[Closed] A chinese Nuclear Reactor... what could possibly go wrong?

Do you know about the approval process for reactors?
Is your reaction just a little xenophobic?
There are a limited number of reactor designs approved for use, so if you want to play what could possibly go wrong then go ahead but do some research.

You learn Mandarin now ... you learn! 😆

Oh ya ... please also outsource all your manufacturings to China ... 😆

It may also be a lesson on the modern world, history is great but the now is not Europe and us centric.

Or we could really get into tidal lagoons and have a renewable energy source that if it goes wrong makes the sea wet.

So what goes wrong in a modern nuclear reactor zippy? In Japan in a serious tsunami the death came from a crane that was on the site of a reactor. To some people nuclear is about the same as immigration and the daily hate

????
????
?????
?????

😆

Theres people on here that won't trust the Chinese to make a battery charger without it blowing up.
I just hope they put it in a biscuit tin.

A good example of a fortune cookie ...

I trust people to do a lot of things, China is bigger than a lot of places and the issue with lots of stuff is the fact it's a knock off etc. Nuclear reactor doesn't fall into that space. I may have spent some time in that industry but it's easy to get carried away

It's not fears over safety for me, it's the duplicity.

They've cut the subsidy for renewables 'to relieve the burden on households', their eternal mantra (that 'long-term economic plan') is so we don't leave a 'crippling level of debt for our grandchildren' and, of course, privatisation of as much as possible.

But for this deal, none of that matters.

Wouldn't it have been great to use our own state-owned company to nail together our own power stations that we're all going to pay for over the next few decades, rather than contribute to the governments of other countries?

Oh, that's right - we can't. Someone flogged it to the Japs in 2006... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Company

Take a bow Tony B Liar.

Rich_s - Member - Block User
Wouldn't it have been great to use our own state-owned company to nail together our own power stations that we're all going to pay for over the next few decades, rather than contribute to the governments of other countries?

Oh, that's right - we can't. Someone flogged it to the Japs in 2006... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Company

Take a bow Tony B Liar.

The first line of the wiki is

Westinghouse Electric Company LLC is a US based nuclear power company

?

It's only 15 miles from my house so i hope it's not a Chinese knock off of the real thing. I'm sure it'll be fine 😆

"Toshiba Group is the majority owner of Westinghouse."

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_%28nuclear_reactor%29 ]budget overrun[/url] ?

In November 2014 EDF announced that completion of construction was delayed to 2017 due to delays in component delivery by Areva.[53]

In April 2015 Areva informed the French nuclear regulator that anomalies had been detected in the reactor vessel steel, causing "lower than expected mechanical toughness values". Further tests are underway.[3] In July 2015 The Daily Telegraph reported that Areva had been aware of this problem since 2006.[54]

In June 2015 multiple faults in cooling system safety valves were discovered by ASN.[55]

In September 2015 EDF announced that the estimated costs had escalated to €10.5 billion, and the start-up of the reactor was delayed to the fourth quarter of 2018.[56]

mikewsmith - Member

In Japan in a serious tsunami the death came from a crane that was on the site of a reactor

Yeah, right. 1600 fatalities directly attributed to the evacuation, so unless that was a really big crane...

And leaving that aside, the economic damage has been estimated at up to $500bn already, with far more to come.

So much of the true cost of nuclear seems to be hidden off the books. For example; in 2002, it was claimed that the total cost of decommissioning in the UK would be £42bn. By 2007, it turned out it'd cost more than that to decommission Sellafield alone. Almost every year, last year's figures turn out to be mince. And no wonder, because we're talking about decommissioning as if we even know what we're going to do with the waste, when we don't.

I'm not anti-nuclear... I was, but i got over it. But even among the pro-nuclear there's huge misgivings about this project.

Hang on, isn't Fukishima still pissing radioactive cooling water back into the sea? They can't fix the problem they can only keep pumping in sea water to cool the rods? This water pisses back out into the sea. If anything stops the water being pumped onto the rods then its bye bye to most of Japan.

Yes sounds great. Tsunami is not an english word so it couldn't possibly happen here. Oh except that it probably did 400 years ago. But I'll just stop eating fish fingers so that will be fine.

I grew up being pro-nuclear. I had a very good grasp of nuclear energy when I was a kid (always had my head in physics books and enjoyed a good trip to Sellafield with Dad) but Fukushima has changed that. In this country we are pretty safe from things like earthquakes and tsunamis but there are other risks that could happen here and Fukushima goes to show that our safety systems do fail and when they do there is just nothing but bad news going to happen to people and the planet. I was mortified when I saw the recent documentary on the state of Sellafield, when I used to go up there as a kind in the 90's it was a very different story being told.

I don't think we have the right to unleash this kind of thing on the planet as it's not ours. Same goes for our fossil fuel consumption and release of pollution.

So much of the true cost of nuclear seems to be hidden off the books. For example; in 2002, it was claimed that the total cost of decommissioning in the UK would be £42bn. By 2007, it turned out it'd cost more than that to decommission Sellafield alone.

I think that it's fair to say that Sellafield and Dounreay are special cases that can't really be compared to any power station. The past mismanagement of the sites left long lasting legacies that quite rightly should never be repeated. Unless core material or spent fuel from decommissioned sites is crammed into cooling culverts and such a power station is nothing alike.

Its a nice deal that EDF have there considering they only need to [i]help[/i] CGN get ONR approval for their reactor design. The fact that there is nowhere to put one as all allocations for expansion have been granted means we're unlikely to see one built here any time soon.

(Hinkley C and Sizewell C are allocated to EDF with their Areva EPR reactor, Oldbury B and Wylfa B are allocated to Hitachi with their ABWR reactor and Moorside is allocated to Westinghouse with their AP1000 reactor, all of which are undergoing or near completion of ONR approval)

It's also worth noting the the Russians are wanting to export their VVER-1200's to the UK and US.

As for budget over-run, be grateful we're not building more AGR's, they were hardly the most simple of designs hence their lack of popularity.

Fianlly, if you want to blame anyone for this blame the previous governments that stuck their heads in the sand and pretended our ageing fleet wasn't a problem. And decided we weren't going to be a part of Generation III (present designs are III.5). Or Generation IV (breeder, molten salt etc.). Or, if we exit the EU, Generation V (fusion) [although given we have JET in Cambridge I can see us opting into the ITER project if we apply even a shred of common sense].

Oh, add Bradwell B to the EDF list, with a Hualong One reactor...

Wasn't aware Bradwell was even on the cards.

:D[img] [/img]

JET is in Cambridge? I must have good eyesight as I can see it from the lofty heights of Wittenham Clumps.

The Chinese have been involved in our infrastructure for a decade, Huawei provide equipment to BT. National security concern? Not according to GCHQ

Had the Labour Government acted in 2002 (wasn't that government mentioned above ^^?) then we might have been using a European consortium and building a power station now. As it is the Chinese have a one-third stake in a consortium with French-owned EDF

On the subject of Fukushima, the Coalition Government asked for an analysis of that tragedy and its possible impact on designs in 2011

Weren't we the early pioneers of this stuff? So why is somebody else building our nuclear reactors for us, shouldn't it be the other way round?!?!

JET is in Cambridge? I must have good eyesight as I can see it from the lofty heights of Wittenham Clumps.

I concede that Culham is in Oxfordshire but you're making that other place up.

Weren't we the early pioneers of this stuff? So why is somebody else building our nuclear reactors for us, shouldn't it be the other way round?!?!

Because we moved onto the Gen IV and fusion research instead (before giving up on Gen IV). Something something eggs and baskets...

Are the Chinese actually building it, or are UK industries doing the work, financially underwritten by the Chinese ?

I work for a UK firm that out sources to China for 40% of our product lines all i can say is if we could we would bring it all back to the UK due to quality issues.

I would not trust them to build a B&Q shed never mind a reactor!

In Japan in a serious tsunami the death came from a crane that was on the site of a reactor.

There have been at least 3 worker deaths at the plant since the tsunami. Eventually we will learn the truth but it won't be from the Japanese because of 'Face'

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8810953/Fukushima-nuclear-plant-worker-dies.html ]Sauce 1[/url]

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/07/fukushima-power-plant-worker-dies ]Sauce 2[/url]

What's going on with the story of "Austria challenges financial aid to France" angle of the story now?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/905342fa-b214-11e4-80af-00144feab7de.html#axzz3pH5kb7cq

On the contrary, my companies experience of Chinese firms is excellent. They built a huge facility in one of our factories a few years back, super efficient. Problems of quality are not always the fault of the manufacturers. Quality is involved in every step of every process from the initial design, specifications etc. But the two leading nations for nuclear power are France and China so who else would you have build our nuclear power stations? The Russians? Unfortunately decades of the anti-nuclear lobby has destroyed the british nuclear industry, one which we once led the world in, over nothing but paranoia. The nuclear power industry has a safety record most other industries would die for (pardon the pun). More people have died in the renewable energy industry over the last 10 years than in the nuclear industry. The number of deaths due to radiation from the Fukushima incident is and will be zero. The number of deaths from Chernobyl has been hugely overplayed as has the environmental effects of the area which is now a perfectly healthy thriving natural wilderness. The cancer rate in the Chernobyl area rose by a very small percentage post Chernobyl, so possibly within the range of normal variation, but anyway, you're not comparing like for like. Chernobyl was a decrepit ageing power station that should have been shut down long before it melted down, but the safety standards in Soviet Russia of the time (and probably still today) are a whole other league worse than ours.

For decades the French generate the overwhelming majority of their energy from nuclear and export their nuclear generated electricity to neighbouring countries including the UK so who else is better placed to build them? I'm not sure what the concerns are? It's not unusual for other nations to be involved in large infrastructure projects in the UK.

What I don't get is that we have garuanteed them double the current energy price?

Is it not just giant PFI scam that our kids and grandkids will be paying off for ever?

The number of deaths from Chernobyl has been hugely overplayed as has the environmental effects of the area which is now a perfectly healthy thriving natural wilderness. The cancer rate in the Chernobyl area rose by a very small percentage post Chernobyl, so possibly within the range of normal variation, but anyway, you're not comparing like for like. Chernobyl was a decrepit ageing power station that should have been shut down long before it melted down,

Sorry, I'm pro-nuclear but that is just nonsense.

For a start the exclusion zone is far from healthy, hot spots are so bad that bacteria cant survive and dead things can't decay. This is a massive problem as accumulated litter needs to be removed manually as a wild fire would release contaminants back into the air.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/science-nature/forests-around-chernobyl-arent-decaying-properly-180950075/

Secondly, Chernobyl was far from decrepit, the first reactor was commissioned in 1972 and Reactor 4 was just 3 years old. Dunno where you got that idea from.

The number of deaths due to radiation from the Fukushima incident is and will be zero.

And this is just...

I just hope they put it in a biscuit tin.

[img] [/img]

wobbliscott - Member - Block User
More people have died in the renewable energy industry over the last 10 years than in the nuclear industry.

Source?

kimbers - Member - Block User
What I don't get is that we have garuanteed them double the current energy price?

Is it not just giant PFI scam that our kids and grandkids will be paying off for ever?

Yep!

We need to make ourselves energy self sufficient. It's a matter of national security.
Cameron has let us down. He doesn't care about this country. Whatever good he has done has been far out weighed by this.
He is a traitor.
We should be going to China and selling them Tidal Power.

I think it's brilliant it'll be great for our steel industry...... oh wait.

Whatever good he has done

Can I get back to you on that.

That smug grin after the Scottish vote."look at me I saved the union"
Just so you can sell it to the ****ing Chinese. ****.
Tony, you have competition.

My dad worked for BNFL most of his life as a design engineer and project manager. He retired as the government were breaking up the British nuclear industry, selling off the profitable bits, and saddling the taxpayer with the awkward costly bits.

His words as he retired, about ten years ago were:

"This is utter madness. They're breaking up the most highly skilled nuclear engineering company in the world. They'll go into other industries, and this skill set will be gone forever. The fact of the matter is that this country needs nuclear power to meet its energy needs. We can't do without it. All these gas fired stations are all well and good, but what happens when the gas starts running out? We should be keeping this team together, and have them designing and building new reactors.

Otherwise, ten years down the line, we'll be getting another countries engineers in to do it for us. And they'll charge us the earth to do it!"

My dad is not actually....

[img] [/img]

But at least we wouldn't be so stupid as to take a similar short-term view and stand idly by, as another major heavy industry, that provides an essential raw material for the countries infrastructure, goes to the wall, eh?

Oh... wait... hang on a minute...

The safety/quality aspect hadn't really occurred to me, the issue to me is foreign governments having such a big stake in such a key part of our infrastructure. I thought energy security and independence was supposed to be the way forward?
Now, I don't think the Chinese (or the French!) are cackling away and rubbing their hands together while their master plan to bring us to our knees falls into place. It's just that in principle it doesn't seem like a great idea.

The safety/quality aspect hadn't really occurred to me, the issue to me is foreign governments having such a big stake in such a key part of our infrastructure. I thought energy security and independence was supposed to be the way forward?

Well they can't exactly remove the plant once it's built, nor will they have any say in it's day to day running. Energy security is more focused on the fuel needed to generate the power rather than the facility that uses it.

Energy security is more focused on the fuel needed to generate the power rather than the facility that uses it.

Gas from russia, electricity infrastructure owned by the french and chinese.
How was this ever allowed to happen?

I'm assuming we have to buy this off the Chinese as well.
Hope they don't put the price up.

Well with a world supply of 2.5% and less than 5% of total reserves, I don't think they'll have much ability to affect the price. In fact at those levels I'd expect that they will import more than they can produce to meet their own needs.

Gas from Russia

We import very very little gas from Russia. The vast majority of our gas imports (over and above what we produce ourselves) is imported from Norway, then Quatar. These two alone were almost 82% of our imports in 2014.

Short sighted idiots who really don't care for this country.
I know we all laugh at Mr Conspiracy New World Order on here but some of our "leaders" actions do seem incomprehensible.

Interesting article on the Tories obsession with re-nationalising industry....

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/20/george-osborne-renationalisation-britain-nuclear-power-china-france-privatisation ]Osborne is all for re-nationalisation – so long as the nation isn’t Britain[/url]
[i]
You won’t hear the N-word from his lips, of course. Nor shall the chancellor go full Corbyn and seize some of the FTSE’s crown jewels. Instead, you can expect something far more in keeping with the spirit of 21st-century Britain. The government will indeed put some of our most vital infrastructure under state control – but the states in question will be France and China.[/i]

I would like:

2 x 69
1 x 43
2 x 21
1 x 5
1 x 9

"Oi Beryl, what was it you wanted?" 🙄

The safety/quality aspect hadn't really occurred to me,

If the design is sound with the correct specifications and good QA/QC then it really doesn't matter where it is built.

Also while we aren't doing the main build (which is a shame but blame the green/CND brigade for destroying public confidence) British companies and universities have been gearing up for new nuclear plant for about 10 years, so we will get benefits from this build.

Hey if everyone wants we could always build new coal power plants instead.

The vast majority of our gas imports (over and above what we produce ourselves) is imported from Norway, then Quatar.

Security,

I think it's brilliant it'll be great for our steel industry...... oh wait.

Stability,

electricity infrastructure owned by the french and chinese.

Opportunity.

How was this ever allowed to happen?

Tis the tory way.

Tis the [s]tory[/s] successive UK governments way.

Mostly because us Brits are all nimbys at heart and the environmental lobby that has so consistently got its science wrong, still holds a large sway over the government. Not one UK party has a sensible energy policy, all are an incoherent mess. Yet when you see some of the rubbish spouted on this thread it is clear that the general public have little in the way of understanding and so the debate just never happens and is brushed under the carpet. Far easier to debate the NHS yet again, even though when the power goes out their single % budget rise or fall, will mean little as all the kit powers down.

Also while we aren't doing the main build (which is a shame but blame the green/CND brigade for destroying public confidence)

Blame privatisation...our energy generating capacity was pretty good a generation ago, 30 years later it's been left to rot, there's no expertise to design or build our own reactor from scratch.

Well they can't exactly remove the plant once it's built, nor will they have any say in it's day to day running.

If the design is sound with the correct specifications and good QA/QC then it really doesn't matter where it is built.

We import very very little gas from Russia. The vast majority of our gas imports (over and above what we produce ourselves) is imported from Norway, then Quatar. These two alone were almost 82% of our imports in 2014.

Politics aside - China has rather a lot of nuclear power stations. I can't say I've heard of too many major disasters with them. No doubt low level stuff is covered up, but a power plant blowing up is hard to hide.

Judging by this list the USA on the other hand are not to go-to country for nuclear technology!...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

While the idea of "independent power generation" in terms of security seems a good place to be, surely the more rational answer is the more inter-dependent countries are, the better?

the sooner we all move from petty nationalistic ideas, the better for us all?

mikewsmith - Member

Sauce on the 1600 first, as a lot more than that died are those all attributed to the nuclear plant?

Source is a study carried out for Mainichi Shimbun newspaper. They didn't try to take into account the impact on other disaster relief caused by the diversion of resource to Fukushima response, that's directly attributable evacuation deaths only. Does it really surprise you? Evacuating all those people including 800 hospital patients, and then permanent displacements, it's a massive deal.

mikewsmith - Member

It's a little ambitious to use overall costs as an indication of modern civil nuclear,so they tell me...

Who was doing that? The point I was making was far simpler; claims of the cost of decommissioning have always proven to be total horseflops.

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2985972/ukchina_nuclear_deal_wont_keep_our_lights_on.html

Maybe not directly, but if Russia decides to put the squeeze on it'll shake up the market pretty seriously won't it?

Not really as the produced gas will still need to be sold somewhere and make no mistake Russia needs the money so not selling the stuff isn't really an option. It's much much more of a problem for those in mainland Europe, especially those that don't have and LNG terminal...

Let's hope the Chinese builders give us a duplicate set of keys, eh?

I'm dubious about those reported 1600 numbers, for instance they included suicides, hard to say they are directly attributable to the nuclear plant.

Anyway the new nuclear reactor designs were supposed to have looked at what they can learn from Fukushima and the chance of the UK being hit by a similar natural disaster are virtually zero.

As far as I'm aware, every single nuclear incident has been as the result of human error; lack of foresight and frankly sheer bloody-mindedness and incompetence on the part of the operators.

Generally this involves overriding safety systems that are attempting to protect the reactor [Chernobyl, TMI, Fukishima etc] or shit design (Windscale). A major contributory factor is that in the past most reactors were used to breed plutonium for nuclear weapons, and the reaction tended to be harder to control.

That doesn't mean I'm happy that a state with well documented historic and ongoing human rights abuses should be handed X billion quid to build a nuclear reactor on the UK mainland. If the Labour party had pulled their fingers out 20 years ago we wouldn't having this discussion now because we'd have our own reactors.

This is an excellent book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atomic-Accidents-Meltdowns-Disasters-Mountains-ebook/dp/B00HVPI1IA/

Nuclear power station .Nuclear Target.

In this country we are pretty safe from things like earthquakes and tsunamis

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Channel_floods,_1607 ]Remind me where Hinckley Point is again?[/url]

Even [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima ]George Monbiot support nuclear power[/url], so I wonder why there's still a debate about it.

As for the Chinese being involved, well they could hardly do a worse job than we have done over the past 60 years. As with most aspects of the nuclear 'debate', prejudice and misinformation trump the hard scientific facts. It's one of those subjects where joe public probably shouldn't be allowed any sort of influence, and I say that as a critic of government and their industry cronies.

A few points here:

The Chinese have the technology, the will and the cash for this. Getting sniffy, and xenophobic, about it ignores the fact that they are better than us at this.

The price. The price is double the [b]current[/b] cost of producing energy and is guaranteed for a long period of time. This is the classic fixed rate/variable rate mortgage calculation. This is fixed rate so less risk, but potentially more expensive. That said, it's cheaper than renewable sources and I'm all for nuclear over wind/wave/etc at current costs.

The technology. It's a travesty that Britain has gone from a world leader in nuclear technology to buying it off other countries in 10-20 years. It must be said that the general negativity towards nuclear power by us, the voters, has caused the political decisions of the past. If successive governments had trusted their scientists over their pollsters, and been brave, then we would be selling this technology abroad for megabucks.

Safety. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong (old plant, earthquakes, tsunami, cooling failed,etc) in ****ushima and we're still arguing about whether the deaths are 1 or in the hundreds. Some perspective is needed. Nuclear is safer, both for miners, O&G workers, and the follow on problems from the pollution they cause. Coal mining in China claimed 931 deaths alone last year - and this is the number reported by Chinese media so likely to be higher!

Nuclear power station .Nuclear Target.

Tin foil hat for this chap.

Tis the tory way.

Erm, no, not really. This is a shared one.

Not really as the produced gas will still need to be sold somewhere and make no mistake Russia needs the money so not selling the stuff isn't really an option

By happy coincidence they just agreed a pipeline deal with the Chinese.

I work for a UK firm that out sources to China for 40% of our product lines all i can say is if we could we would bring it all back to the UK due to quality issues.
I would not trust them to build a B&Q shed never mind a reactor!

I work for a UK firm and 100% of our own product line is manufactured in China.
Also 100% of the third party products we resell are made in China.

We don't have any quality issues that you describe.

(Although I wouldn't ask the highly trained specialists that design and build our kit to assemble a B&Q shed, they are far too overqualified for that, it would be like asking a brain surgeon to cut up my dinner for me.)

Anyone else unimpressed with the racism in this thread?

Yes, there are cheap Chinese knock-offs in many markets that are poor quality. It's because they are competing in the cheap knock-off market, because they can due to lower costs. It's not because they are Chinese.

If you don't buy cheap knock-offs then there's no reason they should be lower quality, Chinese or not. I wouldn't have thought this needed pointing out.

Is suspicion of the Chinese state justified?

There's certainly parts of the government that believe it's worth worrying about

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22803510
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mi6-and-mi5-refuse-to-use-lenovo-computers-over-claims-chinese-company-makes-them-vulnerable-to-8737072.html

And there's certainly plenty of suspicion thrown about over the Chinese military's involvement in large scale hacking
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/12/hacking-personnel-data-4-million-federal-workers

Not sure how much is xenophobia and paranoia
But its not something that bothers Osborne

In not concerned about Chinese QC in the slightest, I've got on one carbon bars and lb rims on my gnar shredder
I've also worked with Chinese researchers, who've been just as competent as any other nationality.
One Chinese colleageu did claim that he had contact back home who would pay him for any unique techniques, patented or not etc that we knew of

I suppose that is a potential problem, China's not the worst country in the world for corruption, but quite high on the list of those we'd entrust with vital infrastructure projects !

[img] [/img]

Obviously as far as human rights etc goes that's not been something that our governments loose sleeo over either (Saudi, Al Yamaha, billions in arms sales etc)

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm

Is suspicion of the Chinese state justified?

Did you watch the reports of the demonstrations in London for President Xi? The pro-China lobby had been bussed in by the commissariat from the universities. T-Shirts supplied from the diplomatic pouch (seals still on the boxes in the BBC video).

I think suspicion is justified.

Hopefully GCHQ have tagged them all and know who to monitor more closely.

I've no problem at all with the Chinese, but it seems a bit insane to me that we are getting them to build these.

what will we do when the gas starts running out"

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2985972/ukchina_nuclear_deal_wont_keep_our_lights_on.html

LOL, I doubt any of these plants will ever hold a candle to the ****up that is/was Dungeness B. It was the first AGR plant to begin construction in 1965 and was the last of the first wave to be commissioned in 1983.

Generally this involves overriding safety systems that are attempting to protect the reactor [Chernobyl, TMI, Fukishima etc]

Fukushima wasn't an override, the systems worked perfectly. Up until the backup pumps were swamped by a Tsunami. Yes, latent design flaw, but not an active error.

A major contributory factor is that in the past most reactors were used to breed plutonium for nuclear weapons,

No it wasn't, the fuel cycle had nothing to do with it.

If the Labour party had pulled their fingers out 20 years ago we wouldn't having this discussion now because we'd have our own reactors.

Really? So why did we build a Westinghouse (US) design at Sizewell B with a Framatome (French) reactor vessel, Westinghouse (US) core components and GEC Alsthom (French/UK conglom until merge) turbines? The last "British" station was Heysham 2 and it was, as said, chuffing expensive as well.

Nuclear power station .Nuclear Target.

...is a shit argument. If bombs are getting dropped I think where one is targeted is the least of our worries.

What will we do when the uranium starts running out?

Is a sensible question which present rates of consumption mean should be addressed sooner rather than later. The simple answer is actually thorium which IIRC India (oh noes!) are developing and should keep the anti proliferation question off the table as a bonus. The alternative is using a breeder design which can convert and burn present plutonium stocks (both civil and military grade) to civil grade Pu which, again, is non-proliferable. In the longer term fusion reactors are being designed for a Tritium/Deuterium fuel cycle which should "solve" the supply problem considerably.

squirrelking - Member

Fukushima wasn't an override, the systems worked perfectly. Up until the backup pumps were swamped by a Tsunami. Yes, latent design flaw, but not an active error.

Aye, at fukushima it was was a very different issue, and it wasn't even a mistake- the operators knew that flooding the reactors would prevent meltdown but would destroy them, so delayed and delayed in the hope of saving them, til eventually they were overruled- but too late. Even after the completely avoidable flooding the meltdowns were still completely avoidable, if not for TEPCO's greed.

So we say, oh we won't have a tsunami, we don't get those here. But we do get human error, and greed, and dishonesty. Which is why Sellafield LTD get fined £700,000 for sending nuclear waste to landfill, frinstance.

Fukushima wasn't an override, the systems worked perfectly. Up until the backup pumps were swamped by a Tsunami. Yes, latent design flaw, but not an active error.

http://www.scienceonthenet.eu/content/article/human-error-fukushima

OK, not necessarily overridden, but poor handling of the situation. The commission that wrote the report pulled no punches.

Sandwich - Member

Is suspicion of the Chinese state justified?

Did you watch the reports of the demonstrations in London for President Xi? The pro-China lobby had been bussed in by the commissariat from the universities. T-Shirts supplied from the diplomatic pouch (seals still on the boxes in the BBC video).

I think suspicion is justified.

Hopefully GCHQ have tagged them all and know who to monitor more closely.

The Chinese don't even trust the Chinese yet you lot want to trust them ... 😆

So we say, oh we won't have a tsunami, we don't get those here.

Yeah we do, didn't you read that link?

I don't trust the [s]Chinkies[/s] Chinese, the [s]Russkies[/s] Russians, North Koreans, Cameron or Corbyn (any politician for that matter) & loads of others in between.
Why TF Cameron wants to build something (like this) with the chinese, in this country, that could be built by 100% UK investment, without any involvement from another country is beyond my comprehension.
Ok, I'm behind the the political times & pretty slow on the uptake of world events (I like riding bikes & sea fishing mainly) but is this what the UK has come to, really?

. But we do get human error, and greed, and dishonesty. Which is why Sellafield LTD get fined £700,000 for sending nuclear waste to landfill, frinstance.

The bags, which contained waste such as plastic, tissues and clothing,

Good spot, which is why no people ever should be given any responsibility, how we ever let them get in cars I don't know.

Like many things those who dislike nuclear will grab at anything to discredit and dissuade. However as the stats show its one of the safest form of energy generation. There was a comprehensive review post tsunami on all UK nuclear assets and sites which gave the all clear.

I get a bit sick of the sensationalist and misrepresentation having spent a good chunk of my working life dealing with the real issues and challenges. The picture painted bears very little resemblance to the UK nuclear industry.

that could be built by 100% UK investment, without any involvement from another country is beyond my comprehension.

Current UK Government won't invest long term as they are the enemies of the state, following the short termism lunacy emanating from the cancer at the heart of London.