UK regulator approves design for new nuclear power stations - Polidicks

[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64740000/jpg/_64740386_hinkley_point_624.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20701474[/url] [quote=BBC News][B]The design for the first UK nuclear power stations to be built for 25 years has been granted approval.[/B] After a five-year process, [url=http://news.hse.gov.uk/onr/2012/12/uk-regulators-confirm-acceptance-of-new-nuclear-reactor-design/]regulators have said[/url] the European Pressurised Reactor, designed by two French firms, is safe and environmentally sound. But there are still a number of hurdles to be cleared before energy supplier EDF and the nuclear engineering firm Areva can begin construction. The firms are weighing up the economic case amid concerns about rising costs. The French companies are looking at building two new plants at Hinkley Point in Somerset, but will need planning permission. EDF Energy chief executive Vincent de Rivaz said: "The acceptance of the design for the EPR reactor is a major achievement and milestone for our new nuclear project in Somerset. "It represents four years of hard work and allows our project to have a stable design before we start, offering a huge boost for the predictability of costs. It highlights our credibility and that of the EPR design, as well as demonstrating that the UK has a credible policy and regulatory framework in place." [B]Issues[/B] In 2007, the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency began the process of examining four potential designs for new nuclear plants. But three of the applicants dropped out, leaving just the EPR. The design has already been used for new reactors in Finland, France and China. But construction has taken longer than planned and costs continue to mount. Last month, EDF revealed that the cost of its Flamanville EPR plant in Normandy had risen by more than 2bn euros (£1.8bn) due to design changes following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. Last year, the UK regulators gave interim approval to the EPR under a process called the Generic Design Assessment, which aims to cut costs by examining new nuclear plans on paper rather than during the construction process. But they said 31 issues must be addressed by EDF and Areva before approval could be granted. [B]Changes[/B] As a result, there have been changes to the design, some of them due to lessons learnt from the Fukushima disaster. "We asked them to look at the accident, why it came about.... and how that might affect the UK EPR," said Dave Watson of the Office for Nuclear Regulation. That led to 16 changes, including additional flood protection measures and the provision of mobile generators and pumping equipment. The regulators said the UK EPR was now "the most-assessed design ever" after a process costing £35m, which will be recouped from EDF and Areva. EDF has still to confirm that it will go ahead with the investment in the new plan on its existing site in Somerset, to be known as Hinkley Point C. A decision had been promised by the end of 2012, but the company has now revised that to "the earliest possible date". Negotiations with the government over price guarantees for nuclear electricity could determine whether the company proceeds with its investment plans. A decision on planning permission by the Planning Inspectorate is imminent, and the Secretary of State for Energy Ed Davey will then have three months to make his decision on final approval.[/quote]

Why are they not building it underground?

Yes! Glad to see that we aren't all going "That Tsunami/Earthquake could happen here too!"

[QUOTE=Yuskolov123;38815276]Yes! Glad to see that we aren't all going "That Tsunami/Earthquake could happen here too!"[/QUOTE] Why would the UK think like that?

Germany did for some reason, wouldn't be too far fetched for others to believe so too. EU should put up some sanction against banning nuclear power internally though.

[QUOTE=Yuskolov123;38815276]Yes! Glad to see that we aren't all going "That Tsunami/Earthquake could happen here too!"[/QUOTE] they actually did think that, and because if it, they changed 16 things in their design to prevent it

Good, now they can get rid of the old crappy ones that are still in service because Greenpeace are idiots

why not power station in space?

[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;38815540]Why would the UK think like that?[/QUOTE] That's my point. A lot of people I know (sadly friends) are idiots. Just as an example, in class once Nuclear Power came up and my friend goes "Oh look at Chernobyl and Fukushima". My point is that the people behind the selection process of whether to have the Power Station built aren't stupid enough to let people like this get in their way.

The UK has some cool nuclear power stations already. [IMG_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Sizewell_B.jpg[/IMG_thumb] I've walked along the grassy bit before and it's really cool looking inside the grounds.

Is there a reason that more pressure hasn't been applied to work on LFTR tech? I realize a lot of it's somewhat conceptual at this point.

[QUOTE=NinjaS;38815275]Why are they not building it underground?[/QUOTE] NPPs already have an insanely high initial capital cost to construct, and building them underground increases the costs by a lot more. Not to mention the amount of surveying to pick a suitable underground site, you don't want a lot of water, you want firm soil and good bedrock and so on. Besides, the chance of a NPP failing when properly maintained is next to zero, the two largest accidents both happened in plants that were in desparate need of maintenance whilst in extraordinary circumstances. (a test with an inexperienced crew for Chernobyl and a tsunami + earthquake for Fukushima, which it would have survived easily if it had been up to date)

[QUOTE=kevaughan;38815685]why not power station in space?[/QUOTE] Because that's a terrible idea and we have no efficient way to transfer power back to the ground.

[QUOTE=Yuskolov123;38815276]Yes! Glad to see that we aren't all going "That Tsunami/Earthquake could happen here too!"[/QUOTE] The whole fukushima explosion could have been avoided using hydrogen removers, which is a standard on all reactors in finland and [QUOTE]The design has already been used for new reactors in Finland, France and China. But construction has taken longer than planned and costs continue to mount.[/QUOTE] The current finnish one also has two walls; inner wall is gas sealed and can withstand quite big pressures. The outer wall is designed to withstand a collision of a commercial airplane. If the core manages to melt, it doesn't just melt trough everything but there's an actual 170m^2 area where its supposed to flow to be cooled. There are four different safety systems that all independently capable to keep the systems running.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38816317]Because that's a terrible idea and we have no efficient way to transfer power back to the ground.[/QUOTE] Wifi :v:

[QUOTE=NinjaS;38817181]Wifi :v:[/QUOTE] I'm just go ahead and assume you're trying to make a funny, ha!

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38816317]Because that's a terrible idea and we have no efficient way to transfer power back to the ground.[/QUOTE] lightning! [editline]13th December 2012[/editline] that would be badass if power plant satellites beamed energy via lightning bolts to individual houses. [editline]13th December 2012[/editline] every house would look like a frankenstein movie

At least the UK hasn't followed the stupid anti nuclear hysteria

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38817276]At least the UK hasn't followed the stupid anti nuclear hysteria[/QUOTE] Don't worry man, Greenpeace have tried their hardest but it seems that we're not as dumb as they'd hope.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38816317]Because that's a terrible idea and we have no efficient way to transfer power back to the ground.[/QUOTE] Laser?

[QUOTE='[EG] Pepper;38817421']Laser?[/QUOTE] Cloud

[QUOTE='[EG] Pepper;38817421']Laser?[/QUOTE] Have fun with all that atmospheric refraction and dispersion.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38817550]Have fun with all that atmospheric refraction and dispersion.[/QUOTE] And most importantly, absorption. A lot of the power will be wasted in being absorbed by the atmosphere, and it will make air travel a problem with all the damn lasers everywhere.

[QUOTE=UberMunchkin;38815636]The only problem is, if they accidentally come across an underground lake and there's a crisis like in Chernobyl, you've pretty much radiated a possible water supply which could do unnoticed until it's too late.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter where you put the reactor. If the core melts down, there's no known substance that can contain uranium lava without being destroyed from the intense heat and radiation. If the reactor explodes, it's going to contaminate hundreds of miles and make everything uninhabitable, as well as spread all over the planet via the jetstream depending on how large the boom is. UK regulators and anyone that thinks a new nuclear powerplant is OK to build is an idiot.

[QUOTE=kevaughan;38815685]why not power station in space?[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power[/URL] (A fission plant in space would make no sense though) [IMG]http://www.simtropolis.com/repository/screens/monthly_04_2004/thumb-63f9ed1821444a64d6b4a8a36486d13c-newimage.jpg[/IMG] I loved these things in Simcity 2000. Now to look up what Britain does with their nuclear waste. [B]Edit[/B] Also, hasn't most of the recent trouble with nuclear power been caused by irrational fear of nuclear waste? "Oh no, we can't store it permanently underground in some desolate place, where it will affect no one, let's leave it in 'temporary' storage in urban areas."

[QUOTE=bohb;38822222]It doesn't matter where you put the reactor. If the core melts down, there's no known substance that can contain uranium lava without being destroyed from the intense heat and radiation. If the reactor explodes, it's going to contaminate hundreds of miles and make everything uninhabitable, as well as spread all over the planet via the jetstream depending on how large the boom is. UK regulators and anyone that thinks a new nuclear powerplant is OK to build is an idiot.[/QUOTE] Remind me again, how many major nuclear disasters have there been since nuclear power stopped being experimental?

[QUOTE=Jsm;38822419]Remind me again, how many major nuclear disasters have there been since nuclear power stopped being experimental?[/QUOTE] Fuck that, just have him remind you how many times there's been an 'uranium lava' meltdown.

[QUOTE=bohb;38822222]It doesn't matter where you put the reactor. If the core melts down, there's no known substance that can contain uranium lava without being destroyed from the intense heat and radiation. If the reactor explodes, it's going to contaminate hundreds of miles and make everything uninhabitable, as well as spread all over the planet via the jetstream depending on how large the boom is. UK regulators and anyone that thinks a new nuclear powerplant is OK to build is an idiot.[/QUOTE] there have been many meltdowns where melted nuclear fuel was produced and no serious environmental contamination was present.

[QUOTE=bohb;38822222]It doesn't matter where you put the reactor. If the core melts down, there's no known substance that can contain uranium lava without being destroyed from the intense heat and radiation. If the reactor explodes, it's going to contaminate hundreds of miles and make everything uninhabitable, as well as spread all over the planet via the jetstream depending on how large the boom is. UK regulators and anyone that thinks a new nuclear powerplant is OK to build is an idiot.[/QUOTE] But forget about how coal and oil kill people because of pollution, accidents, ect, yeah lets forget [i]three hundred thousand[/i] people that die worldwide from the current energy source we use.

[QUOTE=bohb;38822222]If the core melts down, there's no known substance that can contain uranium lava without being destroyed from the intense heat and radiation.[/QUOTE] this reminds me of those painful fake science explanations you hear in movies to try and raise the stakes but anyone who knows anything about anything just rolls their eyes at them