Should have built ten more like Sizewell b across the Uk, this would have kept highly skilled jobs and training going plus each one would have been cheaper to build . 😊
When I was working at Sizewell B the Nuclear Electric guys were scratching their heads about why the C station didn't go ahead straight away seeing as how 'the gangs all here'. Replicating what you've just built is ideal, it should just have been a replica of Sizewell B (x2). That was the point. It could have come on line 20 years ago
A bit of wind in the uk and solar in sunny countries can reduce gas consumption up to a point but as the proportion of wind/solar increases to high levels on the grid then the whole system cost and environmental impact increases significantly to levels significantly above that of system which includes lots of nuclear in it. Hopefully the whole system models that prove this will be communicated more widely in the mainstream media now that we are just starting to see some of the problems associated with a high proportion of renewables. Up until now in our media there has just been a very narrow focus on LCOE, missing out the huge extra expenditures on storage, backup and transmission lines which are necessary as you increase the proportion of renewables. The mainstream media in the UK has let us down badly on this, how often do you hear someone from the nuclear industry or nuclear advocates in the mainstream media, they are excluded for one reason or another.
Your kids and parent's engagement thing would maybe benefit from collaborating with ... lab for kids books, which I know do a S.T.E.A.M. lab for kids book. Maybe they could do an electrical engineering type lab book for kids?
Those who think 'renewable' energy is an alternative to the massive power output of a nuclear power station are deluded. With the proposed ban on new ICE cars 2035 there will be a need for circa 6 new nuclear power stations in the UK alone to deliver the power needed to charge 40 million EV's anywhere from 3kwh to 80kwh. Sizewell C has huge opposition but wind/hydro solar is not the answer..
I don't believe China have anything to do with this anymore. Although yes bills will probably go up, but they still would if a load of gas power stations were built instead.
The thing is as the countrys growing bigger everyday there simple not building them quick enough. I say fcuk the high speed train line off and build more of these.
@andyclarke9589 that is the final solution, just the fact that it's not a liquid or in water tanks, rather than indestructible casts which are stored. They don't take up much space, clean, low maintance. Fun fact: all of the USAs nuclear waste ever produced can fit onto one American football field. No problem at all.
Nuclear costs 6x what renewables do and takes 10 years to bring online. Hinkley was estimated at £9 billion, but it’s already 10x over budget at £92 billion. China is installing renewables at a rate of 5 nuclear power station equivalents per week. The only possible reason for nuclear power now is to make fuel for nuclear bombs.
Nuclear is a CO2 nonproliferation solution ??????????? 9billion people and 80% in dictatorships. So nuclear INDUSTRIES in every country to achieve CO2 nonproliferation. ????????
Sizewell c has been in development for 10 years and yet building has STILL not started! Nuclear simply takes too long and is too expensive. Renewables are far cheaper and take a fraction of the time to install.
@@cerealport2726 hahahaha what wasn’t factual about what I said? Renewables ARE cheaper than nuclear and take a fraction of the time to install. Fact. You talk about objectivity- I wonder who’s bankrolling you!
@@kylieross5498 the fact is, electricity prices go up and up along with the percentage of "renewables" in place. Name one country where fossil fuels have been replaced by wind and solar and have made electricity cheaper, or even maintained it at the same price.... just one... massive government subsidies are what is keeping "renewables" going. investment drops off as soon as subsidies decrease. this is also a fact. Look at electric cars. sales plummet as soon as subsidies are cut... rental companies are dropping them because they are too expensive, and no one wants to hire them, and they have no resale value. they also cant recycle the batteries either, so they are building up into a toxic mountain of waste that someone will have to deal with, at our expense, no doubt. Wind farms have a woeful capacity factor, around 30-40%, as do even the best solar farms. This means that backup generation is always needed, often open cycle gas turbines, the most inefficient gas generators. So you end up having to install even more hardware, again, increasing the cost for users. Massive grid connected batteries are not really used to provide power, but to provide frequency stabilisation (google FCAS market or similar). this is an absolute goldmine for the owners, but does zero to make power cheaper for users. As for your retarded, unfounded, and untrue comments about me being "bankrolled" because I state facts that you disagree with, well, you just prove you have no argument of any substance, so, well done for that.
@@kylieross5498 What happens when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining? We need a base load supply for the grid that is low carbon and that doesn't depend upon the weather, nuclear is the answer. Your argument about the cost of nuclear energy is a worthy argument but it can be very easily dismissed by the fact that it costs around £33bn to build a nuclear power plant which is a lot of money but when you factor in that the UK has spent £300bn on renewable energy since 2010 £33bn doesn't seem like to much money for a facility that can generate electricity regardless of the weather and for a very cheap price for the consumer. May i also factor in that most wind farms and solar farms only have a lifespan of around 20 to 30 years where as most new modern nuclear power plants like Sizewell B and C and Hinkley Point C have lifespan of around 60 years. Your argument about the time it takes to build nuclear plants is a mostly valid argument, nuclear power plants do unfortunately take a long time to build, but the UK takes longer to build these plants due to the fact we use private companies and contractors which are always changing or are wanting different pay outs for there services, but that is a whole other situation to deal with. My conclusion is that for the amount of money the UK government has spent on renewables since 2010 we could have built just under 10 nuclear power stations as the average time it takes to build a nuclear power plant is around 6 to 8 years (thats not factoring what i just mentioned about private companies and contractors). Now if we had 10 active nuclear power stations in the UK we would have ultra low carbon electricity 24/7 365 days a year regardless of the weather.
Should have built ten more like Sizewell b across the Uk, this would have kept highly skilled jobs and training going plus each one would have been cheaper to build . 😊
When I was working at Sizewell B the Nuclear Electric guys were scratching their heads about why the C station didn't go ahead straight away seeing as how 'the gangs all here'. Replicating what you've just built is ideal, it should just have been a replica of Sizewell B (x2). That was the point. It could have come on line 20 years ago
When they build this will the utility please also paint Sizewell B and A? They are looking shabby!
A bit of wind in the uk and solar in sunny countries can reduce gas consumption up to a point but as the proportion of wind/solar increases to high levels on the grid then the whole system cost and environmental impact increases significantly to levels significantly above that of system which includes lots of nuclear in it. Hopefully the whole system models that prove this will be communicated more widely in the mainstream media now that we are just starting to see some of the problems associated with a high proportion of renewables. Up until now in our media there has just been a very narrow focus on LCOE, missing out the huge extra expenditures on storage, backup and transmission lines which are necessary as you increase the proportion of renewables. The mainstream media in the UK has let us down badly on this, how often do you hear someone from the nuclear industry or nuclear advocates in the mainstream media, they are excluded for one reason or another.
Your kids and parent's engagement thing would maybe benefit from collaborating with ... lab for kids books, which I know do a S.T.E.A.M. lab for kids book. Maybe they could do an electrical engineering type lab book for kids?
nice , very good
And esp maybe Ugears. Some of their models should demonstrate so.e useful processes, etc. Maybe they could do a more electrical version offshoot.
Will the forest that you are going to clear to build this be replaced?
There is no viable ground to replace the forest. This will all just be bull dozed
..
Those who think 'renewable' energy is an alternative to the massive power output of a nuclear power station are deluded.
With the proposed ban on new ICE cars 2035 there will be a need for circa 6 new nuclear power stations in the UK alone to deliver the power needed to charge 40 million EV's anywhere from 3kwh to 80kwh.
Sizewell C has huge opposition but wind/hydro solar is not the answer..
👏👏👏🔝💯
4:03
Build one next to me!
So whe we pay high bills ?
This is only going to put up costs further and the Chinese will make an absolute packet out of us, the UK taxpayer.
I don't believe China have anything to do with this anymore. Although yes bills will probably go up, but they still would if a load of gas power stations were built instead.
2:13 it will be 1m homes by the time it’s built when everyone has 2 electric vehicles.
"we" meaning the Chinese
They dropped out of it
@@will3124 they kicked out the chinese just to find out the hard way (went broke) they are the ones who did all the hard work .
The thing is as the countrys growing bigger everyday there simple not building them quick enough.
I say fcuk the high speed train line off and build more of these.
And what about the 10,000 years of radioactive materials left afterwards?
We dispose of it saftey like usual
And can be recycled so it’s only about 100-200 years of storage needed
@@will3124 Nearly all of it is still sitting in water tanks awaiting a final solution...70 years on there still isn't one!
@andyclarke9589 that is the final solution, just the fact that it's not a liquid or in water tanks, rather than indestructible casts which are stored. They don't take up much space, clean, low maintance. Fun fact: all of the USAs nuclear waste ever produced can fit onto one American football field. No problem at all.
@@will3124
Judging by the repository of American naval reactors, they may well be stored in the field :)
I’ve been to Hinckley Point. Lots of alarms warning that sensors in the reactor had failed.
Mate they are building it, it was construction vehicles
And you'd be supporting democracy and Ukraine. And reach out to schools with this, if they're not making use of Ugears now.
Nuclear costs 6x what renewables do and takes 10 years to bring online. Hinkley was estimated at £9 billion, but it’s already 10x over budget at £92 billion. China is installing renewables at a rate of 5 nuclear power station equivalents per week. The only possible reason for nuclear power now is to make fuel for nuclear bombs.
By 'ecky thump, thas not 'erd an accent as strong as like wot 'ers is in donkeys yurrs, I tell thee!
NO TO NUCLEAR POWER!!!
why
Они безобидны..большой железобетонный купол..это фокусирующее зеркало космических частиц ...а внизу обычный бойлер..
Nuclear is a CO2 nonproliferation solution ???????????
9billion people and 80% in dictatorships.
So nuclear INDUSTRIES in every country to achieve CO2 nonproliferation. ????????
Apart from a few countries why not?
Sizewell c has been in development for 10 years and yet building has STILL not started! Nuclear simply takes too long and is too expensive. Renewables are far cheaper and take a fraction of the time to install.
The same tired old flawed arguments from people who can't be bothered to look objectively at the facts.
@@cerealport2726 hahahaha what wasn’t factual about what I said? Renewables ARE cheaper than nuclear and take a fraction of the time to install. Fact. You talk about objectivity- I wonder who’s bankrolling you!
@@kylieross5498 the fact is, electricity prices go up and up along with the percentage of "renewables" in place.
Name one country where fossil fuels have been replaced by wind and solar and have made electricity cheaper, or even maintained it at the same price.... just one...
massive government subsidies are what is keeping "renewables" going. investment drops off as soon as subsidies decrease. this is also a fact. Look at electric cars. sales plummet as soon as subsidies are cut... rental companies are dropping them because they are too expensive, and no one wants to hire them, and they have no resale value. they also cant recycle the batteries either, so they are building up into a toxic mountain of waste that someone will have to deal with, at our expense, no doubt.
Wind farms have a woeful capacity factor, around 30-40%, as do even the best solar farms. This means that backup generation is always needed, often open cycle gas turbines, the most inefficient gas generators. So you end up having to install even more hardware, again, increasing the cost for users.
Massive grid connected batteries are not really used to provide power, but to provide frequency stabilisation (google FCAS market or similar). this is an absolute goldmine for the owners, but does zero to make power cheaper for users.
As for your retarded, unfounded, and untrue comments about me being "bankrolled" because I state facts that you disagree with, well, you just prove you have no argument of any substance, so, well done for that.
@@kylieross5498 What happens when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining? We need a base load supply for the grid that is low carbon and that doesn't depend upon the weather, nuclear is the answer. Your argument about the cost of nuclear energy is a worthy argument but it can be very easily dismissed by the fact that it costs around £33bn to build a nuclear power plant which is a lot of money but when you factor in that the UK has spent £300bn on renewable energy since 2010 £33bn doesn't seem like to much money for a facility that can generate electricity regardless of the weather and for a very cheap price for the consumer. May i also factor in that most wind farms and solar farms only have a lifespan of around 20 to 30 years where as most new modern nuclear power plants like Sizewell B and C and Hinkley Point C have lifespan of around 60 years. Your argument about the time it takes to build nuclear plants is a mostly valid argument, nuclear power plants do unfortunately take a long time to build, but the UK takes longer to build these plants due to the fact we use private companies and contractors which are always changing or are wanting different pay outs for there services, but that is a whole other situation to deal with. My conclusion is that for the amount of money the UK government has spent on renewables since 2010 we could have built just under 10 nuclear power stations as the average time it takes to build a nuclear power plant is around 6 to 8 years (thats not factoring what i just mentioned about private companies and contractors). Now if we had 10 active nuclear power stations in the UK we would have ultra low carbon electricity 24/7 365 days a year regardless of the weather.