Discussion:
Hunterston B shut down today
Add Reply
newshound
2022-01-07 22:46:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I heard this on the BBC news, so must be true :-).
They even mentioned that it has powered Scotland for 31
years (but it was commissioned in 1976).
I thought it was going to struggle on to 2023 though after
getting an extension in 2014 ?.
Andrew
Relatively recent decision to close earlier, similarly for Hinkley Point B.
sid
2022-01-08 10:31:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by newshound
I heard this on the BBC news, so must be true :-).
They even mentioned that it has powered Scotland for 31 years (but it
was commissioned in 1976).
I thought it was going to struggle on to 2023 though after getting an
extension in 2014 ?.
Andrew
Relatively recent decision to close earlier, similarly for Hinkley Point B.
The AGRs have given good safe service.
RobH
2022-01-08 10:49:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by sid
Post by newshound
I heard this on the BBC news, so must be true :-).
They even mentioned that it has powered Scotland for 31 years (but it
was commissioned in 1976).
I thought it was going to struggle on to 2023 though after getting an
extension in 2014 ?.
Andrew
Relatively recent decision to close earlier, similarly for Hinkley Point B.
The AGRs have given good safe service.
There was one at Sellafield for many years, but I don't know if or when
it was shut down.
newshound
2022-01-08 13:09:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RobH
Post by sid
Post by newshound
I heard this on the BBC news, so must be true :-).
They even mentioned that it has powered Scotland for 31 years (but it
was commissioned in 1976).
I thought it was going to struggle on to 2023 though after getting an
extension in 2014 ?.
Andrew
Relatively recent decision to close earlier, similarly for Hinkley Point B.
The AGRs have given good safe service.
There was one at Sellafield for many years, but I don't know if or when
it was shut down.
The Sellafield one (WAGR) was a tiny prototype, not really worthy of the
name. In particular it had a scaled down version of the fuel element
that meant it was not very representative.

"The WAGR was a prototype for the UK's second generation of
reactors,[62] the advanced gas-cooled reactor or AGR, which followed on
from the Magnox stations. The station had a rated thermal output of
approximately 100 MW and 30 MWe. The WAGR spherical containment, known
colloquially as the "golfball", is one of the iconic buildings on the
site. Construction was carried out by Mitchell Construction and
completed in 1962.[63] This reactor was shut down in 1981, and is now
part of a pilot project to demonstrate techniques for safely
decommissioning a nuclear reactor."

I am pretty sure that the containment building (a bit like an egg
perched on its narrow end) is gone now.
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-08 15:24:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RobH
Post by sid
Post by newshound
I heard this on the BBC news, so must be true :-).
They even mentioned that it has powered Scotland for 31 years (but it
was commissioned in 1976).
I thought it was going to struggle on to 2023 though after getting an
extension in 2014 ?.
Andrew
Relatively recent decision to close earlier, similarly for Hinkley Point B.
The AGRs have given good safe service.
There was one at Sellafield for many years, but I don't know if or when
it was shut down.
I don't think so. Magnox perhaps.

The original Windscale pile was not even Magnox. more like Chernobyl,
built as a weapons plutonium breeder.

Calder Hall in Cumbria was a Magnox.

Oh, they built a prototype AGR at Windscale - that was decommissioned
11 years ago. I'd forgot.
--
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule.
– H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956
Brian Gaff (Sofa)
2022-01-08 11:58:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
Post by newshound
I heard this on the BBC news, so must be true :-).
They even mentioned that it has powered Scotland for 31
years (but it was commissioned in 1976).
I thought it was going to struggle on to 2023 though after
getting an extension in 2014 ?.
Andrew
Relatively recent decision to close earlier, similarly for Hinkley Point B.
Spike
2022-01-08 12:16:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Incidentally, my friends ask why are
Nuclear power stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Perhaps we could get them to be designed by ArtStudents (TM)

<ducks and runs>
--
Spike
newshound
2022-01-08 13:19:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Spike
Incidentally, my friends ask why are
Nuclear power stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Perhaps we could get them to be designed by ArtStudents (TM)
<ducks and runs>
In the CEA/CEGB days (they had their hands on the purse strings) they
did, in fact, give some thought to this. Battersea was of course
designed by Giles Gilbert Scott.

You can see the rather grand double staircase at Kingston upon Thames here:


Rod Speed
2022-01-08 19:45:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Spike
Incidentally, my friends ask why are Nuclear power stations
so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Perhaps we could get them to be designed by ArtStudents (TM)
<ducks and runs>
LOL! Great idea. Sizewell B is quite attractive. Rolls Royce's
new SMR 'recommended housing' is also quite curvaceous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
I find Torness quite attractive in it's way. (just off the A1 near
Dunbar)
Fark, I don’t. Far too many bits tacked on.
Loading Image...
newshound
2022-01-09 10:25:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Spike
Incidentally,  my friends ask why are Nuclear power stations
so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Perhaps we could get them to be designed by ArtStudents (TM)
<ducks and runs>
LOL! Great idea. Sizewell B is quite attractive. Rolls Royce's
new SMR 'recommended housing' is also quite curvaceous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
I find Torness quite attractive in it's way.  (just off the A1 near
Dunbar)
Fark, I don’t. Far too many bits tacked on.
https://www.power-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2017/09/1-image-50.jpg
That's not the best view, though. Wylfa is another that is quite
striking, and rather less brutalist. It's still a big lump on an
attractive rocky shoreline.
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-09 14:35:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by newshound
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Spike
Incidentally,  my friends ask why are Nuclear power stations
so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Perhaps we could get them to be designed by ArtStudents (TM)
<ducks and runs>
LOL! Great idea. Sizewell B is quite attractive. Rolls Royce's
new SMR 'recommended housing' is also quite curvaceous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
I find Torness quite attractive in it's way.  (just off the A1 near
Dunbar)
Fark, I don’t. Far too many bits tacked on.
https://www.power-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2017/09/1-image-50.jpg
That's not the best view, though. Wylfa is another that is quite
striking, and rather less brutalist. It's still a big lump on an
attractive rocky shoreline.
Sizewell B is mostly hidden behind trees, but you can see it from the
shoreline...very long lens here so image quality not fantastic

Loading Image...
--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy
Rod Speed
2022-01-09 17:37:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Spike
Incidentally, my friends ask why are Nuclear power stations
so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Perhaps we could get them to be designed by ArtStudents (TM)
<ducks and runs>
LOL! Great idea. Sizewell B is quite attractive. Rolls Royce's
new SMR 'recommended housing' is also quite curvaceous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
I find Torness quite attractive in it's way. (just off the A1 near
Dunbar)
Fark, I don’t. Far too many bits tacked on.
https://www.power-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2017/09/1-image-50.jpg
That's not the best view, though. Wylfa is another that is quite striking,
and rather less brutalist. It's still a big lump on an attractive rocky
shoreline.
And still too complicated to look good imo.
Loading Image...
Peeler
2022-01-09 17:49:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 04:37:23 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Sqwertz to trolling Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$***@sqwertz.com>
newshound
2022-01-09 20:26:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by newshound
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Spike
Incidentally,  my friends ask why are Nuclear power stations
so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Perhaps we could get them to be designed by ArtStudents (TM)
<ducks and runs>
LOL! Great idea. Sizewell B is quite attractive. Rolls Royce's
new SMR 'recommended housing' is also quite curvaceous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
I find Torness quite attractive in it's way.  (just off the A1 near
Dunbar)
Fark, I don’t. Far too many bits tacked on.
https://www.power-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2017/09/1-image-50.jpg
That's not the best view, though. Wylfa is another that is quite
striking, and rather less brutalist. It's still a big lump on an
attractive rocky shoreline.
And still too complicated to look good imo.
https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article8712311.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/JS38950408.jpg
Try to imagine it without the Dry Store (blocky white structure on
seaward side) not there. That was tacked on later.

To my mind "arty" structures like the RR SMR artists' impression or the
Diamond Light Source don't really look much better. Ultimately it's all
a bit subjective. Which is better, the Millau viaduct, Golden Gate
bridge, Clifton Suspension bridge, Sydney Harbour bridge and/or Opera House?
Peeler
2022-01-09 21:13:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 20:26:56 +0000, newshound, yet another troll-feeding
Post by newshound
Try to imagine
Try NOT to suck off any filthy troll who comes running along! Just TRY it. I
know it's hard for you to do!
Rod Speed
2022-01-09 21:20:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by newshound
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Spike
Incidentally, my friends ask why are Nuclear power stations
so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Perhaps we could get them to be designed by ArtStudents (TM)
<ducks and runs>
LOL! Great idea. Sizewell B is quite attractive. Rolls Royce's
new SMR 'recommended housing' is also quite curvaceous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
I find Torness quite attractive in it's way. (just off the A1 near
Dunbar)
Fark, I don’t. Far too many bits tacked on.
https://www.power-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2017/09/1-image-50.jpg
That's not the best view, though. Wylfa is another that is quite
striking, and rather less brutalist. It's still a big lump on an
attractive rocky shoreline.
And still too complicated to look good imo.
https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article8712311.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/JS38950408.jpg
Try to imagine it without the Dry Store (blocky white structure on seaward
side) not there. That was tacked on later.
Still doesn’t look good without that, still too complicated to look good.
To my mind "arty" structures like the RR SMR artists' impression or the
Diamond Light Source don't really look much better.
Agreed.
Ultimately it's all a bit subjective.
Not really. Some like the sydney opera house do
look a hell of a lot better than any of the nukes.
Loading Image...
Which is better, the Millau viaduct, Golden Gate bridge, Clifton
Suspension bridge, Sydney Harbour bridge and/or Opera House?
The opera house in spades. And none of the nukes are even close.

And bridges aren't really comparable because they aren't a single large
blocky thing.
Peeler
2022-01-09 21:37:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 08:20:32 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
***@home to retarded trolling senile Rodent:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID: <uV9lE.196195$***@fx46.iad>
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-10 12:12:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by newshound
Post by Rod Speed
Post by newshound
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Spike
Incidentally,  my friends ask why are Nuclear power stations
so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Perhaps we could get them to be designed by ArtStudents (TM)
<ducks and runs>
LOL! Great idea. Sizewell B is quite attractive. Rolls Royce's
new SMR 'recommended housing' is also quite curvaceous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
I find Torness quite attractive in it's way.  (just off the A1 near
Dunbar)
Fark, I don’t. Far too many bits tacked on.
https://www.power-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2017/09/1-image-50.jpg
That's not the best view, though. Wylfa is another that is quite
striking, and rather less brutalist. It's still a big lump on an
attractive rocky shoreline.
And still too complicated to look good imo.
https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article8712311.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/JS38950408.jpg
Try to imagine it without the Dry Store (blocky white structure on
seaward side) not there. That was tacked on later.
To my mind "arty" structures like the RR SMR artists' impression or the
Diamond Light Source don't really look much better. Ultimately it's all
a bit subjective. Which is better, the Millau viaduct, Golden Gate
bridge, Clifton Suspension bridge, Sydney Harbour bridge and/or Opera House?
OTOH nearly everybody loves the fake gothic of Tower Bridge, or the fake
Greek/Roman on many a railways station.


I mean we could probably put a half timbered shell and a thatched roof
on an SMR if people all agreed that would make it look nice.

The real problem is that architects are all engineers trying to be
ArtStudents, where the game is not making something beautiful, or
blending in, but making a PersonalStatement about the Artists/Architect.

Personally I'd like to see em made out of concrete with a stone cladding
, castellations, embrasures, arrow slits and a drawbridge surrounded by
moat so they could make a nice little earner from being part of the next
sword and sorcery movie.
--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly
newshound
2022-01-10 19:21:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by newshound
Post by Rod Speed
Post by newshound
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Spike
Incidentally,  my friends ask why are Nuclear power stations
so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Perhaps we could get them to be designed by ArtStudents (TM)
<ducks and runs>
LOL! Great idea. Sizewell B is quite attractive. Rolls Royce's
new SMR 'recommended housing' is also quite curvaceous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
I find Torness quite attractive in it's way.  (just off the A1
near Dunbar)
Fark, I don’t. Far too many bits tacked on.
https://www.power-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2017/09/1-image-50.jpg
That's not the best view, though. Wylfa is another that is quite
striking, and rather less brutalist. It's still a big lump on an
attractive rocky shoreline.
And still too complicated to look good imo.
https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article8712311.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/JS38950408.jpg
Try to imagine it without the Dry Store (blocky white structure on
seaward side) not there. That was tacked on later.
To my mind "arty" structures like the RR SMR artists' impression or
the Diamond Light Source don't really look much better. Ultimately
it's all a bit subjective. Which is better, the Millau viaduct, Golden
Gate bridge, Clifton Suspension bridge, Sydney Harbour bridge and/or
Opera House?
OTOH nearly everybody loves the fake gothic of Tower Bridge, or the fake
Greek/Roman on many a railways station.
I mean we could probably put a half timbered shell and a thatched roof
on an SMR if people all agreed that would make it look nice.
The real problem is that architects are all engineers trying to be
ArtStudents, where the game is not making something beautiful, or
blending in, but making a PersonalStatement about the Artists/Architect.
Personally I'd like to see em made out of concrete with a stone cladding
, castellations, embrasures, arrow slits and a drawbridge surrounded by
moat so they could make a nice little earner from being part of the next
sword and sorcery movie.
:-)
I enjoyed the Blakes' Seven repeats filmed at Oldbury. I didn't start
going there regularly until after the initial broadcasts.
Spike
2022-01-09 09:54:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Spike
Incidentally, my friends ask why are
Nuclear power stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Perhaps we could get them to be designed by ArtStudents (TM)
<ducks and runs>
LOL! Great idea. Sizewell B is quite attractive. Rolls Royce's new SMR
'recommended housing' is also quite curvaceous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
As soon as I saw who the authors were, I guessed where the article was
heading. The fourth and fifth sentences ran:

"But opponents say the UK should quit nuclear power altogether.

They say the country should concentrate on cheaper renewable energy
instead".

Then further down, they say:

"It is a rare positive note from the nuclear industry, which has
struggled as the cost of renewables has plummeted".

It was too much to expect Harrabin at least to waste an opportunity to
trumpet renewables, while totally failing to mention the seven days this
winter where renewables produced a miserable 10% of demand, most of that
being the polluting imported biomass. When the wind don't blow, it just
doesn't matter what area the subsidy farm covers. and they cost a lot of
money and use a lot of concrete.
--
Spike
newshound
2022-01-09 10:26:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Spike
Post by Spike
Incidentally, my friends ask why are
Nuclear power stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Perhaps we could get them to be designed by ArtStudents (TM)
<ducks and runs>
LOL! Great idea. Sizewell B is quite attractive. Rolls Royce's new SMR
'recommended housing' is also quite curvaceous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
As soon as I saw who the authors were, I guessed where the article was
"But opponents say the UK should quit nuclear power altogether.
They say the country should concentrate on cheaper renewable energy
instead".
"It is a rare positive note from the nuclear industry, which has
struggled as the cost of renewables has plummeted".
It was too much to expect Harrabin at least to waste an opportunity to
trumpet renewables, while totally failing to mention the seven days this
winter where renewables produced a miserable 10% of demand, most of that
being the polluting imported biomass. When the wind don't blow, it just
doesn't matter what area the subsidy farm covers. and they cost a lot of
money and use a lot of concrete.
I despair when I see Harrabin's by-line.
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-09 14:32:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Spike
Post by Spike
Incidentally, my friends ask why are
Nuclear power stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Perhaps we could get them to be designed by ArtStudents (TM)
<ducks and runs>
LOL! Great idea. Sizewell B is quite attractive. Rolls Royce's new SMR
'recommended housing' is also quite curvaceous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
As soon as I saw who the authors were, I guessed where the article was
I didnt expect anyone sane to actually read it.
Post by Spike
"But opponents say the UK should quit nuclear power altogether.
They say the country should concentrate on cheaper renewable energy
instead".
Great. show it to me
As it stands renewable energy is 3-5 times the cost of nuclear, analysed
holistically...
Post by Spike
"It is a rare positive note from the nuclear industry, which has
struggled as the cost of renewables has plummeted".
ROFLMAO!

"If you want nuclear power you do realise that it will have to emit less
than on ten thousandth of the background radiation anywhere in the
country, must cover an infinite claim against it should anything go
wrong, dispose of its waste in a safe way - and by the way we have
defined there to be no safe way, and be opposed at every turn by eco
hippies, this making it too expensive an uninsurable.

That's what is meant by 'nuclear is too expensive'

Windmills of course that kill birds bats and people, and solar panels
that generate toxic waste that lasts forever, get a free ride.
Post by Spike
It was too much to expect Harrabin at least to waste an opportunity to
trumpet renewables, while totally failing to mention the seven days this
winter where renewables produced a miserable 10% of demand, most of that
being the polluting imported biomass. When the wind don't blow, it just
doesn't matter what area the subsidy farm covers. and they cost a lot of
money and use a lot of concrete.
And produce overall far more expensive electricity.
--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2022-01-08 13:52:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
functionality not other poofy considerations.....like 'should fire be
fitted rectally'
Rod Speed
2022-01-08 17:54:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Incidentally my friends as why are Nuclear power stations
so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Are you talking about the power station itself or the cooling towers ?

Hard to see how you could make the cooling tower look better.

Even say having a creeper growing over it would look pretty weird.
Peeler
2022-01-08 19:37:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 04:54:30 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
FredXX to Rodent Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID: <plbf76$gfl$***@dont-email.me>
newshound
2022-01-09 10:28:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Incidentally  my friends as why are Nuclear power stations so ugly,
surely they could make them look better?
Are you talking about the power station itself or the cooling towers ?
Hard to see how you could make the cooling tower look better.
Even say having a creeper growing over it would look pretty weird.
British nukes don't have cooling towers (apart from Calder Hall, and
those are gone now), they were all cooled by seawater except for
Trawsfynydd which was on a lake.

Actually forced draught cooling towers as typically used on CCGTs are
much lower and less obtrusive than the natural draught hyperbolic ones.
Peeler
2022-01-09 10:40:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 10:28:52 +0000, newshound, yet another troll-feeding
Post by newshound
British nukes don't have cooling towers (apart from Calder Hall, and
those are gone now),
WTF has this got to do with uk.d-i-y, you troll-feeding senile asshole?
Custos Custodum
2022-01-09 19:34:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Rod Speed
2022-01-09 19:41:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and
serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
With the UK ones that are mostly on the coast, that
approach risks it filling with water with a tsunami.
Peeler
2022-01-09 20:24:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 06:41:12 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Xeno to trolling senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID: <***@mid.individual.net>
Andrew
2022-01-09 19:49:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Cooling is bit tricky
%
2022-01-09 20:17:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Cooling is bit tricky
Not when they are water cooled.
Peeler
2022-01-09 21:13:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 07:17:46 +1100, %, better known as cantankerous trolling
senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Andrew
2022-01-11 19:01:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Andrew
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally  my friends as
why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Cooling is bit tricky
Not when they are water cooled.
What cools the water ?
%
2022-01-11 19:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by %
Post by Andrew
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Cooling is bit tricky
Not when they are water cooled.
What cools the water ?
It's pumped from the sea or lake back to where it came from.
Peeler
2022-01-11 20:01:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 06:29:07 +1100, %, better known as cantankerous trolling
senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Richard about senile Rodent:
"Rod Speed, a bare faced pig and ignorant twat."
MID: <r5uoe4$1kqo$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Tim+
2022-01-11 21:56:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by %
Post by Andrew
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally  my friends as
why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Cooling is bit tricky
Not when they are water cooled.
What cools the water ?
The planet ultimately. It’s just pumped back into the sea.



Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls
Chris Hogg
2022-01-12 07:23:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:01:23 +0000, Andrew
Post by Andrew
Post by %
Post by Andrew
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally  my friends as
why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Cooling is bit tricky
Not when they are water cooled.
What cools the water ?
Why not conventional cooling towers?
--
Chris
%
2022-01-12 07:51:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Hogg
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:01:23 +0000, Andrew
Post by Andrew
Post by %
Post by Andrew
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Cooling is bit tricky
Not when they are water cooled.
What cools the water ?
Why not conventional cooling towers?
In fact hardly any UK nukes do it that way.
Chris Hogg
2022-01-12 08:03:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:01:23 +0000, Andrew
Post by Andrew
Post by %
Post by Andrew
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Cooling is bit tricky
Not when they are water cooled.
What cools the water ?
Why not conventional cooling towers?
In fact hardly any UK nukes do it that way.
Agreed, but why not? Perhaps it's the amount of cooling required.
--
Chris
%
2022-01-12 08:09:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:01:23 +0000, Andrew
Post by Andrew
Post by %
Post by Andrew
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Cooling is bit tricky
Not when they are water cooled.
What cools the water ?
Why not conventional cooling towers?
In fact hardly any UK nukes do it that way.
Agreed, but why not?
Essentially because its cheaper and easier
to pump sea or lake water thru the nuke.
Post by Chris Hogg
Perhaps it's the amount of cooling required.
No.
Chris Hogg
2022-01-12 08:48:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:01:23 +0000, Andrew
Post by Andrew
What cools the water ?
Why not conventional cooling towers?
In fact hardly any UK nukes do it that way.
Agreed, but why not?
Essentially because its cheaper and easier
to pump sea or lake water thru the nuke.
So technically possible, then.
--
Chris
%
2022-01-12 08:51:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:01:23 +0000, Andrew
Post by Andrew
What cools the water ?
Why not conventional cooling towers?
In fact hardly any UK nukes do it that way.
Agreed, but why not?
Essentially because its cheaper and easier
to pump sea or lake water thru the nuke.
So technically possible, then.
But the other approach is used when the coast or a lake is available, for a
reason.
Peeler
2022-01-12 09:50:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 19:51:35 +1100, %, better known as cantankerous trolling
senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-12 11:07:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:01:23 +0000, Andrew
Post by Andrew
What cools the water ?
Why not conventional cooling towers?
In fact hardly any UK nukes do it that way.
Agreed, but why not?
Essentially because its cheaper and easier
to pump sea or lake water thru the nuke.
So technically possible, then.
Even cooling towers need a supply of water as some steam is lost...
--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.”
Sir Roger Scruton
Chris Hogg
2022-01-12 12:08:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:07:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:01:23 +0000, Andrew
Post by Andrew
What cools the water ?
Why not conventional cooling towers?
In fact hardly any UK nukes do it that way.
Agreed, but why not?
Essentially because its cheaper and easier
to pump sea or lake water thru the nuke.
So technically possible, then.
Even cooling towers need a supply of water as some steam is lost...
Well quite, but not nearly as much as direct cooling.
--
Chris
newshound
2022-01-12 12:28:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Hogg
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:07:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:01:23 +0000, Andrew
Post by Andrew
What cools the water ?
Why not conventional cooling towers?
In fact hardly any UK nukes do it that way.
Agreed, but why not?
Essentially because its cheaper and easier
to pump sea or lake water thru the nuke.
So technically possible, then.
Even cooling towers need a supply of water as some steam is lost...
Well quite, but not nearly as much as direct cooling.
Hang on, it's not the turbine condensate that gets sprayed up inside the
cooling towers. That goes through a closed circuit. The condensers are
cooled either by canal, river, lake, or sea-water and that is what you
see condensing above the cooling towers. The purpose of the cooling
towers is to reject most of the heat from the Rankine cycle into the
air, and not too much back into the canal or river water.
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-12 12:36:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by newshound
Post by Chris Hogg
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:07:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:01:23 +0000, Andrew
Post by Andrew
What cools the water ?
Why not conventional cooling towers?
In fact hardly any UK nukes do it that way.
Agreed, but why not?
Essentially because its cheaper and easier
to pump sea or lake water thru the nuke.
So technically possible, then.
Even cooling towers need a supply of water as some steam is lost...
Well quite, but not nearly as much as direct cooling.
Hang on, it's not the turbine condensate that gets sprayed up inside the
cooling towers. That goes through a closed circuit. The condensers are
cooled either by canal, river, lake, or sea-water and that is what you
see condensing above the cooling towers. The purpose of the cooling
towers is to reject most of the heat from the Rankine cycle into the
air, and not too much back into the canal or river water.
Exactly. Its' all about not overheating a slow river flow.

Manu US nuclear strains have cooling towers, In the UK we have the sea.
That is not problem free, but its nice and cold
--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-12 12:33:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Hogg
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:07:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:01:23 +0000, Andrew
Post by Andrew
What cools the water ?
Why not conventional cooling towers?
In fact hardly any UK nukes do it that way.
Agreed, but why not?
Essentially because its cheaper and easier
to pump sea or lake water thru the nuke.
So technically possible, then.
Even cooling towers need a supply of water as some steam is lost...
Well quite, but not nearly as much as direct cooling.
There's an interesting article by US energy supplier on this
Combining with some other info the answer is that its a balance between
technical financial and environmental factors.

1/. If you have seawater, or a very large lake, its much colder, and
much cheaper to use it direct, and a bit of warm water going in the sea
simply makes a brilliant micro environment for some fish and crustaceans
and molluscs.

2/. If all you have is a river, or small lake, not only is it not very
cold, the environmentalists may get shirty if you warm it up to indoor
swimming pool temperatures, so instead of using it direct (in France in
hot summers, they do shut/throttle back a few river based nukes), using
it to essentially lose the heat in water *evaporation* in a cooling
tower is judged less harmful...

100 US nuclear plants do use cooling towers.

The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast was
sound.

<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>

Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy
ajh
2022-01-14 16:31:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles from
the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
SH
2022-01-14 16:54:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ajh
Post by The Natural Philosopher
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast
was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
Its a research reactor as opposed to a electricity generation reactor if
my memory serves me right.
newshound
2022-01-14 17:48:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by SH
Post by ajh
Post by The Natural Philosopher
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast
was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
Its a research reactor as opposed to a electricity generation reactor if
my memory serves me right.
Correct. It's a map of civil nuclear power sites, so does not include
Dounreay, Harwell, Winfrith, Springfields, or Culcheth. Sellafield
covers both civil and military.
charles
2022-01-14 18:10:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by SH
Post by ajh
Post by The Natural Philosopher
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast
was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
Its a research reactor as opposed to a electricity generation reactor if
my memory serves me right.
and has, beeen closed for quite some time.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-14 20:32:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by SH
Post by ajh
Post by The Natural Philosopher
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast
was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
Its a research reactor as opposed to a electricity generation reactor if
my memory serves me right.
and has, beeen closed for quite some time.
Yup. 'twas our one and only fast breeder. Worked too.
--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.
newshound
2022-01-14 21:30:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by charles
Post by SH
Post by ajh
Post by The Natural Philosopher
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast
was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
Its a research reactor as opposed to a electricity generation reactor if
my memory serves me right.
and has, beeen closed for quite some time.
Yup. 'twas our one and only fast breeder. Worked too.
Actually there were two fast reactors on that site, and in a well fenced
off bit at one end there were two submarine reactors, both also now shut
down.

The site however is not closed, it is undergoing decontamination.
ajh
2022-01-15 12:57:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by newshound
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by charles
Post by SH
Post by ajh
Post by The Natural Philosopher
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast
was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
Its a research reactor as opposed to a electricity generation reactor if
my memory serves me right.
and has, beeen closed for quite some time.
Yup. 'twas our one and only fast breeder. Worked too.
Actually there were two fast reactors on that site, and in a well fenced
off bit at one end there were two submarine reactors, both also now shut
down.
The site however is not closed, it is undergoing decontamination.
When I was last there 15 years ago the beach was out of bounds because
there were radioactive escaped bits washed up. Even then it was closed
but the workforce was bigger than when it was working. A lady friend
worked in the canteen.

Did they never supply the grid then?
newshound
2022-01-15 15:25:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ajh
Post by newshound
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by charles
Post by SH
Post by ajh
Post by The Natural Philosopher
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast
was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
Its a research reactor as opposed to a electricity generation reactor if
my memory serves me right.
and has, beeen closed for quite some time.
Yup. 'twas our one and only fast breeder. Worked too.
Actually there were two fast reactors on that site, and in a well
fenced off bit at one end there were two submarine reactors, both also
now shut down.
The site however is not closed, it is undergoing decontamination.
When I was last there 15 years ago the beach was out of bounds because
there were radioactive escaped bits washed up. Even then it was closed
but the workforce was bigger than when it was working. A lady friend
worked in the canteen.
Did they never supply the grid then?
PFR had a theoretical output of 250MW and did eventually reach this.
That will have far exceeded site demand so yes, it will have been
exported to grid in the same way as Calder Hall and Chapelcross
surpluses. But none of these were civil sites. The exports from the
first CH reactor were claimed for their PR value, this was genuinely
nuclear power that reached people's homes.
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-14 20:25:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ajh
Post by The Natural Philosopher
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast
was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
I wonder why most of Scotland is missing off that map...
It may bne that that is a map of potentially developable sites and
Dounreay isnt because SNP/Green idiocy.
--
For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the
very definition of slavery.

Jonathan Swift
charles
2022-01-14 21:15:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by ajh
Post by The Natural Philosopher
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast
was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
I wonder why most of Scotland is missing off that map...
It may bne that that is a map of potentially developable sites and
Dounreay isnt because SNP/Green idiocy.
You might notice how close Chapelcross is to Lockerbie. A major disaster
was avoided by chance.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
newshound
2022-01-14 21:33:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by ajh
Post by The Natural Philosopher
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast
was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
I wonder why most of Scotland is missing off that map...
It may bne that that is a map of potentially developable sites and
Dounreay isnt because SNP/Green idiocy.
You might notice how close Chapelcross is to Lockerbie. A major disaster
was avoided by chance.
Not really. A minor accident was contained by good decision making.

And no-one had ever heard of Lockerbie until the plane came down.
charles
2022-01-15 08:50:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by newshound
Post by charles
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by ajh
Post by The Natural Philosopher
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast
was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
I wonder why most of Scotland is missing off that map...
It may bne that that is a map of potentially developable sites and
Dounreay isnt because SNP/Green idiocy.
You might notice how close Chapelcross is to Lockerbie. A major disaster
was avoided by chance.
Not really. A minor accident was contained by good decision making.
What decision? A bomb went off in the plane.
Post by newshound
And no-one had ever heard of Lockerbie until the plane came down.
I had, even been there.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
newshound
2022-01-15 15:31:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by newshound
Post by charles
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by ajh
Post by The Natural Philosopher
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast
was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
I wonder why most of Scotland is missing off that map...
It may bne that that is a map of potentially developable sites and
Dounreay isnt because SNP/Green idiocy.
You might notice how close Chapelcross is to Lockerbie. A major disaster
was avoided by chance.
Not really. A minor accident was contained by good decision making.
What decision? A bomb went off in the plane.
Oh please. I was referring to an actual (minor) nuclear incident on the
site.

But although the plane made a hole in the ground, even a direct hit on
the most sensitive parts of the CX plant would have had a relatively
minor radiological impact. That's why we don't need significant flight
exclusion zones. At one time, the RAF used to use some of the early
nuclear power stations as targets for dummy bombing runs. That,
obviously, increases the probability of an impact, and when that was
pointed out to them, the practice stopped.
charles
2022-01-15 16:18:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by newshound
Post by charles
Post by newshound
Post by charles
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by ajh
Post by The Natural Philosopher
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast
was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
I wonder why most of Scotland is missing off that map...
It may bne that that is a map of potentially developable sites and
Dounreay isnt because SNP/Green idiocy.
You might notice how close Chapelcross is to Lockerbie. A major disaster
was avoided by chance.
Not really. A minor accident was contained by good decision making.
What decision? A bomb went off in the plane.
Oh please. I was referring to an actual (minor) nuclear incident on the
site.
I introduced Chapelcross to the thread,
Post by newshound
But although the plane made a hole in the ground, even a direct hit on
the most sensitive parts of the CX plant would have had a relatively
minor radiological impact. That's why we don't need significant flight
exclusion zones. At one time, the RAF used to use some of the early
nuclear power stations as targets for dummy bombing runs. That,
obviously, increases the probability of an impact, and when that was
pointed out to them, the practice stopped.
Pilots do strange things. At on BBc transmitter site, the nearby RAF base
was asked stop flying in and out of the guy wires. "What guy wires?"
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
newshound
2022-01-15 17:39:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by newshound
Oh please. I was referring to an actual (minor) nuclear incident on the
site.
I introduced Chapelcross to the thread,
Yes and I assumed you meant their site problem in 1967 (forgetting that
they had another in 2001).
Post by charles
Post by newshound
But although the plane made a hole in the ground, even a direct hit on
the most sensitive parts of the CX plant would have had a relatively
minor radiological impact. That's why we don't need significant flight
exclusion zones. At one time, the RAF used to use some of the early
nuclear power stations as targets for dummy bombing runs. That,
obviously, increases the probability of an impact, and when that was
pointed out to them, the practice stopped.
Pilots do strange things. At on BBc transmitter site, the nearby RAF base
was asked stop flying in and out of the guy wires. "What guy wires?"
Don't believe it. They might have been thought to be flying too close,
but even then I'm dubious.
Rod Speed
2022-01-17 03:47:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by newshound
Post by charles
Pilots do strange things. At on BBc transmitter site, the nearby RAF base
was asked stop flying in and out of the guy wires. "What guy wires?"
Don't believe it.
I don’t either.
Post by newshound
They might have been thought to be flying too close, but even then I'm
dubious.
Me too with a fucking great transmitter tower.
Peeler
2022-01-17 09:09:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:47:22 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
--
FredXX to Rodent Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID: <plbf76$gfl$***@dont-email.me>
newshound
2022-01-14 21:30:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by ajh
Post by The Natural Philosopher
The UK, is a special case. Nowhere in the UK is more than 60 miles
from the coast, so the decisions to place the stations on the coast
was sound.
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf>
Less cost, away from populated areas, more efficient, and low
environmental impact.
I wonder why Dounreay is missing off that map?
I wonder why most of Scotland is missing off that map...
It may bne that that is a map of potentially developable sites and
Dounreay isnt because SNP/Green idiocy.
No mystery, it's a map of civil sites.
Peeler
2022-01-12 09:26:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 19:09:58 +1100, %, better known as cantankerous trolling
senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 87-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
newshound
2022-01-12 12:22:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Hogg
Post by %
Post by Chris Hogg
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:01:23 +0000, Andrew
Post by Andrew
Post by %
Post by Andrew
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Cooling is bit tricky
Not when they are water cooled.
What cools the water ?
Why not conventional cooling towers?
In fact hardly any UK nukes do it that way.
Agreed, but why not? Perhaps it's the amount of cooling required.
I don't know the answer for sure, but also remember that even with
cooling towers you are still putting heat into the Trent or whatever,
and that has an environmental impact. Those coal fired power stations
were sited there for two reasons, proximity to the fuel and proximity to
demand. Apart from Hartlepool and Heysham, the decision was taken to
site most of the UK civil nukes away from population centres, and that's
easiest to do on the coast, which also gives you a heat dump. There are
downsides in that your condenser tubes have to be corrosion resistant,
they suffer from fouling by marine invertebrates, and the drum screens
that stop fish getting into the works can get blocked by seaweed set
adrift by storms. A non-trivial problem.

So, there is no technical reason why nukes should not have cooling
towers and elsewhere, many do. Three Mile Island comes to mind as an
example.

There may even be a slight "image" issue: I recall a top politician in
the USA getting a lot of press coverage when complaining about power
station pollution in urban areas. He was photographed pointing at the
condensed water vapour coming out of the cooling towers.
charles
2022-01-12 14:01:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Hogg
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:01:23 +0000, Andrew
Post by Andrew
Post by %
Post by Andrew
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Cooling is bit tricky
Not when they are water cooled.
What cools the water ?
Why not conventional cooling towers?
a bit ugly
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-09 19:57:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Nope. cost and flooding are the to0w issue really. The RR SMRs are
designed to be mostly underground as far as the reactor goes...only
control gear is on top..passively cooled under SCRAM...
--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
..I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)
newshound
2022-01-09 20:31:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
The Swiss have one that is more or less inside a mountain. Not so much
risk of flooding there of course. And the hardware for Dinorwic pumped
storage scheme (much the same physical size as a nuclear reactor
complex) is all inside the mountain. You could fit St Paul's Cathedral
inside the main chamber. But it does make construction very expensive.
Paul
2022-01-10 11:59:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost more
than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and serviceability
have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my friends as why are
Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could make them look better?
Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Think of the extra fault modes and documentation necessary,
to be putting a facility underground. And all of that just
translates in the end, into "cost". It's not because there
are a few extra yards of concrete. it's all the planning work
that backs up the design, and proves the design is safe.

Some of the reactors, have two million pages of documentation.

Paul
sid
2022-01-10 13:15:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost
more than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and
serviceability have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my
friends as why are Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could
make them look better? Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Think of the extra fault modes and documentation necessary, to be
putting a facility underground. And all of that just translates in the
end, into "cost". It's not because there are a few extra yards of
concrete. it's all the planning work that backs up the design, and
proves the design is safe.
Some of the reactors, have two million pages of documentation.
Paul
That depends a lot on font size.
newshound
2022-01-10 19:24:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by sid
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 11:58:34 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Is this safety concerns or the fact that the work needed wiill cost
more than its worth in effect. We hope construction techniques and
serviceability have improved in more recent designs. Incidentally my
friends as why are Nuclear powe stations so ugly, surely they could
make them look better? Brian
Is there any reason, other than cost. why they couldn't be built
underground?
Think of the extra fault modes and documentation necessary, to be
putting a facility underground. And all of that just translates in the
end, into "cost". It's not because there are a few extra yards of
concrete. it's all the planning work that backs up the design, and
proves the design is safe.
Some of the reactors, have two million pages of documentation.
Paul
That depends a lot on font size.
You'll know about the scientist in the early days of word processors who
was asked to shorten a paper by two pages. He just dropped the font size
and it was accepted immediately.
Andy Burns
2022-01-14 09:15:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
some care was taken to blend Trawsfynydd into the Snowdonia background,
especially during the decommissioning phase after it closed.
I see it is proposed as an SMR site

<https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.ft.com/content/70c7d7d7-6658-4d6a-9370-64087bf314e7>



p.s. that's using a tool for peeping over paywalls, simply prefix URLs with

12ft.io/

it doesn't work in all cases, but handy where it does ...
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-14 13:43:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
some care was taken to blend Trawsfynydd into the Snowdonia
background, especially during the decommissioning phase after it closed.
I see it is proposed as an SMR site
<https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.ft.com/content/70c7d7d7-6658-4d6a-9370-64087bf314e7>
It is a thoroughly sane idea to take over any old Magnox sites and use
them for SMRs. The infrastructure is already in place.

And the size of Trawsfynydd - 470MW - is identical to a single RR SMR.

It might have been designed to fit...
--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.
newshound
2022-01-14 17:44:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Andy Burns
some care was taken to blend Trawsfynydd into the Snowdonia
background, especially during the decommissioning phase after it closed.
I see it is proposed as an SMR site
<https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.ft.com/content/70c7d7d7-6658-4d6a-9370-64087bf314e7>
It is a thoroughly sane idea to take over any old Magnox sites and use
them for SMRs. The infrastructure is already in place.
And the size of Trawsfynydd - 470MW - is identical to a single RR SMR.
It might have been designed to fit...
Agreed. I'm not clear what SMRs are expected to need as cooling water.
Obviously, a 470MW unit needs to reject something like 70*470/30 = 1.1GW
of heat which could go straight into the sea, or via various types of
cooling tower with or without a canal, river, or lake.

As you say that output matches the grid connection nicely, although I'm
not sure what the lifetime of substation components is. I'd guess there
is more electronics in modern kit. I think the SMR is going to need a
new concrete-lined hole in the ground, but the car-park, roads,
services, security infrastructure etc can all be adapted.
The Natural Philosopher
2022-01-14 20:32:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by newshound
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Andy Burns
some care was taken to blend Trawsfynydd into the Snowdonia
background, especially during the decommissioning phase after it closed.
I see it is proposed as an SMR site
<https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.ft.com/content/70c7d7d7-6658-4d6a-9370-64087bf314e7>
It is a thoroughly sane idea to take over any old Magnox sites and use
them for SMRs. The infrastructure is already in place.
And the size of Trawsfynydd - 470MW - is identical to a single RR SMR.
It might have been designed to fit...
Agreed. I'm not clear what SMRs are expected to need as cooling water.
Obviously, a 470MW unit needs to reject something like 70*470/30 = 1.1GW
of heat which could go straight into the sea, or via various types of
cooling tower with or without a canal, river, or lake.
Same as anything else in that cxalss, as a not very supercritical steam
plant expect thermal efficiency to be 37% which is about what you said.
There's a big fuckoff icy cold lake there at Trawsfynydd
Post by newshound
As you say that output matches the grid connection nicely, although I'm
not sure what the lifetime of substation components is. I'd guess there
is more electronics in modern kit. I think the SMR is going to need a
new concrete-lined hole in the ground, but the car-park, roads,
services, security infrastructure etc can all be adapted.
The main cost of a reactor is in *meeting regulations*. The advantage of
existing sites is that they already have planning permissions for
nuclear, the locals are used to nuclear and happy for the jobs and
income it brings and so they are very fast places to build.

Additionally the new reactor pays for security of the shutdown reactors,
which need to lie dormant for 100 years or so before being dismantled
without use of radiation shielding kit.

Its all frightfully logical, so the Greens will oppose it tooth and nail
--
For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the
very definition of slavery.

Jonathan Swift
Jim GM4DHJ ...
2022-01-08 13:11:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I heard this on the BBC news, so must be true :-).
They even mentioned that it has powered Scotland for 31
years (but it was commissioned in 1976).
I thought it was going to struggle on to 2023 though after
getting an extension in 2014 ?.
Andrew
cracks in the core
Loading...