Hinkley Point C

Honestly as bad as it would be I almost wish we could have some serious black outs caused by our antiquated infrastructure (mostly the stations).

I think it would be the necessary kick up the backside for the country to stop relying on working museums (I'm looking at you coal and AGR fleet) for generation and get on and build a diverse modern set of power stations.

We should have built new coalers in the 90's and 00's and we should have built new nukes in the 00's and 10's and we haven't. We'll plug the gap by stressing the assets and building some more cheap gas stations and by paying for expensive capacity markets, load shedding and back up contracts. As our politicians dream of a future powered by warm rhetoric and unicorn farts.
 
Trifid said:
The issue is the cost of electricity from this new reactor is almost the same as current offshore wind generation. As much as I love nuclear power, this deal is rubbish and so we should be looking at alternatives.
Click to expand...

This is true, however we've squandered all our engineering heritage and people to overseas, so we can neither build nor maintain the nuclear program we need. The choice has been made by corrupt/ineffectual politicians and an idiot public
 
PlacidCasual said:
Edit: in response to Joeyjojo, what kind of storage projects are you thinking of because other than pumped storage for which there are limited options on the scale required in the UK there are no viable mass storage solutions at present.
Click to expand...

A diverse range, probably. Compressed air, pumped hydro, batteries, superconducting magnetic...
 
PlacidCasual said:
Shamelessly stolen from a post of mine in another thread. Based on statistical analysis of wind farm output. I meant to post it over the weekend but couldn't find the opportunity.


[/LIST]The full report is downloadable from the following link, it's been a while since I read it, so if at any point I've misrepresentated it I apologise.

https://www.johnmuirtrust.org/about...wer-generation-november-2008-to-december-2010
Click to expand...

Which is why Gas will be a n integral part to our energy mix for the foreseeable future. It's ready to go in less than an hour and can take up the strain if the renewable energy mix is not providing enough power over short periods of time.


joeyjojo said:
In lifetime cost per unit electricity, offshore wind is comparable to gas and much, much cheaper than Hinkley C.

The major difference is Hinkley C would provide a constant amount, whereas wind is intermittent.

Some huge power storage projects in the UK and more international connections to balance load around Europe would be a lot better than this overpriced nuclear station, IMO.
Click to expand...

I think I mentioned something on here a couple of years ago about this but... I went to a debate hosted by one of the large consultancies that works with the UK power industry (all facets). The renewables guy was insistent that we could get away with 100% renewable energy with current technology. His argument was hinged on international connections, but he basically said we should be aiming for three main technologies. Solar in North Africa, Wind in the North Sea and Hydro in Scandinavia. Great, until you realise how many massive dams you would need in Scandinavia (and the requisite flooding of huge swathes of land) and how much of North Africa would need to be covered in Solar panels for us to get enough power. An area notoriously unstable...

Interconnections are a great idea, but a decent domestic supply is really what we need, with top ups from neighbouring nations when needed. It's not a great idea security wise and just morally to try and dump all your energy generation infrastructure in another country. At least with things like Oil and Gas, when done properly (most of the time), there is very little interference in that country, whereas reservoirs and solar take up huge tranches of land and change areas massively.
 
Amp34 said:
Solar in North Africa, Wind in the North Sea and Hydro in Scandinavia. Great, until you realise how many massive dams you would need in Scandinavia (and the requisite flooding of huge swathes of land) and how much of North Africa would need to be covered in Solar panels for us to get enough power. An area notoriously unstable...
Click to expand...

All good points. I don't think North Africa is as hopeless as that though. Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia are decently stable. The former has been in the solar power news as they're well on the way to the largest facility in the world:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/5/10923000/morocco-biggest-solar-power-plant-sahara

Eventually will be 580 MW from 2,500 ha. Not bad when stuck in otherwise useless desert.

phil675 said:
What about transmission costs?
Click to expand...

Losses are about 3% per 1000 km, not a deal-breaker.
 
FoxEye said:
Love the (extremely) thinly veiled threats coming from Beijing now. "Go ahead with it or else."
Click to expand...

That's China for you. I'm glad the new PM doesn't look like she'll be led by the nose by the Chinese in the same way that Osborne was.
 
I fully expect the Chinese to return the favour after the humiliation we dished out to them in the Opium Wars. A little more subtle perhaps, but don't expect them to ever feel inclined to cut us a good deal, on anything.
 
As I understood it most of the national telecoms infrastructure is Chinese manufactured so if it's a security concern the horse may have bolted on that one.

I just think the EPR looks like a dog of a design that is going to cost a lot now and go on costing a lot. Also given the strike price we had to agree for the deal I think we should pay for them ourselves and not offer the French and Chinese massive guarantees and potentially big profits to take that risk for us.

Pay someone to build nukes, let out 10 year operations and maintenance agreements with UK based power companies to run them. Sell the leccy at market prices and recover the cost. Or once built sell them to a UK firm to run and re-invest the cash in the next stage so UK plc own the construction risk but UK pension funds et al own the asset afterwards.
 
PlacidCasual said:
As I understood it most of the national telecoms infrastructure is Chinese manufactured so if it's a security concern the horse may have bolted on that one.
Click to expand...

Yup. My rule is never say anything on the phone, or post anything on the internet that you're happy for the People's Army to hear/read. We are so, so dumb.
 
Major Chinese stakeholder currently under investigation for espionage in the US, glad May has cooled down to reassess.
 
joeyjojo said:
All good points. I don't think North Africa is as hopeless as that though. Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia are decently stable. The former has been in the solar power news as they're well on the way to the largest facility in the world:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/5/10923000/morocco-biggest-solar-power-plant-sahara

Eventually will be 580 MW from 2,500 ha. Not bad when stuck in otherwise useless desert.



Losses are about 3% per 1000 km, not a deal-breaker.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there are stable areas, that said Tunisia just had a revolution/uprising and Algeria is still dealing with terrorism.

"Useless desert" is a matter of opinion. There is a huge amount of life there, along with a lot of (still semi) nomadic people. All you're really doing is moving power generation out of sight and out of mind. The same with damming up many of Norways fjords. There is still an environmental, human and economic cost to the generation.
 
PlacidCasual said:
As I understood it most of the national telecoms infrastructure is Chinese manufactured so if it's a security concern the horse may have bolted on that one.

I just think the EPR looks like a dog of a design that is going to cost a lot now and go on costing a lot. Also given the strike price we had to agree for the deal I think we should pay for them ourselves and not offer the French and Chinese massive guarantees and potentially big profits to take that risk for us.

Pay someone to build nukes, let out 10 year operations and maintenance agreements with UK based power companies to run them. Sell the leccy at market prices and recover the cost. Or once built sell them to a UK firm to run and re-invest the cash in the next stage so UK plc own the construction risk but UK pension funds et al own the asset afterwards.
Click to expand...

I though part of the problem is we don't have the manufacturing capability to make the reactor and we don't have the human expertise to design it either, hense going to other countries/companies that know what they are doing.

scorza said:
Yup. My rule is never say anything on the phone, or post anything on the internet that you're happy for the People's Army to hear/read. We are so, so dumb.
Click to expand...

Of the US for that matter...
 
Amp34 said:
Yeah, there are stable areas, that said Tunisia just had a revolution/uprising and Algeria is still dealing with terrorism.

"Useless desert" is a matter of opinion. There is a huge amount of life there, along with a lot of (still semi) nomadic people. All you're really doing is moving power generation out of sight and out of mind. The same with damming up many of Norways fjords. There is still an environmental, human and economic cost to the generation.
Click to expand...

Gotta support that infinite growth for infinite GDP bruh, **** the nomads and **** the Wildlife. :cool:


/s
 
scorza said:
Yup. My rule is never say anything on the phone, or post anything on the internet that you're happy for the People's Army to hear/read. We are so, so dumb.
Click to expand...

I dont think i or you have anything to say that would interest the people's army
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom