Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Hinkley Point


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#21 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,572 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:41 PM

why are countrys such as germany decommissioning their nuclear power stations

 

 

 

Some would say it's a knee jerk reaction. I'm not sure.

 

 

isn't contracting a nationalised business contrary to the government's beliefs?

 

I'm not sure.  What makes you say it is?



#22 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,911 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:20 PM

Some would say it's a knee jerk reaction. I'm not sure.

 

 

I'm not sure.  What makes you say it is?

3on the part of the germans or the UK?

 

I was under the impression that the this government and those passim of a similar persuasion were against nationalised industries hence they have just sold the royal mail


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#23 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,060 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:29 PM

interesting point. 

 

for Germany, nuclear was max 22 % of electricity generation. Fukuyama scared them with an upcoming election, probably a stronger anti nuclear lobby,  maybe a better insight to true end-of-life costs. I wonder of its anything to do with all ours being on the coast? Is that relevant?

 

whatever, energy prices will continue their relentless rise.

 

Govt. only half against state ownership as only they sold half of Royal Mail  I wish they'd privatise MPs expenses...with Michael O'leary to sign them off!



#24 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,911 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:33 PM

interesting point. 

 

for Germany, nuclear was max 22 % of electricity generation. Fukuyama scared them with an upcoming election, probably a stronger anti nuclear lobby,  maybe a better insight to true end-of-life costs. I wonder of its anything to do with all ours being on the coast? Is that relevant?

 

whatever, energy prices will continue their relentless rise.

 

Govt. only half against state ownership as only they sold half of Royal Mail  I wish they'd privatise MPs expenses...with Michael O'leary to sign them off!

does that mean that this government only half agrees with all the privatisations of previous Tory governents?


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#25 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,060 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:36 PM

Who knows? Maybe it means the job is only 50% done.



#26 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,076 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:37 PM

Ed Davey is the Energy Minister pushing for this power station.

 

I

 

This article confirms that the rest of Europe is reverting to coal fired power stations, a policy that meets EU financial and environmental constraints. Davey, declared last month that  coal was non-viable, and we must concentrate on shale gas and nuclear power.

  http://www.canadafre...p/article/49759

 

Here's what he said before he became a minister in the coalition.

http://order-order.c...-nuclear-power/

 

 

How do we know whether the Is building  of this nuclear power station is good energy policy and economically sound. or just a political decision to keep in with China and France?

One thing seems sure, we won't get an honest answer out of Davey. He is just a mouth on a stick and doesn't give any impression of having a clue about his portfolio.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#27 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,572 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:43 PM

The tories will never back coal.  I'm not saying that it's the answer, but it could well be part of the answer.  They can't back it because it conflicts with their hero worship and adulation of their queen bee, who made it her crowning glory to kill off the industry.



#28 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,076 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:49 PM

 I wonder of its anything to do with all ours being on the coast? Is that relevant?

 

 

 

When I worked in Local Government, our incinerator at Huddersfield used large volumes of canalwater to rapidly cool down the flue gases to the lower temperature necessary for passage through the emissions-treatment system. Most municipal incinerators were similarly built next to rivers and canals because the cost of using townswater would be prohibitive and it would be difficult to pump groundwater at a fast enough rate.

The "smoke" from such plants' chimney stacks is actually steam.

 

The nuclear plants probably use loads of coolling water  to control the reactor temperature. Possibly, only seawater will give them an acceptable volume and a safe dilution factor if there's a leak.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#29 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 03:01 PM

why are countrys such as germany decommissioning their nuclear power stations

 

isn't contracting a nationalised business contrary to the government's beliefs?

Probably the same reason that countries like France use nuclear power stations, choice.

 

Contracting out work to others? Sounds exactly like this governments beliefs.



#30 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,843 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 03:17 PM

When I worked in Local Government, our incinerator at Huddersfield used large volumes of canalwater to rapidly cool down the flue gases to the lower temperature necessary for passage through the emissions-treatment system. Most municipal incinerators were similarly built next to rivers and canals because the cost of using townswater would be prohibitive and it would be difficult to pump groundwater at a fast enough rate.

The "smoke" from such plants' chimney stacks is actually steam.

 

The nuclear plants probably use loads of coolling water  to control the reactor temperature. Possibly, only seawater will give them an acceptable volume and a safe dilution factor if there's a leak.

Preferably near deep coastal water.  The ideal scenario is to have a massive tank at sea level with an inlet pipe about 100m below sea level, it'll naturally top itself up from the very cold water from 100m down, no need for pumps.  From there, you use a sealed pumping system (to avoid salt corrosion one way and radioactive contamination the other) to cool the hot bits of the reactor with the water pumped back out to sea at a higher temperature.  Very efficient and very cheap.  The only surprise I have with the things is that they don't use the outgoing water to almost self-power like a siphon and hydro-electric plant in one, I suppose they don't really want to over-engineer a critical system.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#31 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,911 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 03:40 PM

Probably the same reason that countries like France use nuclear power stations, choice.

 

Contracting out work to others? Sounds exactly like this governments beliefs.

but why have they made that choice?

 

Surely they should be backing private enterprise


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#32 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 03:50 PM

but why have they made that choice?

 

Surely they should be backing private enterprise

Who? the Germans or the French?

 

Why? 



#33 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,060 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 03:54 PM

I may be misunderstanding, L'ange.  What are you referring to  in terms of nationalisation / contracting out. Because EDF is state owned? 

 

As an an aside, consistency and principles are not qualities I can attribute to governments of any flavour.  Now  expediency.....



#34 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,911 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 04:34 PM

Who? the Germans or the French?

 

Why? 

the germans

 

why because it's relevant

 

The  UK has made one choice and another major country has made another.

hopr this helps


Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 22 October 2013 - 04:35 PM.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#35 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,911 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 04:36 PM

I may be misunderstanding, L'ange.  What are you referring to  in terms of nationalisation / contracting out. Because EDF is state owned? 

 

As an an aside, consistency and principles are not qualities I can attribute to governments of any flavour.  Now  expediency.....

EDF is state owned

 

I agree with your second statement


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#36 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,060 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 05:22 PM

ok, so the point is that a govt that thinks the power sector should not be state owned has chosen a state owned company to build a power station, if that's the point, then yes, i see it. Give me time to devise some weasel words in response. :)



#37 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 05:44 PM

the germans

 

why because it's relevant

 

The  UK has made one choice and another major country has made another.

hopr this helps

You should ask the Germans then.

 

Relevant to what?

 

And another major country has made the same choice as the UK.

 

I'm sure you have a point somewhere, you should get to it asap.


Edited by archibald, 22 October 2013 - 05:48 PM.


#38 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,911 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 05:47 PM

You should ask the Germans then.

 

Relevant to what?

 

And another major country has made the same choice as the UK.

why is iy a secret outside germany?

the discussion

I know, but I asked about Germany for reasons I've given


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#39 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,911 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 05:48 PM

ok, so the point is that a govt that thinks the power sector should not be state owned has chosen a state owned company to build a power station, if that's the point, then yes, i see it. Give me time to devise some weasel words in response. :)

that's about the size of it.


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#40 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 06:03 PM

why is iy a secret outside germany?

the discussion

I know, but I asked about Germany for reasons I've given

I don't think so, Google pulls up lots of results. But if you want a comprehensive/factual reason you should ask people who were close to the decision.

 

What reasons? You asked why we're going to build one when Germany are shutting theirs. The answer is because some people think it's the right thing for us to do.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users