FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > They will build a nuclear power plant in summerset
They will build a nuclear power plant in summerset
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"A new plant will be build in summerset and 70% of the electricity will be supplied by it, what do you think of nuclear power, is it good or bad? It seems china got a big say on it, they will take a 3rd of the project and will be ready 2025." The old plant is coming to the end of its working life and until things change on the green scene there is little option. I've worked on plants and have to say it was a experience   | |||
 | |||
"What would be better ? "Currently nothing. | |||
"What would be better ?
Currently nothing."It's what to do with the waste? (No one has answered that, let alone thought of it) What about safety (accidents do happen , ask the Russsian and Japanese ) and thank god it's not near London! | |||
| |||
"What would be better ?
Currently nothing.
It's what to do with the waste? (No one has answered that, let alone thought of it)
What about safety (accidents do happen , ask the Russsian and Japanese )
and thank god it's not near London!". 90 miles on a westerly wind won't save you I'm afraid!.. When Chernobyl went up it irradiated most of Europe and theres welsh sheep, that still aren't fit for consumption | |||
"If you think living in London is going to save you,think again. Nuclear fallout from Chernobyl, spread all across western Europe and still affects farms in Cumbria and Wales almost 30 years later. Thats of no matter to the dishonest MPs that have decided to allow it to go ahead." . Me and my shadow  | |||
"If you think living in London is going to save you,think again. Nuclear fallout from Chernobyl, spread all across western Europe and still affects farms in Cumbria and Wales almost 30 years later. Thats of no matter to the dishonest MPs that have decided to allow it to go ahead." Errr I'm quite aware of it, but I still wouldn't want it on my door step. | |||
| |||
" Errr I'm quite aware of it, but I still wouldn't want it on my door step." It is on your door step though !!!!!!!!! | |||
"What would be better ?
Currently nothing.
It's what to do with the waste? (No one has answered that, let alone thought of it)
What about safety (accidents do happen , ask the Russsian and Japanese )
and thank god it's not near London!"Yes accidents do happen but they're incredibly rare and out of the two you've used as examples only one was an accident the other was the result of a massive natural disaster. Waste, that is the issue although I'm not sure what the half life is on nuclear reactor waste is. I seem to remember it's not as long as people think. | |||
" Yes accidents do happen but they're incredibly rare and out of the two you've used as examples only one was an accident the other was the result of a massive natural disaster. Waste, that is the issue although I'm not sure what the half life is on nuclear reactor waste is. I seem to remember it's not as long as people think." From the governments on data; Uranium's most stable isotope, uranium-238, has a half-life of about 4,468,000,000 years. Not so bad if you say it really really fast.  | |||
"What would be better ?
Currently nothing.
It's what to do with the waste? (No one has answered that, let alone thought of it)
What about safety (accidents do happen , ask the Russsian and Japanese )
and thank god it's not near London!.
90 miles on a westerly wind won't save you I'm afraid!..
When Chernobyl went up it irradiated most of Europe and theres welsh sheep, that still aren't fit for consumption"sheep? sounds like bull to me. | |||
" Yes accidents do happen but they're incredibly rare and out of the two you've used as examples only one was an accident the other was the result of a massive natural disaster. Waste, that is the issue although I'm not sure what the half life is on nuclear reactor waste is. I seem to remember it's not as long as people think. From the governments on data; Uranium's most stable isotope, uranium-238, has a half-life of about 4,468,000,000 years. Not so bad if you say it really really fast. "Is Uranium-238 produced in nuclear fuel waste? (I honestly don't know) I think I saw a documentary that said much of the waste only has a half life of a couple of decades although there's a chance I imagined that... | |||
"High-Level Waste High-level radioactive waste primarily is uranium fuel that has been used in a nuclear power reactor and is "spent," or no longer efficient in producing electricity. Spent fuel is thermally hot as well as highly radioactive and requires remote handling and shielding. Nuclear reactor fuel contains ceramic pellets of uranium 235 inside of metal rods. Before these fuel rods are used, they are only slightly radioactive and may be handled without special shielding. During the fission process, two things happen to the uranium in the fuel. First, uranium atoms split, creating energy that is used to produce electricity. The fission creates radioactive isotopes of lighter elements such as cesium-137 and strontium-90. These isotopes, called "fission products," account for most of the heat and penetrating radiation in high-level waste. Second, some uranium atoms capture neutrons produced during fission. These atoms form heavier elements such as plutonium. These heavier-than-uranium, or "transuranic," elements do not produce nearly the amount of heat or penetrating radiation that fission products do, but they take much longer to decay. Transuranic wastes, sometimes called TRU, account for most of the radioactive hazard remaining in high-level waste after 1,000 years. Radioactive isotopes eventually decay, or disintegrate, to harmless materials. Some isotopes decay in hours or even minutes, but others decay very slowly. Strontium-90 and cesium-137 have half-lives of about 30 years (half the radioactivity will decay in 30 years). Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years. High-level wastes are hazardous because they produce fatal radiation doses during short periods of direct exposure. For example, 10 years after removal from a reactor, the surface dose rate for a typical spent fuel assembly exceeds 10,000 rem/hour – far greater than the fatal whole-body dose for humans of about 500 rem received all at once. If isotopes from these high-level wastes get into groundwater or rivers, they may enter food chains. The dose produced through this indirect exposure would be much smaller than a direct-exposure dose, but a much larger population could be exposed. Reprocessing separates residual uranium and plutonium from the fission products. The uranium and plutonium can be used again as fuel. Most of the high-level waste (other than spent fuel) generated over the last 35 years has come from reprocessing fuel from government-owned plutonium production reactors and from naval, research and test reactors. A small amount of liquid high-level waste was generated from reprocessing commercial power reactor fuel in the 1960s and early 1970s. There is no commercial reprocessing of nuclear power fuel in the United States at present; almost all existing commercial high-level waste is unreprocessed spent fuel." | |||
| |||
"What would be better ?
Currently nothing.
It's what to do with the waste? (No one has answered that, let alone thought of it)
What about safety (accidents do happen , ask the Russsian and Japanese )
and thank god it's not near London!
Yes accidents do happen but they're incredibly rare and out of the two you've used as examples only one was an accident the other was the result of a massive natural disaster.
Waste, that is the issue although I'm not sure what the half life is on nuclear reactor waste is. I seem to remember it's not as long as people think."They are not rare enough. And natural disasters have a nasty habit of being a complete surprise. Considering the likelihood AND the severity of a meltdown or leak, I don't think they're worth it. I just wonder what Eire have to say about it. That's yet another one of our plants that they will be affected by if it goes tits up. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Just grabbed this from an American site. It would seem that much of the high level waste can be reprocessed and used again (which isn't happening) and the less heavy elements decay quite rapidly... High-Level Waste High-level radioactive waste primarily is uranium fuel that has been used in a nuclear power reactor and is "spent," or no longer efficient in producing electricity. Spent fuel is thermally hot as well as highly radioactive and requires remote handling and shielding. Nuclear reactor fuel contains ceramic pellets of uranium 235 inside of metal rods. Before these fuel rods are used, they are only slightly radioactive and may be handled without special shielding. During the fission process, two things happen to the uranium in the fuel. First, uranium atoms split, creating energy that is used to produce electricity. The fission creates radioactive isotopes of lighter elements such as cesium-137 and strontium-90. These isotopes, called "fission products," account for most of the heat and penetrating radiation in high-level waste. Second, some uranium atoms capture neutrons produced during fission. These atoms form heavier elements such as plutonium. These heavier-than-uranium, or "transuranic," elements do not produce nearly the amount of heat or penetrating radiation that fission products do, but they take much longer to decay. Transuranic wastes, sometimes called TRU, account for most of the radioactive hazard remaining in high-level waste after 1,000 years. Radioactive isotopes eventually decay, or disintegrate, to harmless materials. Some isotopes decay in hours or even minutes, but others decay very slowly. Strontium-90 and cesium-137 have half-lives of about 30 years (half the radioactivity will decay in 30 years). Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years. High-level wastes are hazardous because they produce fatal radiation doses during short periods of direct exposure. For example, 10 years after removal from a reactor, the surface dose rate for a typical spent fuel assembly exceeds 10,000 rem/hour – far greater than the fatal whole-body dose for humans of about 500 rem received all at once. If isotopes from these high-level wastes get into groundwater or rivers, they may enter food chains. The dose produced through this indirect exposure would be much smaller than a direct-exposure dose, but a much larger population could be exposed. Reprocessing separates residual uranium and plutonium from the fission products. The uranium and plutonium can be used again as fuel. Most of the high-level waste (other than spent fuel) generated over the last 35 years has come from reprocessing fuel from government-owned plutonium production reactors and from naval, research and test reactors. A small amount of liquid high-level waste was generated from reprocessing commercial power reactor fuel in the 1960s and early 1970s. There is no commercial reprocessing of nuclear power fuel in the United States at present; almost all existing commercial high-level waste is unreprocessed spent fuel." . The radioactivity is actually secondary to the fact that strontium, cesium, plutonium and the 100 other isotopes created in nuclear power plants are exceedingly toxic heavy metals. I ounce of polonium can kill hundreds of thousands such is it's toxicity. The longest half life is depleted uranium, the stuff the army use, is half life is basically forever or longer than the earth will be here anyway. It's not that radioactive because of its long half life, but ingest a few micro gramms and see what your like in ten years | |||
| |||
"The thought of china building a nuclear plant, when there new buildings as constantly falling apart... "It's not exactly China building it though  They're just the financiers 
It's being constructed by EDF, and by European construction crew, principally British.
| |||
"What would be better ?
Currently nothing.
It's what to do with the waste? (No one has answered that, let alone thought of it)
What about safety (accidents do happen , ask the Russsian and Japanese )
and thank god it's not near London!
Yes accidents do happen but they're incredibly rare and out of the two you've used as examples only one was an accident the other was the result of a massive natural disaster.
Waste, that is the issue although I'm not sure what the half life is on nuclear reactor waste is. I seem to remember it's not as long as people think.". By the way windscale came within... This much in the fifties | |||
"The thought of china building a nuclear plant, when there new buildings as constantly falling apart...
It's not exactly China building it though They're just the financiers
It's being constructed by EDF, and by European construction crew, principally British.
"Steel from where i wonder..? | |||
| |||
"I thought the French government had pulled out of building UK nuclear power plants ????" . The Chinese were always building the building,edf were deciding whether to build the reactor, as far as I know they still are | |||
| |||
| |||
"If it is built it will be in Somerset...." . If it's built!.. I will be moving! Right now it's pointless anyhow The minimum date for start up is 2028 by that time every reactor in Britain except one will be shut down in 2023! I think the other one is being shut down in 2030! So whats the plan between 2023 and 2028. It's not needed in my opinion and is another gigantic waste of money! Put regulations in place that stop, nuclear and coal and gas.. And guess what human ingenuity will find solutions, that's what we do, but carry along with the same old shit and we won't as there's no need! The industrial revolution was kick started by necessity, the mass production was kick started by union labour rates... Put obstacles in business,s way and they find solutions... Take obstacles away and it carries on doing the easy shit | |||
| |||
| |||
"What would be better ?
Currently nothing.
It's what to do with the waste? (No one has answered that, let alone thought of it)
What about safety (accidents do happen , ask the Russsian and Japanese )
and thank god it's not near London!.
90 miles on a westerly wind won't save you I'm afraid!..
When Chernobyl went up it irradiated most of Europe and theres welsh sheep, that still aren't fit for consumption
sheep? sounds like bull to me."If the sheep aren't fit for human consumption why are the Welsh keeping them? Don't answer that!  | |||
"Finished just in time to power up HS2 then. ". That's the modern thing though... Everyone thinks we throw to many problems at business... It's the reverse, we don't throw enough! Business has to evolve, just like we do... Problems fundermentally make business evolve for the better, and the better they get the better off we'll all be. When they stagnate because we make it to easy for them, like the last thirty years... We all get worse off! If you want the big problems solving the best solution is to force business to change, because trust me... It will change anybody that says... Oh there'll go abroad, just doesn't get how entrepreneurship works | |||
| |||
"A new plant will be build in summerset and 70% of the electricity will be supplied by it, what do you think of nuclear power, is it good or bad? It seems china got a big say on it, they will take a 3rd of the project and will be ready 2025." . I've only just noticed but... It's 7% .... Not 70% mate | |||
| |||
| |||
"A new plant will be build in summerset and 70% of the electricity will be supplied by it, what do you think of nuclear power, is it good or bad? It seems china got a big say on it, they will take a 3rd of the project and will be ready 2025.. I've only just noticed but... It's 7% .... Not 70% mate" Trust you to go splitting hairs on its output. Those thinking they are safe in London should check out the whole of the deal though. The Chinese utility has also agreed to help EDF build two more Areva-designed EPR reactors at Sizewell, east England, and EDF has agreed to help CGN win a licence to build a Chinese-designed nuclear reactor in Britain at the Bradwell site, east of London. | |||
"A new plant will be build in summerset and 70% of the electricity will be supplied by it, what do you think of nuclear power, is it good or bad? It seems china got a big say on it, they will take a 3rd of the project and will be ready 2025.. I've only just noticed but... It's 7% .... Not 70% mate" Yes and ty pal. I must of heard it wrong there, yeah 7% it is. | |||
"A new plant will be build in summerset and 70% of the electricity will be supplied by it, what do you think of nuclear power, is it good or bad? It seems china got a big say on it, they will take a 3rd of the project and will be ready 2025.. I've only just noticed but... It's 7% .... Not 70% mate" I was just going to say that lol Well spotted | |||
"A new plant will be build in summerset and 70% of the electricity will be supplied by it, what do you think of nuclear power, is it good or bad? It seems china got a big say on it, they will take a 3rd of the project and will be ready 2025." * Somerset Pronounced: "Zummerzet, arr" | |||
"What would be better ? "Going back to the days of fork handles | |||
"What would be better ?
Going back to the days of fork handles ". Four candles | |||
| |||
"there needs to be more research and investment in arc reactors ". There's dozens of alternatives but none that produce plutonium 239... Sure those uranium bombs are good but there not the gee whiz kabomb shit of plutonium... That shits so good, you have to use uranium to set off the plutonium... Kaaaaabomeee .
Of course with all this... Hell we can't manage without nuclear...
Err how does that go down with like Iran and... Other rogue states who keep saying we want nuclear power too but you lot keep saying you can manage without it.
There'll now say... Well you lot can't, so we can't, so we need it to | |||
| |||
"Well they are still storing nuclear waste,that was produced in the 1950s. The reason they store it in ponds to keep it cool and prevent another disaster is simple. They dont have a single idea of what else to do with it,60+ years after producing it. Personally I would bury it all in back gardens, shared out equally amongst every single MP that has allowed this to happen. That would be every MP since Calder Hall was given planning permission." | |||
"The thought of china building a nuclear plant, when there new buildings as constantly falling apart...
It's not exactly China building it though They're just the financiers
It's being constructed by EDF, and by European construction crew, principally British.
"I worked on Didcot b...the Germans built and ran it,the control room was all German guys,the Brits were just not good enough to live with them in the brains dept. We made a cracking job of the staircases though | |||
"What would be better ?
Going back to the days of fork handles .
Four candles "Noooooo handles for forks,,,, | |||
"Hello all, I've said it before but there is no option to nuclear power generation if we want to have stable power in the U.K. (And we can't do without it) The talk of renewables doing the job is pie in the sky. The physics are against it. The only one with some potential is tidal but that means utilising the whole of the U.K. coastline, no small task. We have wasted too much time and vast amounts of money on Wind and it's small brother Solar. Yes, there are problems with Nuclear generation, but they have been exaggerated by many. The volume of high level waste is extremely small and decays to reasonable levels in 1000 years so storage is manageable. The fuel cost are very small as the amount required to fuel the stations are tiny. Gas, oil and coal are very good fuels also but seem to be out of favour due to a steadily declining belief that CO2 will end the world! Alec" Tell me then, what reactor is going to provide this panacea of nuclear power you speak of. And you obviously have no idea about the renewable figures, because evan as we speak, wind power provides more of a our stable UK output than nuclear does. In 2013/2014, over a gigawatt of solar was installed by roofers and elctricians. Tell me again how long we're going to be waiting for a fresh gigawatt of nuclear power? And dont bleat about subsidies either. Nuclear power has more subsidies than all the green sources combined.  | |||
| |||
"Its about time we started investing back in nuclear, rather than wasting buckloads of money on wind turbines and solar. I do hope the tidal barrage that is being built works, thats about the only renewable energy source I can seeing working when we need it to." whut. I am again staggered by peoples ignorance on here. What part of 'nuclear subsidies' dont you understand? nuclear power has had trillions in investment, yet nearly every design and project is on halt. Go ask the Finns about Olkiuloto. Or the French about Flamanville. Ask the chinese about Taishan the or the Yanks about Vogtle, South Carolina. Renewable sources have had very little in the way of subsidies, and yet it is providing continuous, reliable carbon neutral power into our grid. | |||
"Its about time we started investing back in nuclear, rather than wasting buckloads of money on wind turbines and solar. I do hope the tidal barrage that is being built works, thats about the only renewable energy source I can seeing working when we need it to. whut. I am again staggered by peoples ignorance on here. What part of 'nuclear subsidies' dont you understand? nuclear power has had trillions in investment, yet nearly every design and project is on halt. Go ask the Finns about Olkiuloto. Or the French about Flamanville. Ask the chinese about Taishan the or the Yanks about Vogtle, South Carolina. Renewable sources have had very little in the way of subsidies, and yet it is providing continuous, reliable carbon neutral power into our grid." You've never heard of FiT, RO and CFD then? All there for windmills etc | |||
| |||
"What would be better ?
Currently nothing.
It's what to do with the waste? (No one has answered that, let alone thought of it)
What about safety (accidents do happen , ask the Russsian and Japanese )
and thank god it's not near London!.
90 miles on a westerly wind won't save you I'm afraid!..
When Chernobyl went up it irradiated most of Europe and theres welsh sheep, that still aren't fit for consumption
sheep? sounds like bull to me.
If the sheep aren't fit for human consumption why are the Welsh keeping them?
Don't answer that! "boring, predictable and offensive | |||
"Every country in the world is taking a step back from Nuclear power. Still at £2000 decommissioning cost for every kwh produced, glad I will be long dead before it bankrupts UK dont give a f**k Ltd." with the Chinese setting the price of the electric at twice what we pay now we will all end up bankrupt | |||
"Every country in the world is taking a step back from Nuclear power. Still at £2000 decommissioning cost for every kwh produced, glad I will be long dead before it bankrupts UK dont give a f**k Ltd. with the Chinese setting the price of the electric at twice what we pay now we will all end up bankrupt" The 'strike price' is £92.50MWh. About half what you pay for windmills and solar | |||
" The 'strike price' is £92.50MWh. About half what you pay for windmills and solar "Onshore wind gets 0.9 of a ROC at £46 per current ROC, plus base market price (currently about £50 per MW) That diminishing too. The nuclear strike price is guaranteed for 35 fucking years, plus the get 7 other distinct and seperate forms of subsidies. | |||
" The 'strike price' is £92.50MWh. About half what you pay for windmills and solar
Onshore wind gets 0.9 of a ROC at £46 per current ROC, plusth base market price (currently about £50 per MW)
That diminishing too. The nuclear strike price is guaranteed for 35 fucking years, plus the get 7 other distinct and seperate forms of subsidies.". Somebody with an ounce of sense at last... I've been through this a million times on here but still people trot out the same old bullshit they've read in a newspaper!! Nuclear costs a fucking fortune.. Here's what they never fucking tell you... Decommissioning costs.. Yeah those ones you just say oh fuck it my kids can pay for that... Just so long as I've got cheap energy for me because I'm a selfish fucking twat who only thinks of myself... Me me me me me me... That's today's society | |||
| |||
"A new plant will be build in summerset and 70% of the electricity will be supplied by it, what do you think of nuclear power, is it good or bad? It seems china got a big say on it, they will take a 3rd of the project and will be ready 2025." Somerset | |||
| |||
"Was it a coincidence that the Chinese prime minister came for a visit yesterday to London, wonder if he visited the site?" Wot have you done for the avatar dude?!!  | |||
"Was it a coincidence that the Chinese prime minister came for a visit yesterday to London, wonder if he visited the site? Wot have you done for the avatar dude?!! "Yes, it is my Halloween outfit, will you have one too? | |||
| |||
"Was it a coincidence that the Chinese prime minister came for a visit yesterday to London, wonder if he visited the site? Wot have you done for the avatar dude?!! Yes, it is my Halloween outfit, will you have one too?"I've only just recovered from the last one! | |||
"Was it a coincidence that the Chinese prime minister came for a visit yesterday to London, wonder if he visited the site? Wot have you done for the avatar dude?!! Yes, it is my Halloween outfit, will you have one too?
I've only just recovered from the last one!"Yes, there is still days left for you there. | |||
| |||
"It's a really bad deal financially for the UK. We should have invested a lot more a long time ago in replacement power sources. It's not as if there are any surprises over plant closures or global warming. Nuclear and other traditional sources have had too much subsidy though, paid for by us, whilst businesses get richer at our expense." At £18bn, it does seem eye-wateringly expensive. And we all know how costs can escalate and projects can be delayed... | |||
"What would be better ?
Currently nothing.
It's what to do with the waste? (No one has answered that, let alone thought of it)
What about safety (accidents do happen , ask the Russsian and Japanese )
and thank god it's not near London!"Sellafield is currently being decommissioned and the waste is being dealt with. Regarding being nowhere near London, I assume you think if a nuclear power plant in the middle of nowhere goes boom you'll be safe in London. Both statements very wrong I'm afraid. | |||
"What would be better ?
Currently nothing.
It's what to do with the waste? (No one has answered that, let alone thought of it)
What about safety (accidents do happen , ask the Russsian and Japanese )
and thank god it's not near London!
Sellafield is currently being decommissioned and the waste is being dealt with.
Regarding being nowhere near London, I assume you think if a nuclear power plant in the middle of nowhere goes boom you'll be safe in London.
Both statements very wrong I'm afraid."...and they need *a lot* of water, hence they are usually sited on the coast | |||
| |||
"Hello all, I've said it before but there is no option to nuclear power generation if we want to have stable power in the U.K. (And we can't do without it) The talk of renewables doing the job is pie in the sky. The physics are against it. The only one with some potential is tidal but that means utilising the whole of the U.K. coastline, no small task. We have wasted too much time and vast amounts of money on Wind and it's small brother Solar. Yes, there are problems with Nuclear generation, but they have been exaggerated by many. The volume of high level waste is extremely small and decays to reasonable levels in 1000 years so storage is manageable. The fuel cost are very small as the amount required to fuel the stations are tiny. Gas, oil and coal are very good fuels also but seem to be out of favour due to a steadily declining belief that CO2 will end the world! Alec" This. | |||
"I've not read the whole thread but I'm more nervous of the Chinese having any control/input in out energy supplies. Sorry if anyone has mentioned this but the UK leads the world on wave power research etc. and we're still sticking up inefficient wind turbines "Because leading the world in research and "have researched a product that works" are two very different things. Untill recently JET in the UK was (might still be in some metrics) the world leading nuclear fusion reactor....doesn't mean we can make a fusion power plant though. We've got some good designs for wave power but they're so problematic they aren't currently viable for mass production and fielding so you can't build something you don't have. | |||
"Its about time we started investing back in nuclear, rather than wasting buckloads of money on wind turbines and solar. I do hope the tidal barrage that is being built works, thats about the only renewable energy source I can seeing working when we need it to. whut. I am again staggered by peoples ignorance on here. What part of 'nuclear subsidies' dont you understand? nuclear power has had trillions in investment, yet nearly every design and project is on halt. Go ask the Finns about Olkiuloto. Or the French about Flamanville. Ask the chinese about Taishan the or the Yanks about Vogtle, South Carolina. Renewable sources have had very little in the way of subsidies, and yet it is providing continuous, reliable carbon neutral power into our grid." Renewable have more subsidies per watt hour than nuclear least they did a few years ago. | |||
"The thought of china building a nuclear plant, when there new buildings as constantly falling apart...
It's not exactly China building it though They're just the financiers
It's being constructed by EDF, and by European construction crew, principally British.
Steel from where i wonder..?"For reactor vessels usually Japan steel or forge masters in the UK. Depending on the sizes needed most likely forge masters but if it's too big japan | |||
"As an independent I have spent a fair few years studying this for our national transmission operator and government I can tell you this without doubt, the only reasonable source of reliable power right now is nuclear. Wind is less than 15% efficient solar even less so, both are unreliable and the reliance on them has pushed back our shut down dates on all CCG turbines. The final recommendation to this company and to the SoS and Energy Minster is to ensure that all of our focus should be on tidal and it should be funded by the withdrawal of the strike price for wind/solar. " Plus wind power can only generate electricity in certain circumstances. We have to keep power stations fired up and on stand by for when wind can't generate enough, or indeed any, electricity. Now that's a real smart solution eh? Promote one form of generation to do away with another, but the one promoted can't do the job and you have to keep the one you're trying to replace running as a back up. Genius...... | |||
| |||
" The 'strike price' is £92.50MWh. About half what you pay for windmills and solar
Onshore wind gets 0.9 of a ROC at £46 per current ROC, plusth base market price (currently about £50 per MW)
That diminishing too. The nuclear strike price is guaranteed for 35 fucking years, plus the get 7 other distinct and seperate forms of subsidies..
Somebody with an ounce of sense at last...
I've been through this a million times on here but still people trot out the same old bullshit they've read in a newspaper!!
Nuclear costs a fucking fortune.. Here's what they never fucking tell you...
Decommissioning costs.. Yeah those ones you just say oh fuck it my kids can pay for that... Just so long as I've got cheap energy for me because I'm a selfish fucking twat who only thinks of myself...
Me me me me me me... That's today's society
"I'm willing to bet there's a "peer reviewed scientific paper" on it somewhere..... | |||
"As an independent I have spent a fair few years studying this for our national transmission operator and government I can tell you this without doubt, the only reasonable source of reliable power right now is nuclear. Wind is less than 15% efficient solar even less so, both are unreliable and the reliance on them has pushed back our shut down dates on all CCG turbines. The final recommendation to this company and to the SoS and Energy Minster is to ensure that all of our focus should be on tidal and it should be funded by the withdrawal of the strike price for wind/solar. Plus wind power can only generate electricity in certain circumstances. We have to keep power stations fired up and on stand by for when wind can't generate enough, or indeed any, electricity. Now that's a real smart solution eh? Promote one form of generation to do away with another, but the one promoted can't do the job and you have to keep the one you're trying to replace running as a back up. Genius...... " To be fair though it's very rare for a gasturbine to ever be shut off completely because they take so long to start up we tend to keep them on tick over if they're acting as back up for wind, nuclear, or coal. | |||
"Im afraid i don't trust anything made by the Chinese and is this deal worth all the steel making jobs the government seem happy to throw away " It's not made by the Chinese, they are financing the deal. The brits are building it. | |||
| |||
"A new plant will be build in summerset and 70% of the electricity will be supplied by it, what do you think of nuclear power, is it good or bad? It seems china got a big say on it, they will take a 3rd of the project and will be ready 2025." so is it being built in the summer on a film set somewhere | |||
"As an independent I have spent a fair few years studying this for our national transmission operator and government I can tell you this without doubt, the only reasonable source of reliable power right now is nuclear. Wind is less than 15% efficient solar even less so, both are unreliable and the reliance on them has pushed back our shut down dates on all CCG turbines. The final recommendation to this company and to the SoS and Energy Minster is to ensure that all of our focus should be on tidal and it should be funded by the withdrawal of the strike price for wind/solar. Plus wind power can only generate electricity in certain circumstances. We have to keep power stations fired up and on stand by for when wind can't generate enough, or indeed any, electricity. Now that's a real smart solution eh? Promote one form of generation to do away with another, but the one promoted can't do the job and you have to keep the one you're trying to replace running as a back up. Genius...... To be fair though it's very rare for a gasturbine to ever be shut off completely because they take so long to start up we tend to keep them on tick over if they're acting as back up for wind, nuclear, or coal." This. | |||
"Im afraid i don't trust anything made by the Chinese and is this deal worth all the steel making jobs the government seem happy to throw away It's not made by the Chinese, they are financing the deal. The brits are building it. "Anyone know what the reactor design is? | |||
"Im afraid i don't trust anything made by the Chinese and is this deal worth all the steel making jobs the government seem happy to throw away It's not made by the Chinese, they are financing the deal. The brits are building it.
Anyone know what the reactor design is?"I "might" be able to find out... | |||
| |||
"Im afraid i don't trust anything made by the Chinese and is this deal worth all the steel making jobs the government seem happy to throw away It's not made by the Chinese, they are financing the deal. The brits are building it.
Anyone know what the reactor design is?
I "might" be able to find out..."I just can't be bothered hunting on Google it should be announced well in advance. It's it's one of the newer types they remove the issue of pumps for coolant as they can cool passively | |||
" The 'strike price' is £92.50MWh. About half what you pay for windmills and solar
Onshore wind gets 0.9 of a ROC at £46 per current ROC, plusth base market price (currently about £50 per MW)
That diminishing too. The nuclear strike price is guaranteed for 35 fucking years, plus the get 7 other distinct and seperate forms of subsidies..
Somebody with an ounce of sense at last...
I've been through this a million times on here but still people trot out the same old bullshit they've read in a newspaper!!
Nuclear costs a fucking fortune.. Here's what they never fucking tell you...
Decommissioning costs.. Yeah those ones you just say oh fuck it my kids can pay for that... Just so long as I've got cheap energy for me because I'm a selfish fucking twat who only thinks of myself...
Me me me me me me... That's today's society
I'm willing to bet there's a "peer reviewed scientific paper" on it somewhere..... "Not just me that hears blah blah blah, Google Google Google, blah blah blah then | |||
"Im afraid i don't trust anything made by the Chinese and is this deal worth all the steel making jobs the government seem happy to throw away It's not made by the Chinese, they are financing the deal. The brits are building it.
Anyone know what the reactor design is?
I "might" be able to find out...
I just can't be bothered hunting on Google it should be announced well in advance.
It's it's one of the newer types they remove the issue of pumps for coolant as they can cool passively "I don't need Google for this. | |||
| |||
