029 if they start now, but it will take until then to get all the public enquiries and court cases over with. We pay politicians to take these sort of decisions, but they continually dodge responsibility

RR have been building them for years to power our submarines so, technically, there shouldn't be any major issues.

Rod

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Civil SMRs are very different to submarine reactors, but Roderick is right, the world has been building power reactors for 70 years now, we know how to do it

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Henry Brown on 07/04/2022 11:47:35:

So, we have over 200 years worth of coal under us,…

I don't know where that idea comes from! British coalfields were heavily mined for over 250 years and most of the coal's been extracted. What's left will surely be got in the future, but there isn't enough to solve the UK's energy problem.

Have a look at Wikipedia's list of the top 29 countries with coal reserves. The UK isn't on it.

Mrs T shut the collieries because they were almost all nearing end of life. Bashing the unions was an opportunity she chose to take advantage of. Her supporters loved it. Mr Scargill would have won if there had been another 20 years of coal to be had.

Dave

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

There is plenty of coal below the UK, see  UK coal. How much of it is economically recoverable depends on what people are prepared to pay for it, and whether we can persuade anyone to work in dangerous conditions underground. However, burning it would contribute to the ruination of the planet, so apart from where there is no alternative (Heritage railways being a case in point) its best left where it is. Converting iron ore to iron metal is another major use of coal. Injecting hydrogen as well as using coke can reduce CO2 emissions by 21% (as long as you use green hydrogen). This process is well established. There is another process which doesn't use coke, but only one plant in Europe. Again it needs green hydrogen to eliminate CO2. All this boils down to a need for a lot more electricity to produce green hydrogen, which can be stored, thus reducing the problem of intermittent wind/solar. For more info see pt1 and pt 2. This second method sounds good, but it will be more expensive. Unless we persuade everyone to adopt it we can only go it alone by taxing imports, and that sets off trade wars which we would lose.

Edited By duncan webster on 07/04/2022 23:17:25

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

Coal reserves is an interesting argument. The figures quoted can be known accessible reserves from known mines or known land resources or the elephant of North Sea reserves estimated 3-23 trillion tonnes. So no theoretical shortage..

[David George 1Participant @davidgeorge1]

Having worked in various prodjects and parts for RR ie sealing rings heat transfer tubes and doors for nuclear reactors which were stainless steel and a refuelling rig for submarines so long ago 1970s i dont know why we don't have the knowhow sooner, perhaps it's the power generation side which is taking the time to sort out. Also there was a project to make coal mining autonamus machinery which was looked at by Dowty and Dosco which was to remove human from underground mining. Also there was loads of money spent on carbon dioxide capture at power stations what hapened to that.

David

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

Even the major news channels keep talking about eight new nuclear power stations instead of eight 'reactors '

as in the first government statement.

In any event , our ( UK ) ability to build reactors, boilers, turbines, etc , of sufficient size or quantity has long gone.

Houses ,warehouses, no problem , real factories no chance.

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

The announcement of 8 reactors is just a pr exercise to appease the voters so that our masters can be seen to be doing something, by the time the public expect results those who made the promises will be long gone from office. We have to get away from short term decisions that are made to curry favour with the public and have proper long term binding planning decisions that mean something and are followed through with positive outcomes. I won’t hold my breath waiting. Dave W

[Author]

Posts