The UK nuclear ‘renaissance’: be afraid
When French state-owned energy company EDF bought British Energy last year, it announced plans to build four new nuclear power stations in the UK.
There was a story in The Times yesterday saying that EDF are looking to ‘modular’ nuclear reactor designs that aim to shorten construction times. EDF has since refuted the story saying:
EDF is proposing to use the same construction method for EPRs in the UK as it is using at Flamanville in a project which is on schedule to be operational in 2012.
The EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) is a flagship third generation, state of the art nuclear reactor. It’s the future of nuclear energy, apparently. The one being built in Flamanville is one of just two being built in the world right now (the other is in Olkiluoto, Finland). The Flamanville project won’t be familiar to most people but it’s worth looking at see what we can expect when EDF starts building over here.
Despite only being only under construction for 12 months, Flamanville is 12 months behind schedule. The costs have increased by 20 per cent. Cracks were found in the concrete in the reactor’s foundations. A quarter of the welding in the reactor’s steel lining was found to be substandard. (The steel lining is what helps to stop the radiation getting out.)
(The EPR under construction in Finland is in an even worse state. It’s 50 percent – 1.5 billion euros – over budget and running three years late. The builders Areva and the owner utility TVO are squabbling about who pays the extra costs. More than 1,500 construction defects have been discovered. Welders were found working on the steel support structure without proper specifications or supervision. Site workers were warned with their jobs about speaking out about safety concerns.)
So, when EDF says it’s ‘proposing to use the same construction method for EPRs in the UK as it is using at Flamanville’, you’d be forgiven for feeling apprehensive. If you thought the Millennium Dome, the new Wembley, the Scottish Parliament building, and the NHS IT system were triumphs of profligacy and stupidity, just you wait until they start building new nuclear reactors. You ain’t seen nothing.
Posted on January 20th, 2009 at 2:33pm under Nuclear: power and weapons
| Related posts... • Nuclear numbers • Nuclear Reaction • When is a nuclear submarine not a nuclear submarine? |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 7 Comments |
The Dome was built on time and to budget (just, the spec was moronic); although Wembley was a bit late, the delays didn’t cost the taxpayer anything (all borne by the Aussie developer). I’m happy with either of those outcomes.
NHSPFIT and Scottish Parliament, not so much.
although Wembley was a bit late, the delays didn’t cost the taxpayer anything
I don’t see the relevance. It wasn’t a government project, it couldn’t have cost the taxpayer anything.
So which would you prefer, nuclear or coal-fired?
Here we go.
Neither.
Critical shortage of qualified welders – I understand. Some of the alloys take real skill to join properly. So they used car repairers. Makes you feel really assured about the long-term safety of the project.
Wembley Stadium I presume pays the commercial property business rate so its delay did result in lost revenue.
Is this a cryptic “Obama; be afraid” post?