New Nuclear Plant Generation starts to unfold.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7115002.stm


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifLast Updated: Tuesday, 27 November 2007, 16:18 GMT http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/dot_629.gif
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/email.gif E-mail this to a friend (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/email/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7115002.stm)http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/print.gif Printable version (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7115002.stm)
British Energy eyes nuclear sites

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42205000/jpg/_42205438_hinkley_getty.jpg British Energy says access to the grid is a key issue

British Energy has named eight of its sites as possible locations for next-generation nuclear plants.
The firm earmarked Sizewell in Suffolk, Hinkley in Somerset, Bradwell in Essex and Dungeness in Kent for development.
It also named Heysham in Lancashire, Torness in East Lothian, Hunterston in Ayrshire and Hartlepool.
The firm said flood defence and coast protection could make nuclear power possible at all eight sites. The UK is to define its nuclear policy in 2008.
Transmission
The news was part of a review of site work needed to counter the impact of climate change.
See British Energy's chosen sites (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7115002.stm#energy)

There have been concerns that rising sea water and increasingly heavy rains could threaten power stations on coastal sites.
But the report, based on research by engineering consultancy, the Halcrow group, found "the key conclusion is that flood defence and coast protection measure can be deployed to make replacement build a feasible option at all sites".
"Relying solely on current engineering methods and knowledge, the sites can be made robust against climate change impacts for the expected lifetimes of the replacement stations," it added.
However, the firm said access to the grid is likely to be an important constraining factor in selecting sites.
The firm has already embarked on transmission connection agreements with National Grid for each of the key sites it owns in the South of England at Sizewell, Hinkley, Dungeness and Bradwell, starting in 2016.
In October the firm took two reactors at Hartlepool and two at Heysham out of service after a routine inspection showed problems with the boiler units.
Studies to assess the different locations would vary but would include examinations of flora and fauna, fisheries and other marine ecology, landscape, geology, noise and air quality.
The firm said it remained "flexible" about how the sites would be developed and on the choice of reactor design.
'Mind made up'
Friends of the Earth's campaigner Neil Crumpton said that it was "crazy" to build a new generation of nuclear reactors.
"The new reactor designs are all untested prototypes, and the shortage of skills and component availability to build new stations would seriously compromise speedy or safe deployment," he said.
"We can meet our power needs, maintain energy security and tackle climate change through a comprehensive programme of renewables, energy efficiency and cleaner carbon technology."
Meanwhile the Liberal Democrat's spokesman for business, enterprise and regulatory reform, Lembit Opik, accused the government of having decided that it wanted new nuclear power stations before its consultation was over.
"While British Energy is entitled to do what it thinks best, its decision appears to indicate the government has already made up its mind," he said.



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44265000/gif/_44265316_nuclear_map416x400.gif

About time that our Nuclear Power is updated, although i'll be sick of hearing the green lobby moaning about radiation and how in their cloud land, wind power would be best :rolleyes:

[Hazza]

I hate all this global warming and gases and shizzle. It does my brain in!
tbh, no one thats alive today will be alive to see the world end, so who cares?!!!?
and as for nuclear powers, well:rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

Nuclear is cheap, reliable and makes us independant so we don't have to rely on Russia, Saudi Arabia and so on. Whereas Wind is expensive, unreliable, takes up loads of room and needs replacing every 10 - 15 years.

[lScottl]

Nuclear is cheap, reliable and makes us independant so we don't have to rely on Russia, Saudi Arabia and so on. Whereas Wind is expensive, unreliable, takes up loads of room and needs replacing every 10 - 15 years.

Were going to have to use it some day.

[Hazza]

Were going to have to use it some day.
When we are dead:D

[-Xiangu-]

im all for nuclear power as long as they dont break and we all die lols

[Smits]

go nuclear, i'm glad they are doing this really.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Were going to have to use it some day.

No we won't, by the time Uranium supplies run out on the Earth we will probably have the technogly to gather radioactivity from other planets.

Wind will be seen in the history books as a failure.


im all for nuclear power as long as they dont break and we all die lols

The Soviet style reactors are dangerous compared to the western reactors, we are very safe :)

[-Xiangu-]

awesome i want us to be high tech and better than all other countries one day lol nuclear LAZAERS kapow lol

[Jazza]

The government should've implimented this years ago, there has only been 1 major nuclear accident, Chernobyl, which was caused by outdated hardware and a lack of understanding. There have been 0 fatal accidents in the UK because of nuclear power and I doubt there ever will be.

[FlyingJesus]

Is there a reason they're all coastal?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Is there a reason they're all coastal?

Probably because they are away from major cities, plenty of land and water can be drained into the sea.

[-Sweex]

this is so cool.
if we got wind etc we would hardly have any room left in the country. and also
they dont produce enough energy

[mat64]

Is there a reason they're all coastal?

Nuclear power requires the use of quite alot of water if I remember rightly. I've always been quite for nuclear power as it has alot of advantages to the sources of power we are currently using.

[FlyingJesus]

A'ight cool, wasn't a criticism was just wondering ^_^

[cocaine]

Doesn't nuclear power produce loads of toxic waste/radioactive waste?

[mat64]

Doesn't nuclear power produce loads of toxic waste/radioactive waste?

Well it's one of the cons I suppose to nuclear power. But compared to what is produced out of so little needed in terms of nuclear power compared to what is needed to produce the same amount in fossil fuels it really does overcome the disadvantages. All that is needed is for the waste to be disposed of properly and you don't have as much of a problem anymore.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Doesn't nuclear power produce loads of toxic waste/radioactive waste?

It is buried in safe containers thousands of feet under the earth.

[Jamesy]

I don't mind Nuclear power. It seems a better alternative to Coal and Oil plants. Terrorism could be a worry if there are more however.