Re: Nuclear clean-up costs rising by £9bn
- From: Steve Cooper <src@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:48:15 +0100
hummingbird wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:29:57 +0100, Steve Cooper <src@xxxxxx>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
hummingbird wrote:
-Independent:-
"Even if we took a decision soon, no new power would arise for perhaps
10 years, and even then we would be no clearer about how to deal with
the waste," one of the authors, the former transport minister Alan
Whitehead, claimed.
Where does he get that figure from. It takes the French between 2-3 years
to build a new reactor. So lonmg as the new reactors are built alongside
the old ones, and no new lengthy planning enquiries are needed. there is
no reason we could not have a wave of new reactors oppening in under 5
years.
I think the 10 years bit is drawn from previous UK nuke power station
experiences and takes into account the various public inquiries and
public protests etc. It may also include the pre-construction process
of identifying suitable sites and geological investigations.
Neither of which would be needed for at least the first few stations
which will be built alongside existing reactors.
Partly agreed and providing there's space for additional reactors in
existing locations. I think there may still be some debate if the new
reactors were of a different design.
The nuclear industry has learnt a lot since the 70's. There are now
two internatiobally accepted designs. One the T-1000 from Westinghouse
which although a US compasny is actually owned by a UK company. There
is also a common European design which is now being built in France
and in Finland. Both of these have already gone through all the
regulatory processes and could be built with a minimal licencing
process.
These have already
been investigated and as an additiobal plus already have the grid
infrastructure in place to take the electricity. By an large these
site are accepted and should not be controversial with any fair
minded person.
I'm guessing but the public protest line might be that "one is
dangerous, two are twice as dangerous".
As the other will have been closed, or will be close to being
closed down, there will probably only be one active reactor on
the site, although on some sites there are already 2 or more
reactors.
Yes there will be a few eco-freeks who will build
themselves a nest outside the fence, but these can be pushed aside
as not representative of the majority.
One must avoid tyranny by the majority!
And Nimbys never are representative of a majority.
Nimby protests would be minimal. The large majority of local
residents are either pro or at worst agnostic about Nuclear
Power. If they weren't they'd probably not be living there.
Its outsiders as usual who will make the largest fuss.
These sites should be more than enough to build reactors to replace
the aging reactors, as altough we may be decommissioning 20 or so
reactors, most of these are way short of the 1GW stations that they
will be replaced with.
So replacing old reactors in a one-for-one will produce more output
because of more modern technology etc?
Yes, most of the old Magnox reactors only produce a few hundred MW,
and if I remember correctly even the most recent build, a PWR is
less than a GW output. I believe the figure is that you'd need to
build less than half the number of 3rd Generation GW stations to have
the same electrical output. Replacing them one for one would
produce about 2.5 times the current amount of nuclear energy, or
about 50% of our current electrical generation needs.
There should be no reason why these could not be completed in a 10-15
year build program,
It could certainly be slashed by half or so.
and in this period we can identify and go through
all the necessary enquiries for the additional site that will be
needed to increase out nuclear capacity significantly. Given the
start up delays will have been passed, we could probably double the
nuclear capacity in another 5-10 years. Allowing nuclear to provide
40% of our electricity inbetween 15-25 years, probably about 20. With
the ability to add another 10-15% every 5 years.
Sounds reasonable but it still requires avoidance of public debate to
build this new batch of reactors in controversial areas.
Which would be gone through whilst you are building the replacement
reactors on the existing sites. With the permissions in place building
can continue on the new sites once the existing sites have been
completed.
Add in the building of renewable sources with a similar commitement
we can probably have a 100% of electricty from Carbon neutral sources
in 30-35 years.
We know the French by-pass some of the inquiry process and it looks to
me like Blair will do so.
They don't bypass them, they just, very sensibly, don't keep repeating
the same enquiries. You do not need to investigate the suitability of a
site for a 2nd,3rd, 4th reactor on the same site. By building the same
type of reactor, and not our own bespoke designs again, you don't neeed
to keep having enquiries into the safety of the design. They have already
been through this.
Are you therefore proposing that new reactors are the same as existing
ones to avoid going through the approval processes?
No, you would use the latest generation of reactor designs that have
already been licenced by the international regulatory bodies and could
be quickly licenced in the UK.
Year 0: Go aheead given
Year 2: Reactors licenced in the UK
Year 5: First new reactor complete, followed by one new one every six
months
Year 10: Current capacity replaced
Year 20: Capacity doubled.
Year 30: Capacity Tripled etc.
Steve Cooper
.
- References:
- Nuclear clean-up costs rising by £9bn
- From: hummingbird
- Re: Nuclear clean-up costs rising by £9bn
- From: Steve Cooper
- Re: Nuclear clean-up costs rising by £9bn
- From: hummingbird
- Re: Nuclear clean-up costs rising by £9bn
- From: Steve Cooper
- Re: Nuclear clean-up costs rising by £9bn
- From: hummingbird
- Nuclear clean-up costs rising by £9bn
- Prev by Date: Re: "Islam, not extremism, is the problem"
- Next by Date: Re: Chris X: "Two more Brit Zionazi grunts blown to bits in Viet-raq !"
- Previous by thread: Re: Nuclear clean-up costs rising by £9bn
- Next by thread: Re: Nuclear clean-up costs rising by £9bn
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
