Hitachi to build 6 nuclear powerstaions in UK

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20134735


    Today it is announced that Hitachi have bought the rights to build a new generation of nuclear power plants at sites in the UK.


    With Japan having lost faith in nuclear, Hitachi are having to look around for countries willing to allow new plants. The UK government is welcoming Hitachi with open arms.


    The HQ for most of Hitachi's UK operations is near Maidenhead in Berkshire. Just along the M4 from other nuclear-related sites where hundreds of thousands of us have protested in the past - Burghfield, Aldermaston, Greenham Common, etc. So it is familiar territory - we all know the way there ;)



    The sites where Hitachi intend to build are detailed in today's various news reports. But I would think there is scope for Hitachi's own headquarters to become a protest zone - one that's not cordonned off by security fencing and guards (yet).


    Hitachi do have numerous divisions with offices and production facilities at various other addresses. I've not yet gone through them identifying which ones have any connection with their nuclear work. Nor have I looked at which of their Maidenhead addresses might be the most appropriate focus of attention. But I'll be listening out for details of planned actions.

  • Post by Grendel ().

    The post was deleted, no further information is available.
  • Post by Easy Mcrider ().

    The post was deleted, no further information is available.
  • I go with the use less power idea. With a finite generation capacity then surely the idea of constantly increasing power useage is a bit silly (to paraphrase some cleverer folks than me) Protests towards that end would maybe be more succesful than generic NO TO NUCLEAR ones? I think that protests would be useful but only if there's a realistic goal for them.

    Through violence you may solve one problem, but you will sow the seeds for another...

  • After remembering the rules against using the section for discussions in the protests section of the forum, I've removed my comments on the original thread and post them here.


    If you succeed in stopping them be prepared for a lot of power shortages, most of the current power stations that are still active are either coming to the end of their working lives or have exceeded them, with everyone protesting about nuclear and renewables like wind turbines something needs to be done to ensure we can even continuing using power at current levels, this shortage has been predicted by those in the power industry for at least 10 years, but every effort to build new cleaner power stations and alternative generation has been stopped by people who dont want it in their back yard, well its going to have to go somewhere and its far more efficient to put the power stations where the demand is than transmit power great distances.
    By no means do I endorse nuclear, its lifespan carbon footprint is still quite high, but we do need to build new power generation, or stop using power.
    Grendel

  • "This forum is strictly for making arrangements to attend protests. It is not a discussion forum."

    So, with no protests or actions planned, this discussion is best suited to the current affairs forum - I'll merge this into the other thread as I'm feeling nice like that. ;)

    This account is shared by moderators to prevent us being drawn into personal arguments.


    You cannot reply - If you do receive a message via this method, then you must not contact any staff concerning the issue.

  • I'm awaiting my telling off now, I thought maybe discussion on the type and aim of the protest may be allowed but I was wrong, sorry.


    I'll start on here with what I thought-I go with the use less power idea. With a finite generation capacity then surely the idea of constantly increasing power useage is a bit silly (to paraphrase some cleverer folks than me) Protests towards that end would maybe be more succesful than generic NO TO NUCLEAR ones? I think that protests would be useful but only if there's a realistic goal for them.

    Through violence you may solve one problem, but you will sow the seeds for another...

  • from the other thread

    I go with the use less power idea. With a finite generation capacity then surely the idea of constantly increasing power useage is a bit silly (to paraphrase some cleverer folks than me) Protests towards that end would maybe be more succesful than generic NO TO NUCLEAR ones? I think that protests would be useful but only if there's a realistic goal for them.


    Actually I quite agree, appliances sold should reflect this and be more power efficient, to help achieve this, but we will still need to build power stations / generation plants - even modern coal fired plants such as the one proposed for kingsnorth on the isle of grain - and shelved through protests, would be cleaner in use and emmissions than the ancient plant that is currently there, yes there has been a lot of work done on the site with new desulphurisation plants in the smoke stacks etc, but I have seen the plant running and seen the out of tolerance outputs measured by their systems as soon as one section is taken out for maintenance and they ramp up the output at least one of the remaining 3 units run outside of the emmissions parameters, a brand new modern coal plant - whilst not ideal- would at least be a lot cleaner as all of the systems will be built in from new and be designed for optimal performance - ather than a retro fit solution that will never perform as it would if it had been designed in initially.
    As I said above nuclear isnt perfect, my best answer is diversity - a bit of wind, a bit of wave, hydro, maybe some nuclear, and coal, gas, solar, CHP plants, a bit of everything. keep things local to the towns they will supply, then you dont lose as much energy between point of supply and point of demand. by diversifying you stand a better chance of keeping the supply secure - France is an example, though many of the power stations are nuclear, they also have 2 or 3 wind turbines near each little village throughout the country.
    While I dont particularly like nuclear it is one of the lower carbon options (not that any are low carbon when you factor in lifespan carbon footprint).
    Grendel

  • This piece was written a couple of weeks before Hitachi did successfully bid to take over the Horizon project - but some of the references to costings are relevant here
    http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/b…clear-power-work-20121004


    And this from wiki page on nuclear situation in USA:


    "..In 2011, London-based bank HSBC said: "With Three Mile Island and Fukushima as a backdrop, the US public may find it difficult to support major nuclear new build and we expect that no new plant extensions will be granted either. Thus we expect the clean energy standard under discussion in US legislative chambers will see a far greater emphasis on gas and renewables plus efficiency".
    As of December 2011, construction by Southern Company on two new nuclear units at their Vogtle plant has begun, and they are expected to be delivering commercial power by 2016 and 2017. But, looking ahead, experts see continuing challenges that will make it very difficult for the nuclear power industry to expand beyond a small handful of reactor projects that "government agencies decide to subsidize by forcing taxpayers to assume the risk for the reactors and mandating that ratepayers pay for construction in advance". Mark Cooper suggests that the cost of nuclear power, which already had risen sharply in 2010 and 2011, could "climb another 50 percent due to tighter safety oversight and regulatory delays in the wake of the reactor calamity in Japan".



    That doesn't surprise me. No company has ever been able to produce nuclear energy profitably in the UK - the industry relies heavily on taxpayer subsidies. I expect Hitachi will be begging for more such.

    Hand in hand, on the edge of the sand, they danced by the light of the moon.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Breconeer ().

  • interesting, a couple of years back EDF were looking at a program to build nuclear (using the same designs they used in france) that was about the same time they sold off their networks as UK power networks to the chinese (I know as I woked for that part of the business until they cut the contracting side of the business last december).
    Grendel

  • Gas fired power stations will comprise the majority of new builds to replace the aging coal crop. Over the last five years we have seen gas stations erected at staythorpe, langage, isle of grain, marchwood, Pembroke, and soon construction will start at Carrington which is just west of manchester near the ship canal. gas stations have the advantage of tried and tested and relatively reliable technology and from an economic perspective they are a risk profile attractive to financiers. Yes EDF will develop Hinkley Point - nuclear station eventually and it's likely Hitachi will construct at least one of the six stations they have bought the rights too. However, with EDF and Hitachi still a ways from fully committing, and a ten year plus build programme in the offing when they do start, the gap in generating capacity will be such that only gas stations will be able to make up the necessary base load requirements in replacement of the coal and older nuclear which are facing decommissioning.