Skip to main content

Britain Offers 18 More Sites for Nuclear Plants

From Reuters: Britain said on Thursday it was making 18 more sites available for the next generation of nuclear power stations and gave operators four weeks to pick the ones they wanted.

"Interest in building new nuclear power stations in the UK is strong," Business Secretary John Hutton said in a statement on the Government News Network.

That's putting it mildly. Currently, the U.K. derives about 19 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy and, while the goal is to increase the percentage dramatically, no target was given in the article.

Comments

Anonymous said…
If Britain actually goes ahead with a big build of like 10 big nuclear plants that they are talking about they will become a world leader in nuclear. And have clean, affordable energy for 2 generations of future Brits to come.

They need to just go for it.
paddythesaint said…
"...while the goal is to increase the percentage dramatically"

Not strictly true. The new stations will, by and large, replace older stations coming offline. Six stations (2 final Magnox and 4 AGR's) are due to come offline by 2015. By 2020 the only nuke station that will still be generating (assuming no extensions) will be Sizewell B.
Anonymous said…
I think it's necessary to take a look at the broader picture Paddy. IF...and it's a big "if"...they build the 10 plants, and they due within or close to budget and schedule, then it will of won over the public completely, IMO, and they will go "all nuclear" by the middle of the century.

Plus...all the proposed plant builds are much bigger units than the current fleet.

David

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…