Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • Replies 12 replies
  • Subscribers 13 subscribers
  • Views 1101 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Why Britain can’t build Nuclear Power Plants

Roger B

Hinkley Point C is not exactly a standard EPR,

“He said that 70% of equipment had now been delivered for unit 1”, and "many risks are behind us, like the unique British instrument and control system which has been designed and manufactured, with testing under way". He added: "We had to substantially adapt the EPR design to satisfy British regulations, requiring 7000 changes, adding 35% more steel and 25% more concrete. This adaptation and approval process is the same for other developers bringing new designs into Britain. Now the design of our UK plant is complete in detail meaning contractors have certainty over exactly what is needed to build the plant."

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-announces-Hinkley-Point-C-delay-and-big-rise-i

7000 changes, a unique control system, 35% more steel and 25% more concrete. This will be the BS 1363 plug and socket of the nuclear world.

Parents

  • Yes, as I thought a totally unrealistic limit which needs revision to something workable but safe.  If nuclear subs use a sensible limit why not adopt that instead of spending/wasting billions in over specifications?

  • in reply to CliveS

    There are 2 issues here. Safety of personnel and nuclear safety. Personnel safety (mainly radiation dose) is readily achievable as evidenced by the simplified example of the swimming pool and nuclear submarines. Nuclear safety encompasses, for example, reactor containment and plant operation within safe parameters. Amongst others, the nuclear industry works to ALARA - as low as reasonably achievable, so the changes made now are likely to be safety enhancements to protect operators, maintainers and the public.

  • in reply to Christopher Jones

    Yes, as low as reasonably achievable sound good but why not as reasonably economically achievable ALAREA??

    Why not sink the whole reactor into the sea and save all the building costs?

Reply
  • in reply to Christopher Jones

    Yes, as low as reasonably achievable sound good but why not as reasonably economically achievable ALAREA??

    Why not sink the whole reactor into the sea and save all the building costs?

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines