Controversial new Hinkley nuclear power station 'not vital' for Britain's energy future

[kristopher]

Controversial new Hinkley nuclear power station 'not vital' for Britain's energy future

The UK does not need the controversial new Hinkley Point power station in order to meet its energy needs, a new report has found.

Building more wind farms and gas-fired power stations could be enough for “keeping the lights on” – as long as demand is managed correctly, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) said.

The UK could save £1 billion a year if the Point C power station, planned to replace the current Point B station in Somerset, is not built.

ECIU director Richard Black said: "We wanted to know how essential Hinkley is for the 'energy trilemma' - keeping the lights on whilst cutting greenhouse gas emissions and keeping costs down.

"Our conclusion is that it's not essential; using tried and tested technologies, with nothing unproven or futuristic, Britain can meet all its targets and do so at lower cost."...

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-08-26/controversial-new-hinkley-nuclear-power-station-not-vital-for-britains-energy-future/

And before the usual voices start in with their spurious, ill informed drivel about the natural gas component of this scenario, it should be noted that Hinkley will require about 280MW of new additional natural gas generation for "spinning reserve" that will be running constantly to back up Hinkley should it SCRAM.

With the renewable scenario, the more renewables are brought online, the less the natural gas backstop will be needed until it is eventually phased out completely. With the nuclear scenario, as long as the nuclear plant is running, so is the natgas.

[Vogon_Glory]

1. As long as the demand is managed correctly?

I can't help but wonder about the anti-nuclear crowd's breezy assumptions concerning energy usage.

Is keeping these gas-fired plants such a good idea?

Also, barring a Brexit-recession, it looks like electricity consumption is likely to increase in the UK within the next fifteen years. I now believe that the development of electric cars and trucks has reached the point where they'll supplant most internal combustion vehicles in about 15 years now that the technology has begun to be practical.

Nuclear plants are less dangerous than air-fouling internal combustion.

[nationalize the fed]

2. Tell that to the people who left Fukushima

Nuclear plants are less dangerous than air-fouling internal combustion.

What kind of people make a mess and expect future generations to baby sit the waste? And who pays?

We were all told -- repeatedly-- that a Fukushima type disaster was IMPOSSIBLE. It COULD NOT HAPPEN, because of the redundancy in safety systems.

But it did. And it will happen again. Because if something can go wrong it does.

[Vogon_Glory]

3. Fukushima was an old-style nuclear plant

Fukushima was an older-design nuclear plant (Over 40 years old) of a design that wouldn't be built today. Today's designs have passive cooling systems that would have cut in during a power cut-off and would not have resulted in a partial core melt-down.

Biggest disaster in history? Tell that to the oceans' apex predators slowly being poisoned by the toxins released by countless fossil fuel power plants, autos, and aircraft.

For that matter, compare it to Bikini Atol, which despite the bomb testing of almost a human lifetime ago is today a thriving, vibrant Eco-system.

[kristopher]

5. Nuclear power has a strong "negative learning curve".

Do you know what that is?

[kristopher]

4. "breezy assumptions concerning energy usage"

Last edited Wed Aug 31, 2016, 06:34 AM - Edit history (1)

What "breezy assumptions concerning energy usage"? If you're talking about demand-side management, perhaps you'd be kind enough to outline where firm, solid knowledge is lacking?