Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Larry the Leit

Hinkley Point

50 posts in this topic

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.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49759

 

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

http://order-order.com/2013/10/22/what-ed-davey-used-to-say-about-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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but why have they made that choice?

 

Surely they should be backing private enterprise

Who? the Germans or the French?

 

Why? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

how do you know have you asked them?

 

look chief I'm asking reasonable questions here as part of a discussion.: you just seem to want to #### about. If you don't have any information then why are you playing these silly games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

As at Dungeness. Spent some time "B" ( now owned by EDF!)  around the time APC went bust. I wonder how the Germans cope (and the French) who have inland plant , though often river based.  I wonder if the German decision is really based on end of life issues..I Think they all be switched off by 2022 . though thet date was set by Gerhard Schroder as 2012 see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_phase-out#Germany

 

Though in favour of nuclear power, it odes seem beset by problems wherever you look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to utilise the big blue wobbly thing off the coast - hydro, tidal and marine power is theway to go, add to that biomass and possibly algae oil and were sorted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to utilise the big blue wobbly thing off the coast - hydro, tidal and marine power is theway to go, add to that biomass and possibly algae oil and were sorted

nuclear power only addresses a small part of the issue.

Even if we for a moment we disregard the inevitability sooner or later of a nuclear catastrophe at one of these facilities-check out the UK's record on nuclear safety: all nuclear power does os provide us base load electricity, it doesn't affect-other than delay the inevitable depletion of the coal, oil and gas resources which the developed to the detriment of the planet depends on. There is no sign that the developed world is changing the way it functions in any meaningful way in response to this: just the opposite.

alternative ways of providing energy are fine, but the resal issue is the way the developed world lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nuclear power only addresses a small part of the issue.

Even if we for a moment we disregard the inevitability sooner or later of a nuclear catastrophe at one of these facilities-check out the UK's record on nuclear safety: all nuclear power does os provide us base load electricity, it doesn't affect-other than delay the inevitable depletion of the coal, oil and gas resources which the developed to the detriment of the planet depends on. There is no sign that the developed world is changing the way it functions in any meaningful way in response to this: just the opposite.

alternative ways of providing energy are fine, but the resal issue is the way the developed world lives.

 

the real issue is the way the developed world lives.

 

yes, I can see that and largely agree.  I think we are using more and more energy ( though it might be interesting to see if there are any figures that show that)  and in my view that is something worthy of tackling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the real issue is the way the developed world lives.

 

yes, I can see that and largely agree.  I think we are using more and more energy ( though it might be interesting to see if there are any figures that show that)  and in my view that is something worthy of tackling. 

if you look at the way China and India have grown industrially as well as with populations it is inevitable, as well as the US cavalier attitude to emissions etc etc etc it is inevitable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 I think we are using more and more energy ( though it might be interesting to see if there are any figures that show that)  and in my view that is something worthy of tackling. 

 

 

Quite right. The government should allow the over-fifties extra time off work to lie in bed and save on the heating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it worked for me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what the editor of "The Engineer" has to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should go the whole hog and outsource all our needs. We'd save a fortune if we offload our government and became the 53rd state. At least we'd know we were just behind New Orleans in the pecking order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.