As a former employee of NNC back in the 80s who worked on-site at Heysham II & Torness, this is bitter-sweet: sweet to see this magnificent project making such great progress; bitter that Britain has squandered its nuclear construction capability and now needs the French & Chinese to lead projects. "EDF" with a Union Jack is a sad statement about how far the UK has fallen in terms of industrial capability. Anyway, great video and kudos to all involved; you'll remember being part of something monumental like this for the rest of your lives.....like the medieval cathedral builders; it's much more than just another job!
Every single industry we had was sold off between 1980 and 1996, which is odd because Labour was voted out in 1979 and voted back in in 1997 so you can work out for yourselves why British cars are built by Germany, British steel is owned by India and why British power plants are made by France. Oh, and why by 2040 British healthcare will be sold to us by Americans if we don't open our eyes.
I am also a former employee of NNC and really enjoyed this video as I think that nuclear power projects are the best engineering projects that you can work on in your lifetime. Well done to Nigel and the EDF team for producing such an informative video which is a bit of an improvement on the old hard copy NNC news back in the day (still have the original issues). Looking forward to the next video.
This is not nearly enough. Europe, except Russia, and USA are not capable of building even few reactors at the same time meaning we are doomed. Other green technologies are not nearly enough either!
A mega french EPR project which will finish like similar units elsewhere by great delays and 3 to 4 times scheduled budget. 12 years delay in Finland and near thé same in France. The 2 chinese réactors hv been producing energy untill they find à big technical problem. Actualy at least one is out . This technology of 1650 MW unit power is not so far reliable. May be French contractor EDF Will Support extra contractual expenses But what abt thé lack of energy when not connected to the network ??
@@williamjolka4351 Someone just commented this is normal because Europe, except Russia (most of it is in Europe), wasn't making such projects for decades. Of course they have mistakes, one with cladding, the other some kind of boiler, although this are not major problem. My opinion is we have to endure problems until this new designs and companies mature. I think you know renewables won't do it, no way. If they could Germany would already be mining their huge reserves of lithium :)
@@williamjolka4351 Yes I am aware of the problems but for once I wanted to leave the negatives aside since they get enough coverage. I just wanted to congratulate the people on the ground on getting this far; delivering such projects is complex and pressured work, and supply chain disruptions due to COVID and Brexit have not helped.
@@MUSTASCH1O that s true. I m still trying to unissant why EDF started with EPR technology 1600 MW as 1400 MW is working perfectly and future anyway is Under expériment in ITER project. It Will take another 25 / 30 years so It was à bit dangerous to change for Such " short time " Ar thé very beginning british government was involved to sécure thé operation but finally EDF took thé major risk as Areva plus Chinese partner gave à very small part of Garanty. This is too much regarding EDF financial possibilités in case of Big problem. OK EDF is hold at 86 % by France but it is now question to Cut thé company in several parts to sell thé Best pièces. As conséquence , problèms with EPR cld face tomorrow empty guarantee !! Thé work at site is great. I hope thé technology Will nt fail.
After a 13 year delay Areva type 1600MW reactor Olkiluoto 3 in Finland is now in testing phase. 60% output already achieved and full output should be achieved in the autumn which makes us near self-sufficient in electricity production. I hope all the lessions have now be learned by EDF and Hinkley Point will be completed more or less on schedule!
Great news, seems it will be online very soon! I have very little doubts about Finland not finishing it in time despite problems Areva (now Framatome) had, here it is known as a country without much corruption and good organisation. Is infrastructure better suited for 1600MW reactor instead of two smaller units?
@@codaalive5076 , the plant was ordered already in 2005 when small reactors were not available. Another 1200MW plant was ordered from Rosatom in 2014 but cancelled last spring for well known reasons. OL3 will be tested at 60% capacity throughout the whole autumn and commercial production will commence in december.
@@jarirutanen8762 I red about this delays, did Rosatom started building it? What happened with one ordered in 2005? West doesn't seem to be capable of building this plants reliably, probably due to corruption. I'm not sure if you remember Finland's Patria case... Anyway, South Korea and probably China are capable of building such reactors in 5 years for 5 billions, that's it, done. If i ordered one Korea would be asked first because time is running out.
Well, OL3 was the first EPR, but due to national and project-specific issues, it was overtaken by the Taishan EPR Units 1 and 2, which are already operating....
This is great to see! I can see HPC from where I've been living and would love to know how to get involved on a project like this. I've been working as an electrician for close to a decade but projects like this are the stuff of dreams!
@@lorrainedimmock4096 it's not massive. He would of been working 12 hour shifts. 6-7 days a week and grafting. 4k is not a lot when the future is always so uncertain for us ad hoc workers.
Great video! I saw a portion around 3:45 showing a digital build simulation. Could you tell us whether Hinkley Point C has a plan for an active/dynamic digital twin during construction and then during its operation?
The reactor pressure vessel in olkiluoto 3 was installed after nearly 5 years, in hinkley point c1 it is planed to have happened after only 4 years, so maybe 18 % less time, so we can expect it to go online after 13-14 years what would be sometime in 2032.
The fact that they're building a Hotel for chinese technicians worries me because with a complete crew they could operate, or NOT operate, as they feel like. Russia is blackmailing the EU with its strangle-hold on gas; we're just setting up for another round with the oh so democratic and humane Chinese Government!! JHS
I’ve no issue with nuclear power , the issue I have is just how much per Kwh we will be paying for then electricity from this plant, my French mates all laugh and point out how the UK is subsiding EDF in France
@@alexandrosandreou8585 This project is not good value for money and apart from the EPR in China none are on time or within budget, there were better nuclear options
@@alexandrosandreou8585 Try taking into account the de-commissioning costs, and that these sites will be 'restricted' for a hundred years after the last kWh of energy has been produced. "WE" will not be paying for that. Our Grandchildren will. Long after they have shut down. And THEY will have seen NO benefit from these plants. But it will fall to them to clear up OUR mess. Sorry. There are now better alternatives.
The strike price agreed was 92.50 per mwh, which is 9.25p per kwh... Most tarrifs at home are around 27p per kwh now, so the national grid and city traders are getting the other 2/3rds... The power station is not the cause of the high prices.
What about South Korea making bigger reactor of similar quality in 5 years for 5 billion EUR? They are making one after another but our politicians rather wait for great corruption opportunities. Don't let USA or France build reactors!
I'm in two minds with regards to nuclear power in the UK, I understand the need for zero emissions going forward and the desperate need we have for baseload power which doesn't mean us burning gas BUT I just feel we are pushing the huge costs on to future generations of decommissioning these power stations. I also understand the "strike price" of power from these reactors will be more than double that of wind and solar though I understand we need to install more energy storage as well with those. I also think £26B is just too much and could have been spent better elsewhere!
Cheap and cost effective when compared to the billions wasted chasing a 🦠 and paying people not to work. The economy is not medicine but nuclear power adds value to the present and future generations 🤷♂️
@@andyfield6854 yeah, I have before a bit but in some ways I can see the economic benefits to a different region with faster access to London 🤔 I thought this video was quite good at explaining it th-cam.com/video/FSD5ps9bLQ0/w-d-xo.html
Wind and solar is pretty much useless without backup power or storage. Add to that a much more expensive grid. The cost of renewables is...a scam. There are many decommissioned reactors, the cost is known. Take Sweden for instance with its 50/50 Nuclear/hydro mix which generated the cheapest energy in Europe for decades. Expensive, I think not.
Steve, no offshore wind is the most expensive, by a long way. The media and politicians mislead with their 'cheap wind' all the time. Also pay no attention to Contracts for Difference figures, they are not what wind costs. Dr. Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University analysed over 400 public accounts of wind farm owners and their capex and opex figures put current offshore wind in the £125 pwe Mwatt hour bracket. On top of that there are all the extra cost to incorporate their power onto the grid and keep it stable. No matter how much wind capacity we build we still need an equivalent capacity of reliable and readily available back up and balancing capacity. Nuclear is more expensive than gas, generally but it is reliable and has twice the life span of wind.
This is the only path towards reducing CO2, methane and other emissions from fossil fuels. The problem is much deeper than it seems because even green parties became so corrupt that they refuse to tell nuclear is the only way for survival of humankind. Any good, unbiased electrician who knows enough about nuclear will say what i wrote about other "green technologies". They are good for powering houses which require 10-215% of energy produced in developed countries, the rest has to be produced in a way that assures power under all conditions except strongest earthquakes (9 on Richter or more...). Nuclear plants then shut down for hours or days and turn on again. If engineers listen to other engineers AND various international agencies like IAEA, which they do, nuclear reactors are a very safe option. One could argue that Fukushima had accident because they didn't listen to agency who told them walls are too small; this is only partially true, very few could imagine such tsunami taking out all cooling systems. This accident actually helped the industry fix cooling in already built reactors in a way that they can take even tsunami. Europe and USA, except Russia, are not capable of building a few such plants at the same time, let alone building enough of them to solve transition problem. We are probably doomed if USA continues to play world police because China is not allowed to help, build reactors, Russia neither, South Korea has enough richer clients meaning no one will do it until it is too late. Gates's project was changed several times so don't count on such new technology giving enough power or even be built anywhere soon. Radiophobia is taking 850.000 lifes every year only by burning coal (ash is quite radioactive...), compare this to Three Mile Island and Fukushima where only one known death due to radioactivity occured, even if thousands died it is much less than ~70 years x 850.000 deaths from coal only! Chernobyl was military reactor made unstable to produce tritium and probably plutonium for nuclear weapons, such reactors were never allowed in West and since then not even in Russia who has lots of great scientists in this field... We have to go full nuclear very soon, or face end of humanity very soon too. If my writing changes views of only one person, then my goal is reached.
Nicole Foss Interview on Peak Oil, Financial Crisis, Resilience, and More th-cam.com/video/AdNvmIfyQPY/w-d-xo.html 79,375 views Jul 18, 2015 Economist Nicole Foss is co-editor of The Automatic Earth. Here she provides easy-to-understand answers in response to questions on peak oil, financial crisis, energy descent, resilience, community, and simple living.This is the full interview we shot with her for our film "A Simpler Way: Crisis as Opportunity". We can only ever fit in a few minutes' worth of the amazing interviews we get to shoot, so here's the whole thing for people who want to get into the nitty-gritty!
James, the problem with economists, scientists and most academics is they do not understand how electricity is generated and distributed. If they did they would drop their enthusiasm for renewables. Coda Alive has it in one, nuclear is the only way to generate CO2 emission free electricity excepting countries who have large hydro assets. It is a big mistake to think that wind, solar, wave or tidal are equal to and can replace fossil fuel generation. Unfortunately it is a mistake that is made by many countries , pushed by global agencies who in themselves are also ignorant of the technicalities.
@@jamesmorton7881 Foss' ideas are utopian, most people are too spoiled, many politicians and engineers so corrupt and destructive they will never ever allow ideas like this change things. I agree with IA Reid, renewables can't replace fossil fuels, no way. One of the problems with them are new requirments for electrical grids (infrastructure) because it has to be very dispersed, that's so expensive only rich countries could maybe do it. Look at USA who can't mantain it, let alone build new... Also, very few take in account weather changes endangering this new sources while things are only getting worse.
@@iareid8255 Yes, many don't understand this topic, although i'm sure most do but rather push their own ideas due to greed. Scientists and many academics from natural sciences got basic knowledge about requirments for electrical grid, power. It is hard to imagine anyone finishing university without understanding this basics. I will add that renewables could theoreticaly provide enough energy to power the world in about 20 years, if we work really hard and had enough money (only rich countries do). Main problem with it is electricity generation not matching the peak demand hours (times when we consume most electricity). Batteries are out of question as a solution, diesel generators and burning coal/wood make things worse. All this technologies except hydro to a point also leave behing way too much carbon footprint when buildt, waste is often very toxic, solar and wind tech can't be recycled completely and so on. Yes, greed and corruption are so big problems i don't see solution for it, except maybe nuclear but that will take almost as long to build as renewables which won't do it. I think we are doomed because CO2 stays in atmosphere around 100 years, we also don't count positive feedback this same scientists "forgot" adding to their models, same thing with methane. If i have to think about positive and negative feedback several times per week, how can they completely forget about it? Let's be real.
Coda, I'm don't agree, relatively few really understand even basic electrical theory and far fewer understand the dynamics of grids and the relative performance of differing types of generators. It is interesting that during the virtual global shut down due to Covid, the CO2 monitoring station at Moana Loa showed no difference in the upward trend. This indicates that our attempts at CO2 reduction is ineffectual, not surprising as man produces only a very small percentage of total CO2 emissions (3 - 4%?). CO2 levels have always increased with temperature, this has been knon for a very long time. Also the efect of an increase in CO2 concentraton diminishes it's effect on a logarithmic scale (Off hand I don't know what base they use). The models are not very good and with hindsight their performance has been overly high with regard to actual. They also do not take into account cloud's as there is only limited knowledge currently of their effect on climate. I think if you ask the majority of people what is the most influential greenhouse gas you would get the wrong answer of CO2. H20 is by far the most powerful both in terms of concentration (20,00 ppm) and in terms of the frequency span which it operates. It's effect in the small limited bands that both CO2 and methane have means that their effect is virtually nullified by water vapour. Note this is purely the greenhouse effect of CO2. Water is the only compound that exists in three states in the atmosphere producing both cooling and heating. As I say knowledge we have on the extent is poorly understood. Despite all this CO2 is the target? On a far more logical point, the climate has always varied in temperature cyclicly, yet somehow that has ceased and CO2 is to blame for all our currently warming climate?
It is astonishing to see how lethargic the contractors for the plant are about the tremendous, extraordinarily high increase in the prices demanded by the construction companies for the reactor. This is extraordinarily astonishing. Are they indifferent to it? Nothing in the world can justify an increase in the demand of 700 percent for a contract. Nothing in the world. Why do they let those who demand more and more billions get away with it? Additional demands of up to 30 percent are sometimes justified. In this case, they approve additional demands of 700 percent of the agreed project costs. Have those involved lost their minds? What kind of evil game is being played here?
What plan? www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy#latest-estimate
Nuclear waste storage and processing is taken exceedingly seriously. Unlike coal run off, methane flares, oil spills etc. Waste is usually stored in concrete barrels that contain the radiation of spent fuel to such tight tolerances that standing next to one will show no elevation in rad levels to standard background radiation.
It wouldn't "poison future generations" even if you fully neglected it. But reprocessing is very effective and useful, sadly it is also being neglected all over Europe except for France.
Nuclear power plants are green energy sources that don't emit excess carbon pollution into the environment, more new nuclear reactors need to be constructed in order to solve climate change. Green hydrogen production and desalination are needed to help modernize civilization.
Congrats to our British friends for this amazing project. By 2027 this power plant will deliver gigawatts of low carbon electricity, and dozens of similar power plants will be built all over Europe.
"low carbon" ? CO2 ! you exhale 40.000 ppm of CO2 with every breath "Energy" Can neither be created nor destroyed "Energy" can only be converted from one form to another Ergo, there is only energy There is no such thing as clean, green, environmentally friendly, dirty, renewable or low carbon energy, they do not exist
@@richardcowley4087 I said "low carbon". Overall carbon footprint from electro nuclear power plants (from uranium extraction, plant contruction to plant dismatling) is low YES. From 4g to 12g CO2eq / kwh according to studies. Better than Solar Panels made in China.
@@neofatalis Yes, better than solar panels made anywhere, 300X more toxic pollution than nuclear nuclear when built does exactly nothing for the climate as wind and solar do nothing
They are most definitely cost effective. SMRs are not really ready for serial production, which is vital to the concept. Once they are they may be a better deal. The problem is though that current SMRs are traditional Uranium reactors, not 4th gen, and as such they require as much infrastructure. So I would say building bigger is better, for now atleast.
Great, nice to hear from you. I hope you don't mind a question, not many are in your very respected position; what is wrong with Europeans (except Russians) and Americans that they can't build enough reactors? Is it oil lobby, loss of knowledge, young people or you rather don't say it? Thanks a lot.
@@codaalive5076 What's wrong is the cost. These are high-tech pieces of equipment and the materials, designers and builders of such installations have been getting more expensive while other solutions for electricity production have been getting cheaper at the same time. It also is not a good way to reduce dependency since most European countries don't have sufficient reserves of uranium.
@@jwstolk Do you propose renewables uncapable of providing base load power in most European countries? Materials like lithium are pretty rare and nasty thing to mine, this is why for example Germany won't touch their reserves, they rather try mining it in Serbia or any other country accepting "new ecological standards". If i was wrong about it, i'm not, installations for renewables are very expensive too because we would need lots of them while people are getting older in Europe, new generation isn't really interested in natural sciences except medicine, pharmacy, computers and so on. Also, no country has ever powered itself with renewables without requiring oil, nuclear and so on, German model shows very well what it means... On contrary, we know nuclear works, i'm sure there have been less deaths since it started than from coal in one year! I never heard of such thing as uranium crisis, people waiting in lines at some nuclear stations causing recessiono, or US starting proxy war in Europe with a country providing much of energy to EU, beside having more nuclear weapons than they have. Check this, it is pro-Chinese but it doesn't bother me: Germany’s overdose of renewable energy (Asia Times)
@@codaalive5076 You are correct that renewable (base-load) alternatives are expensive too, but all these things you mention are included in the final price, which for renewable energy is still dropping. Note that lithium is not a rare metal, it is even more common than lead or copper. It was just not mind much because we didn't need much of it. And we still don't need a lot since lithium batteries contain only a couple percent lithium. Reliability is also an issue, of one of these two reactors is stopped for maintenance, where does the electricity come from? Or is the 2nd reactor only used, when the 1st reactor is in maintenance? The Hinkley Point C nuclear station is Chinese, at least the most important pressure vessel is.
@@jwstolk It is hard to explain what it takes to get most of the power from renewables, then deal with bae load because we can't store electricity without loooots of losses, or build extnsive runs of new power lines which have very little power. Read about German problem. You are right, we don't need much lithium although it is essential and will be for some time, even copper isn't so common, let alone more fancy material for whatever. My believes are pretty much set in stone, we have only seen failures with renewables and not with nuclear.
It's honestly hilarious to see people high-fiving each other in the comments. Well done - only 15 years to build a single reactor. That'll surely do it. 12 Pence now per kWh guaranteed, that's 15 Euro-Cent without any costs included for dismantling and forever-storage of the nuclear waste and the parts of this building that have to be stored with it. Meanwhile all this money could've been invested decades ago into solar and wind which take roundabout a year to put up and instantly produce. No "13 year delays" to get out all the kinks in Finland. Just put it up and connect it to the grid. What is it that makes money endlessly available when it's nuclear power. Ah yes. Weapons. Same reason why France will keep building them. Fantastic.
Hahahaha. Bullshit. First of all, nuclear energy is not used for nuclear army. Second, renewable energy have a low CF (capacity factor) so they can't produce for all the time. Nuclear energy instead, produce every hour. So it's essential with renewable to fight climate change.
The cost of wind and solar is a scam. For every windturbine you build you need an equal capacity of backup power or storage, which doesn't exist. On top of that you need a more complex and costly grid. It is a useless intermittent source of energy and you're paying for it, right now. The cost per kWh in Finlands new reactor is in the region 60c.
Not to mention the Dogger Bank Wind project will be finished in 60% of the time, for 40% of the cost (8bn vs 23), and provide 10% more energy with a strike price of only £39 compared to Hinckley at £92. "Go figure"
they mention tunnels connecting the plant directly to the sea, I know that it probably is double contour system but still, will there be any systems in place to prevent illegal or accidental dumping of radioactive wastewater in sea? Fukushima scenario could destroy UK's fisherman business in one go
Read up on the design, and you will find it has protection against a tsunami the size of Fukushima, despite there having been nothing like that here ever. Also, the emergency backup generators won't be under the power station as they were in Fukushima. The cooling water from the sea will not be in contact with any radioactive material . As for illegal dumping - not a chance. Scrutiny is intense and independent, and done by people with a thorough knowledge of the subject.
When operational, the station will have permits from the UK Environment Agency to discharge low levels of a range of radionuclides to the sea and to the air - as is normal for nuclear stations. These discharges will be closely monitored to ensure that no limits are exceeded.
This is a great promotional video for Small Modular Reactors. This monstrosity, and all conventional nuclear generation, take too long to construct, cost way too much and will do little to respond to the global demand for clean energy.
A factory turning out one small modular after another would be great. Instead, we've got each one being built as a one-off decade plus long megaproject. At some point in its 60 year life that approach should pay off, but it will likely be obsolete technology long before then anyway. $25Billion, doubled the original budget, due for completion in 2016. It is still a big win for China General Nuclear Power Group.
So far no proof that small modular reactors will achieve the scaling and standardization effect to have them enough cheap and profitable... (I'm myself crossing fingers for that). And in the best case, the very first SMRs are for beginning of the next decade (2030). An eternity when compared to the emergency of situation...
The problem with EPR reactor was the lack of experience and off skilled manpower to build such huge civil work. Just wait the first one to be finished (Flamanville), then the batches of purchase orders for other identical reactors, then we will see for sure prices decrease and reach of high level of quality and of planning predictability. Just look at the Chineses with their Hualong. With their aquired experience, they build now 4 to 5 reactors a year.
Gates is playing games with those because they didn't even built one in all this years. Forget about and look at Chinese Molten Salt Reactors which will power whole country by 2050. Knowing their working ethics i'm sure they will do it IN TIME without corruption we see here, it is too important to them,.
@@neofatalis You are 100000% correct, i believe they are just playing games with SMR to make us think green transition is happening. It's not, Europe without Russia and USA are not capable of building a few of this at the same time while China won't because they need specialists for their Molten Salt Project!
@@sparrow56able well by the interview, he is definitely British. England does have engineers and very good ones too. You think all the workers are French? 🤣😂
25-26GBP for something that is not dispatchable. How again is this helping to make the uk net zero again? To treat this the same as people treat windfarms: * How much CO2 is emitted to produce all that steel and concrete? * What does the recycling of absolutely all components look like? Oh wait, that cannot happen as some parts will glow for many 100s of thousands of years still. * How much concrete and still and other resources will be needed for long term storage of that waste, and how much CO2 will be emitted for that? * Do wind farm operators need physical simulators to train their staff, and does that training need 2 years?
@@zolikoff It depends on ones definition of dispatchable. Nuclear is much more baseload oriented, and cannot quickly ramp or down. It is more "dispatchable" than lignite, but far less so than gas, which is far less than hydro, which is far less than batteries. And the problem with the cost is that that does not include dealing with the waste. The "one day we will bury it underground and forget about it" almost pipe-dream is not cheap: onkala is supposed to cost 1.5B EUR, but wait and see where that story goes. To get the german low and medium level storage facility in salzgitter "fixed" we spent close to 1B EUR on "research", and will spend at least that still to get it actually fixed. Nuclear has no economic future for power generation. And .uk consumers will be carrying the burden for this monstrosity for a long long time.
@@luc_libv_verhaegen A PWR like the EPR can ramp faster than any other large thermal power plant. Only open cycle gas turbines and piston engines (which both tend to be small, few-MW grid balancing units) ramp faster. But wait, the PWR also has primary and secondary frequency control, 5-7% of its rated power can be used for that (on the order of 100 MW per unit), and in that mode it ramps as fast as an open cycle gas turbine. So it is very dispatchable. It can load follow and balance grid frequency adequately. Granted, hydro is good for that as well and should be used as much as possible, but it is a limited resource by geography, otherwise it is not economical.
an't help thinking that all this money is better spent on renewables and energy storage. UK National Grid having to build a new high voltage transfer line North at again huge cost that is never talked about?
Simon, absolutly not, renewables are not suited for large scale grid supply, intermittent, incapable of load following, no inertia, and a couple of other minor technical deficiencies, You can't compare renewables to proper generators.
The operator. In the UK' there is a charge made on every fresh element loaded into reactors such as Sizewell B and - when ready - Hinkley C. This charge goes into the Nuclear Liabilities Fund to pay for future waste and decommissioning.
Shame that this type of reactors are now defunct, to costly to make and an disaster to decommission. Billions wasted and an environment time bomb, they only build this when the taxpayers and the customers will get shafted with the governments help. Total madness from a bunch of conmen. The Fast reactor system was far better back in the day , but things have moved on but the powerful need to make money .
There’s room for both nuclear and renewables and indeed they’re entirely complimentary. I wish government would leave it all alone and let us all do our thing. This new green fanboy zealously is causing all trouble and no benefits for the whole energy sector.
@@TheJon2442 I am a big nuclear fan. But you get security from not putting all your eggs in one basket. We need nuclear for baseload and renewables coupled with storage. We need a government with a comprehension of the strategic and the will to have a grownup conversation about strategic issues.
@@robinwells8879 sadly the "government" tends to only listen to leftwing activists. Currently there is not sufficient technology for storage of large scale power reserves without a radical rethink. Ninbies are very happy to not have power supplies generated near their properties. But totally behind green part-time power supplies. Not understanding that without hot standby power supplies, preferably nuclear, the lights will go out when there is no sun/wind!
@@adbogo you have no idea what you are talking about. Nuclear doesn't produce pollution . Only a tiny amount of waste fuel (which isn't some glowing green slime). That is very safely disposed of.
@@dandylion1987 You don't know what you are talking about, but you can look it up. All the uranium mine sites are a disaster for the poor people living there. Go and look it up, it's not hard to find.
The fact that it can be safely stored in a contained room the size of your house, whereas non recyclable wind turbine blades and solar panels get dumped in Africa.
@@melo1174 helping pave africa , good it's a 2 fer , there is no SAFE radio active road and fuel storage .. it's all temporary , dry storage is just a catastrophy waiting to happen
We need a plentiful and affordable energy supply, is this it?? I don't think so, and as for net zero what a crock of $#!@. This energy crisis is all of our pass and present governments and salesmens MAKING.
So have EDF etc mitigated against exponential Sea Level rise???? I understand HP is only 12 meters above currently. Or is it just one of the silent Elephants in the room, the other being the ultimate stupid; Humans and War??
As a former employee of NNC back in the 80s who worked on-site at Heysham II & Torness, this is bitter-sweet: sweet to see this magnificent project making such great progress; bitter that Britain has squandered its nuclear construction capability and now needs the French & Chinese to lead projects. "EDF" with a Union Jack is a sad statement about how far the UK has fallen in terms of industrial capability. Anyway, great video and kudos to all involved; you'll remember being part of something monumental like this for the rest of your lives.....like the medieval cathedral builders; it's much more than just another job!
We're like that in every manufacturing industry.
Every single industry we had was sold off between 1980 and 1996, which is odd because Labour was voted out in 1979 and voted back in in 1997 so you can work out for yourselves why British cars are built by Germany, British steel is owned by India and why British power plants are made by France. Oh, and why by 2040 British healthcare will be sold to us by Americans if we don't open our eyes.
All thanks to stupidity of thatcher
@@krashd thats looking ever so closely sooner.
Oh also our trains have been sold to the germans, french and swiss.
@@krashd move on already
I am also a former employee of NNC and really enjoyed this video as I think that nuclear power projects are the best engineering projects that you can work on in your lifetime. Well done to Nigel and the EDF team for producing such an informative video which is a bit of an improvement on the old hard copy NNC news back in the day (still have the original issues). Looking forward to the next video.
After working at a nuclear power station for many years its fascinating to see one constructed. 👍
A real megaproject. Incredible achievements by all the groups involved!
This is not nearly enough. Europe, except Russia, and USA are not capable of building even few reactors at the same time meaning we are doomed. Other green technologies are not nearly enough either!
A mega french EPR project which will finish like similar units elsewhere by great delays and 3 to 4 times scheduled budget.
12 years delay in Finland and near thé same in France.
The 2 chinese réactors hv been producing energy untill they find à big technical problem.
Actualy at least one is out .
This technology of 1650 MW unit power is not so far reliable.
May be French contractor EDF Will
Support extra contractual expenses
But what abt thé lack of energy when not connected to the network ??
@@williamjolka4351 Someone just commented this is normal because Europe, except Russia (most of it is in Europe), wasn't making such projects for decades.
Of course they have mistakes, one with cladding, the other some kind of boiler, although this are not major problem.
My opinion is we have to endure problems until this new designs and companies mature.
I think you know renewables won't do it, no way. If they could Germany would already be mining their huge reserves of lithium :)
@@williamjolka4351 Yes I am aware of the problems but for once I wanted to leave the negatives aside since they get enough coverage. I just wanted to congratulate the people on the ground on getting this far; delivering such projects is complex and pressured work, and supply chain disruptions due to COVID and Brexit have not helped.
@@MUSTASCH1O that s true. I m still trying to unissant why EDF started with EPR technology 1600 MW as 1400 MW is working perfectly and future anyway is
Under expériment in ITER project.
It Will take another 25 / 30 years so
It was à bit dangerous to change for
Such " short time "
Ar thé very beginning british government was involved to sécure thé operation but finally EDF took thé major risk as Areva plus Chinese partner gave à very small part of
Garanty.
This is too much regarding EDF financial possibilités in case of
Big problem. OK EDF is hold at 86 % by France but it is now question to
Cut thé company in several parts to sell thé Best pièces.
As conséquence , problèms with EPR cld face tomorrow empty guarantee !!
Thé work at site is great. I hope thé technology Will nt fail.
After a 13 year delay Areva type 1600MW reactor Olkiluoto 3 in Finland is now in testing phase. 60% output already achieved and full output should be achieved in the autumn which makes us near self-sufficient in electricity production. I hope all the lessions have now be learned by EDF and Hinkley Point will be completed more or less on schedule!
Great news, seems it will be online very soon!
I have very little doubts about Finland not finishing it in time despite problems Areva (now Framatome) had, here it is known as a country without much corruption and good organisation.
Is infrastructure better suited for 1600MW reactor instead of two smaller units?
Is it the one was being built by a Russian company?
@@codaalive5076 , the plant was ordered already in 2005 when small reactors were not available. Another 1200MW plant was ordered from Rosatom in 2014 but cancelled last spring for well known reasons. OL3 will be tested at 60% capacity throughout the whole autumn and commercial production will commence in december.
@@jarirutanen8762 I red about this delays, did Rosatom started building it? What happened with one ordered in 2005?
West doesn't seem to be capable of building this plants reliably, probably due to corruption. I'm not sure if you remember Finland's Patria case...
Anyway, South Korea and probably China are capable of building such reactors in 5 years for 5 billions, that's it, done. If i ordered one Korea would be asked first because time is running out.
Well, OL3 was the first EPR, but due to national and project-specific issues, it was overtaken by the Taishan EPR Units 1 and 2, which are already operating....
This is great to see! I can see HPC from where I've been living and would love to know how to get involved on a project like this. I've been working as an electrician for close to a decade but projects like this are the stuff of dreams!
That's just crazy in its scope , mind boggling 👌👍
Well....that looks mad complex.
Great job chaps, nice one!
Thank you.
What a great presenter - he must be under lots of pressure and yet performed very well in front of the camera.
broth~ Omg,fantastic ~
Glad to see that budgets are holding up well and I assume that the authorities are not repeatedly moving the goalposts for you. Keep it up!
They posted the wrong video, this one was released like a month ago, I remember watching it. Plus it says "June update"
Why do the sea water intakes go out 3.5 km, is it just to get a decent depth of water?
My father is working there as a steel fixer. He made 4000£ per month, not bad
So we are paying this massive wage through the highest energy tariffs in history..nice....☹️
@@lorrainedimmock4096 it's not massive. He would of been working 12 hour shifts. 6-7 days a week and grafting. 4k is not a lot when the future is always so uncertain for us ad hoc workers.
No wonder its over budget.
@@PFL44 yeah, lets just get some slaves in eh? It would be much cheaper. 😐
@@renius78 🤣🤦
Great video! I saw a portion around 3:45 showing a digital build simulation. Could you tell us whether Hinkley Point C has a plan for an active/dynamic digital twin during construction and then during its operation?
Fantastic progress
Amazing!!!
A really cool project and video!
Looks impressive, what a monumental infrastructure
The reactor pressure vessel in olkiluoto 3 was installed after nearly 5 years, in hinkley point c1 it is planed to have happened after only 4 years, so maybe 18 % less time, so we can expect it to go online after 13-14 years what would be sometime in 2032.
We've got all this to come when Bradwell B goes up.
Great progress
Uk infrastructure! Owned by EDF (which is now entirely owned by the French government) and the Chinese government. What could possibly go wrong.
The fact that they're building a Hotel for chinese technicians worries me because with a complete crew they could operate, or NOT operate, as they feel like. Russia is blackmailing the EU with its strangle-hold on gas; we're just setting up for another round with the oh so democratic and humane Chinese Government!!
JHS
Well I think the British was one of the first to make a nuclear power station
Yeah we had reactors back in the 1950's.
and suffered one of the first nuclear disasters in history at Sellafield that is now a storage site.
@@davidty2006 The windscale fire was in a pile used to generate plutonium for the UK nuclear weapons, not a power reactor.
Thx.
With the energy crisis and Hinckley B now offline we urgently need Hinckley C, D and F.
Rip to the man that died there recently. Hope his family are well compensated
I support this!
I’ve no issue with nuclear power , the issue I have is just how much per Kwh we will be paying for then electricity from this plant, my French mates all laugh and point out how the UK is subsiding EDF in France
Doesn't matter nuclear electricity is one of the cheapest for residents no matter what
Since the plants have big lifes like 60 plus years and work non stop they can sell cheap electricity and still make a profit in the long run
@@alexandrosandreou8585 This project is not good value for money and apart from the EPR in China none are on time or within budget, there were better nuclear options
@@alexandrosandreou8585 Try taking into account the de-commissioning costs, and that these sites will be 'restricted' for a hundred years after the last kWh of energy has been produced.
"WE" will not be paying for that. Our Grandchildren will. Long after they have shut down. And THEY will have seen NO benefit from these plants. But it will fall to them to clear up OUR mess.
Sorry. There are now better alternatives.
The strike price agreed was 92.50 per mwh, which is 9.25p per kwh... Most tarrifs at home are around 27p per kwh now, so the national grid and city traders are getting the other 2/3rds... The power station is not the cause of the high prices.
good work but we should have done this 20 years ago
Great progress! They've made really great progress on all their great progress.
What about South Korea making bigger reactor of similar quality in 5 years for 5 billion EUR? They are making one after another but our politicians rather wait for great corruption opportunities. Don't let USA or France build reactors!
“Really good progress”
only 720p? really?? way too blurry to watch, can't be bothered
£25bn and they can't even send a 4k camera down there
Interesting question here... Have any of you ever *stood on the core of a live Nuclear Reactor?* I have, and it is such a strange feeling.
Went to one with school. Walked on the top of one in Suffolk I think
NOTHING to do with the MAIN criticism that these monsters leave a poisonous legacy for our descendants to sort out!
JHS
Well done everyone this is an awesome project
I'm in two minds with regards to nuclear power in the UK, I understand the need for zero emissions going forward and the desperate need we have for baseload power which doesn't mean us burning gas BUT I just feel we are pushing the huge costs on to future generations of decommissioning these power stations. I also understand the "strike price" of power from these reactors will be more than double that of wind and solar though I understand we need to install more energy storage as well with those. I also think £26B is just too much and could have been spent better elsewhere!
Cheap and cost effective when compared to the billions wasted chasing a 🦠 and paying people not to work. The economy is not medicine but nuclear power adds value to the present and future generations 🤷♂️
You would do better to complain about HS2 if your going to complain about value for money.
@@andyfield6854 yeah, I have before a bit but in some ways I can see the economic benefits to a different region with faster access to London 🤔 I thought this video was quite good at explaining it th-cam.com/video/FSD5ps9bLQ0/w-d-xo.html
Wind and solar is pretty much useless without backup power or storage. Add to that a much more expensive grid. The cost of renewables is...a scam. There are many decommissioned reactors, the cost is known. Take Sweden for instance with its 50/50 Nuclear/hydro mix which generated the cheapest energy in Europe for decades. Expensive, I think not.
Going to be the most expensive electricity we have. And what will final cost be ???..
Steve,
no offshore wind is the most expensive, by a long way. The media and politicians mislead with their 'cheap wind' all the time. Also pay no attention to Contracts for Difference figures, they are not what wind costs.
Dr. Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University analysed over 400 public accounts of wind farm owners and their capex and opex figures put current offshore wind in the £125 pwe Mwatt hour bracket. On top of that there are all the extra cost to incorporate their power onto the grid and keep it stable.
No matter how much wind capacity we build we still need an equivalent capacity of reliable and readily available back up and balancing capacity.
Nuclear is more expensive than gas, generally but it is reliable and has twice the life span of wind.
£92.50 per MWh looks a real bargain these days. There are wind farms in the North Sea with a strike price almost double that.
This is the only path towards reducing CO2, methane and other emissions from fossil fuels. The problem is much deeper than it seems because even green parties became so corrupt that they refuse to tell nuclear is the only way for survival of humankind. Any good, unbiased electrician who knows enough about nuclear will say what i wrote about other "green technologies". They are good for powering houses which require 10-215% of energy produced in developed countries, the rest has to be produced in a way that assures power under all conditions except strongest earthquakes (9 on Richter or more...). Nuclear plants then shut down for hours or days and turn on again. If engineers listen to other engineers AND various international agencies like IAEA, which they do, nuclear reactors are a very safe option. One could argue that Fukushima had accident because they didn't listen to agency who told them walls are too small; this is only partially true, very few could imagine such tsunami taking out all cooling systems. This accident actually helped the industry fix cooling in already built reactors in a way that they can take even tsunami.
Europe and USA, except Russia, are not capable of building a few such plants at the same time, let alone building enough of them to solve transition problem. We are probably doomed if USA continues to play world police because China is not allowed to help, build reactors, Russia neither, South Korea has enough richer clients meaning no one will do it until it is too late.
Gates's project was changed several times so don't count on such new technology giving enough power or even be built anywhere soon.
Radiophobia is taking 850.000 lifes every year only by burning coal (ash is quite radioactive...), compare this to Three Mile Island and Fukushima where only one known death due to radioactivity occured, even if thousands died it is much less than ~70 years x 850.000 deaths from coal only! Chernobyl was military reactor made unstable to produce tritium and probably plutonium for nuclear weapons, such reactors were never allowed in West and since then not even in Russia who has lots of great scientists in this field...
We have to go full nuclear very soon, or face end of humanity very soon too. If my writing changes views of only one person, then my goal is reached.
Nicole Foss Interview on Peak Oil, Financial Crisis, Resilience, and More
th-cam.com/video/AdNvmIfyQPY/w-d-xo.html
79,375 views Jul 18, 2015 Economist Nicole Foss is co-editor of The Automatic Earth. Here she provides easy-to-understand answers in response to questions on peak oil, financial crisis, energy descent, resilience, community, and simple living.This is the full interview we shot with her for our film "A Simpler Way: Crisis as Opportunity". We can only ever fit in a few minutes' worth of the amazing interviews we get to shoot, so here's the whole thing for people who want to get into the nitty-gritty!
James,
the problem with economists, scientists and most academics is they do not understand how electricity is generated and distributed. If they did they would drop their enthusiasm for renewables.
Coda Alive has it in one, nuclear is the only way to generate CO2 emission free electricity excepting countries who have large hydro assets.
It is a big mistake to think that wind, solar, wave or tidal are equal to and can replace fossil fuel generation. Unfortunately it is a mistake that is made by many countries , pushed by global agencies who in themselves are also ignorant of the technicalities.
@@jamesmorton7881 Foss' ideas are utopian, most people are too spoiled, many politicians and engineers so corrupt and destructive they will never ever allow ideas like this change things.
I agree with IA Reid, renewables can't replace fossil fuels, no way. One of the problems with them are new requirments for electrical grids (infrastructure) because it has to be very dispersed, that's so expensive only rich countries could maybe do it. Look at USA who can't mantain it, let alone build new...
Also, very few take in account weather changes endangering this new sources while things are only getting worse.
@@iareid8255 Yes, many don't understand this topic, although i'm sure most do but rather push their own ideas due to greed.
Scientists and many academics from natural sciences got basic knowledge about requirments for electrical grid, power. It is hard to imagine anyone finishing university without understanding this basics.
I will add that renewables could theoreticaly provide enough energy to power the world in about 20 years, if we work really hard and had enough money (only rich countries do).
Main problem with it is electricity generation not matching the peak demand hours (times when we consume most electricity). Batteries are out of question as a solution, diesel generators and burning coal/wood make things worse. All this technologies except hydro to a point also leave behing way too much carbon footprint when buildt, waste is often very toxic, solar and wind tech can't be recycled completely and so on.
Yes, greed and corruption are so big problems i don't see solution for it, except maybe nuclear but that will take almost as long to build as renewables which won't do it. I think we are doomed because CO2 stays in atmosphere around 100 years, we also don't count positive feedback this same scientists "forgot" adding to their models, same thing with methane. If i have to think about positive and negative feedback several times per week, how can they completely forget about it?
Let's be real.
Coda,
I'm don't agree, relatively few really understand even basic electrical theory and far fewer understand the dynamics of grids and the relative performance of differing types of generators.
It is interesting that during the virtual global shut down due to Covid, the CO2 monitoring station at Moana Loa showed no difference in the upward trend. This indicates that our attempts at CO2 reduction is ineffectual, not surprising as man produces only a very small percentage of total CO2 emissions (3 - 4%?). CO2 levels have always increased with temperature, this has been knon for a very long time. Also the efect of an increase in CO2 concentraton diminishes it's effect on a logarithmic scale (Off hand I don't know what base they use).
The models are not very good and with hindsight their performance has been overly high with regard to actual. They also do not take into account cloud's as there is only limited knowledge currently of their effect on climate.
I think if you ask the majority of people what is the most influential greenhouse gas you would get the wrong answer of CO2.
H20 is by far the most powerful both in terms of concentration (20,00 ppm) and in terms of the frequency span which it operates. It's effect in the small limited bands that both CO2 and methane have means that their effect is virtually nullified by water vapour. Note this is purely the greenhouse effect of CO2.
Water is the only compound that exists in three states in the atmosphere producing both cooling and heating. As I say knowledge we have on the extent is poorly understood.
Despite all this CO2 is the target?
On a far more logical point, the climate has always varied in temperature cyclicly, yet somehow that has ceased and CO2 is to blame for all our currently warming climate?
7500? Wow, that's a big crew;
It is astonishing to see how lethargic the contractors for the plant
are about the tremendous, extraordinarily high increase in the
prices demanded by the construction companies for the reactor.
This is extraordinarily astonishing. Are they indifferent to it?
Nothing in the world can justify an increase in the demand
of 700 percent for a contract.
Nothing in the world. Why do they let those who demand more
and more billions get away with it?
Additional demands of up to 30 percent are sometimes justified.
In this case, they approve additional demands of 700 percent
of the agreed project costs. Have those involved lost their minds?
What kind of evil game is being played here?
But will we be able to afford the most expensive energy in history..???
It will be to cheap to meter 😁
If you need to ask, you can't afford it....
Give it another 10 years
Brilliant! I'm all for Nuclear as long as we plan and build for spent material processing so we don't poison our future generations.
What plan?
www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy#latest-estimate
Nuclear waste storage and processing is taken exceedingly seriously. Unlike coal run off, methane flares, oil spills etc. Waste is usually stored in concrete barrels that contain the radiation of spent fuel to such tight tolerances that standing next to one will show no elevation in rad levels to standard background radiation.
It wouldn't "poison future generations" even if you fully neglected it. But reprocessing is very effective and useful, sadly it is also being neglected all over Europe except for France.
The river seven biggest unused power plant in the UK.
The strike price this was proceeded at was described as a rip off at the time. I wonder how that is looking now ?
Saw an article on Bloomberg - the strike price is now "good value" - and gets better with Sizewell C being built.
Are you trying to build a nuclear power plant without power tools?
It’s french owed right ???
Nuclear power plants are green energy sources that don't emit excess carbon pollution into the environment, more new nuclear reactors need to be constructed in order to solve climate change. Green hydrogen production and desalination are needed to help modernize civilization.
Congrats to our British friends for this amazing project. By 2027 this power plant will deliver gigawatts of low carbon electricity, and dozens of similar power plants will be built all over Europe.
"low carbon" ?
CO2 !
you exhale 40.000 ppm of CO2 with every breath
"Energy" Can neither be created nor destroyed
"Energy" can only be converted from one form to another
Ergo, there is only energy
There is no such thing as clean, green, environmentally friendly, dirty, renewable or low carbon energy, they do not exist
@@richardcowley4087 I said "low carbon". Overall carbon footprint from electro nuclear power plants (from uranium extraction, plant contruction to plant dismatling) is low YES. From 4g to 12g CO2eq / kwh according to studies. Better than Solar Panels made in China.
@@richardcowley4087 And of course I was talking about "low carbon electricity". I though you would guess it thanks to the context.
@@neofatalis Yes, better than solar panels made anywhere, 300X more toxic pollution than nuclear
nuclear when built does exactly nothing for the climate as wind and solar do nothing
@@neofatalis there is no such thing as "low carbon electricity" or anything else for that matter
Impressive - to sad that germany kicked out nuclear power :( Good work UK!
Germany has a ton of nuke power
Cooool
If Homer Simpson applies for a job here, do not under any circumstances let him anywhere near the control room.
Energy sovereignty for a scheme being delivered under contract by the chinese and french?
Can you talk about the Nuclear Waste Leaking into the British Channel And radioactive pollution has now entered the food chain?
Germany is paying a heavy price for sidelining their nuclear program...
HAVE THE FRENCH SOLVED THE PROBLEMS WITH THE FORGING OF VESSEL AND FUEL RODS?
Yes. And no need to shout.
"good progress"
Russia must be loving these updates lol
I think we should move on from using high pressure water cooling.
are these monsters really cost effective (£23 billion). Aren't Small Modular Reactors the way to go?
They are most definitely
cost effective. SMRs are not really ready for serial production, which is vital to the concept. Once they are they may be a better deal. The problem is though that current SMRs are traditional Uranium reactors, not 4th gen, and as such they require as much infrastructure. So I would say building bigger is better, for now atleast.
Hello Sir, I am qualified ASME Authorised inspector, Repair inspector and interested to work in this project
Great, nice to hear from you. I hope you don't mind a question, not many are in your very respected position; what is wrong with Europeans (except Russians) and Americans that they can't build enough reactors? Is it oil lobby, loss of knowledge, young people or you rather don't say it? Thanks a lot.
@@codaalive5076 What's wrong is the cost. These are high-tech pieces of equipment and the materials, designers and builders of such installations have been getting more expensive while other solutions for electricity production have been getting cheaper at the same time. It also is not a good way to reduce dependency since most European countries don't have sufficient reserves of uranium.
@@jwstolk Do you propose renewables uncapable of providing base load power in most European countries? Materials like lithium are pretty rare and nasty thing to mine, this is why for example Germany won't touch their reserves, they rather try mining it in Serbia or any other country accepting "new ecological standards".
If i was wrong about it, i'm not, installations for renewables are very expensive too because we would need lots of them while people are getting older in Europe, new generation isn't really interested in natural sciences except medicine, pharmacy, computers and so on. Also, no country has ever powered itself with renewables without requiring oil, nuclear and so on, German model shows very well what it means... On contrary, we know nuclear works, i'm sure there have been less deaths since it started than from coal in one year!
I never heard of such thing as uranium crisis, people waiting in lines at some nuclear stations causing recessiono, or US starting proxy war in Europe with a country providing much of energy to EU, beside having more nuclear weapons than they have.
Check this, it is pro-Chinese but it doesn't bother me: Germany’s overdose of renewable energy (Asia Times)
@@codaalive5076 You are correct that renewable (base-load) alternatives are expensive too, but all these things you mention are included in the final price, which for renewable energy is still dropping. Note that lithium is not a rare metal, it is even more common than lead or copper. It was just not mind much because we didn't need much of it. And we still don't need a lot since lithium batteries contain only a couple percent lithium. Reliability is also an issue, of one of these two reactors is stopped for maintenance, where does the electricity come from? Or is the 2nd reactor only used, when the 1st reactor is in maintenance? The Hinkley Point C nuclear station is Chinese, at least the most important pressure vessel is.
@@jwstolk It is hard to explain what it takes to get most of the power from renewables, then deal with bae load because we can't store electricity without loooots of losses, or build extnsive runs of new power lines which have very little power. Read about German problem.
You are right, we don't need much lithium although it is essential and will be for some time, even copper isn't so common, let alone more fancy material for whatever.
My believes are pretty much set in stone, we have only seen failures with renewables and not with nuclear.
It's honestly hilarious to see people high-fiving each other in the comments. Well done - only 15 years to build a single reactor. That'll surely do it. 12 Pence now per kWh guaranteed, that's 15 Euro-Cent without any costs included for dismantling and forever-storage of the nuclear waste and the parts of this building that have to be stored with it.
Meanwhile all this money could've been invested decades ago into solar and wind which take roundabout a year to put up and instantly produce. No "13 year delays" to get out all the kinks in Finland. Just put it up and connect it to the grid.
What is it that makes money endlessly available when it's nuclear power. Ah yes. Weapons. Same reason why France will keep building them. Fantastic.
Hahahaha. Bullshit. First of all, nuclear energy is not used for nuclear army. Second, renewable energy have a low CF (capacity factor) so they can't produce for all the time. Nuclear energy instead, produce every hour. So it's essential with renewable to fight climate change.
The cost of wind and solar is a scam. For every windturbine you build you need an equal capacity of backup power or storage, which doesn't exist. On top of that you need a more complex and costly grid. It is a useless intermittent source of energy and you're paying for it, right now. The cost per kWh in Finlands new reactor is in the region 60c.
Remind me, where does the Uranium comme this plant burns. Uzbekistan, Russia, China?
And some folks are complaining about how much materials renewable power plants takes to build 🤦♂
Not to mention the Dogger Bank Wind project will be finished in 60% of the time, for 40% of the cost (8bn vs 23), and provide 10% more energy with a strike price of only £39 compared to Hinckley at £92.
"Go figure"
It's crucial to have someone who has a better command of English language rather than this person.
His command is superior to your use lmao
3 tier burgers at Macdonald's
They evict Chinese company, if Chinese company leads the construction, it will be done within 3 years at half price.
Add another 10 years and hundreds of % overspend, just like the previous EDF fiascos at Flamanville and Olkiluoto (FIN)
So many fake comments.
The censorship in this one is strong.
Why you put second time same video? 🤨
A huge project with many years ahead of it.... For example 25000 years of waste storage costs..... That we the public will pay for....
Good progress, but a huge about of concrete compered to an AP1000 reactor.
they mention tunnels connecting the plant directly to the sea, I know that it probably is double contour system but still, will there be any systems in place to prevent illegal or accidental dumping of radioactive wastewater in sea? Fukushima scenario could destroy UK's fisherman business in one go
Pretty sure the UK doesn't get 40m high tsunami's or earthquakes for a start.... this reactor design is also different.
Read up on the design, and you will find it has protection against a tsunami the size of Fukushima, despite there having been nothing like that here ever. Also, the emergency backup generators won't be under the power station as they were in Fukushima.
The cooling water from the sea will not be in contact with any radioactive material . As for illegal dumping - not a chance. Scrutiny is intense and independent, and done by people with a thorough knowledge of the subject.
When operational, the station will have permits from the UK Environment Agency to discharge low levels of a range of radionuclides to the sea and to the air - as is normal for nuclear stations. These discharges will be closely monitored to ensure that no limits are exceeded.
@@colintucker2058 Thanks for explanation
Who pays the costs if there’s an incident ??? Or are you just going to say that won’t happen?
How much CO2 was generated by this construction to save CO2 with nuclear? I bet you it breaks even. No savings. Ha Ha.
Nobody cares 🌏🙈
Why not invest in mini nuclear reactors for vehicle’s homes and buisness?
This is a great promotional video for Small Modular Reactors. This monstrosity, and all conventional nuclear generation, take too long to construct, cost way too much and will do little to respond to the global demand for clean energy.
A factory turning out one small modular after another would be great. Instead, we've got each one being built as a one-off decade plus long megaproject. At some point in its 60 year life that approach should pay off, but it will likely be obsolete technology long before then anyway. $25Billion, doubled the original budget, due for completion in 2016. It is still a big win for China General Nuclear Power Group.
So far no proof that small modular reactors will achieve the scaling and standardization effect to have them enough cheap and profitable... (I'm myself crossing fingers for that).
And in the best case, the very first SMRs are for beginning of the next decade (2030). An eternity when compared to the emergency of situation...
The problem with EPR reactor was the lack of experience and off skilled manpower to build such huge civil work.
Just wait the first one to be finished (Flamanville), then the batches of purchase orders for other identical reactors, then we will see for sure prices decrease and reach of high level of quality and of planning predictability.
Just look at the Chineses with their Hualong. With their aquired experience, they build now 4 to 5 reactors a year.
Gates is playing games with those because they didn't even built one in all this years. Forget about and look at Chinese Molten Salt Reactors which will power whole country by 2050. Knowing their working ethics i'm sure they will do it IN TIME without corruption we see here, it is too important to them,.
@@neofatalis You are 100000% correct, i believe they are just playing games with SMR to make us think green transition is happening. It's not, Europe without Russia and USA are not capable of building a few of this at the same time while China won't because they need specialists for their Molten Salt Project!
TO EXPENSIVE.
Not as expensive as not building them.
I'm glad that China was kicked off the project. Fully British engineering.
You mean french
@@sparrow56able well by the interview, he is definitely British. England does have engineers and very good ones too. You think all the workers are French? 🤣😂
25-26GBP for something that is not dispatchable. How again is this helping to make the uk net zero again?
To treat this the same as people treat windfarms:
* How much CO2 is emitted to produce all that steel and concrete?
* What does the recycling of absolutely all components look like? Oh wait, that cannot happen as some parts will glow for many 100s of thousands of years still.
* How much concrete and still and other resources will be needed for long term storage of that waste, and how much CO2 will be emitted for that?
* Do wind farm operators need physical simulators to train their staff, and does that training need 2 years?
It is dispatchable just fine. But yes, it's way too expensive, it should normally cost about a third of this.
@@zolikoff It would if built on a larger scale.
@@hpk31 Yes, and if the project and funding was managed better. It's not the fault of the technology.
@@zolikoff It depends on ones definition of dispatchable. Nuclear is much more baseload oriented, and cannot quickly ramp or down. It is more "dispatchable" than lignite, but far less so than gas, which is far less than hydro, which is far less than batteries.
And the problem with the cost is that that does not include dealing with the waste.
The "one day we will bury it underground and forget about it" almost pipe-dream is not cheap: onkala is supposed to cost 1.5B EUR, but wait and see where that story goes. To get the german low and medium level storage facility in salzgitter "fixed" we spent close to 1B EUR on "research", and will spend at least that still to get it actually fixed.
Nuclear has no economic future for power generation. And .uk consumers will be carrying the burden for this monstrosity for a long long time.
@@luc_libv_verhaegen A PWR like the EPR can ramp faster than any other large thermal power plant. Only open cycle gas turbines and piston engines (which both tend to be small, few-MW grid balancing units) ramp faster. But wait, the PWR also has primary and secondary frequency control, 5-7% of its rated power can be used for that (on the order of 100 MW per unit), and in that mode it ramps as fast as an open cycle gas turbine.
So it is very dispatchable. It can load follow and balance grid frequency adequately. Granted, hydro is good for that as well and should be used as much as possible, but it is a limited resource by geography, otherwise it is not economical.
The British public should hold you to account when we head into the recession this year!!
Net zero 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Mankind cannot save this world. It had a beginning and it will have an end very soon. The end is near; so is Christ. Turn to Him and live.
an't help thinking that all this money is better spent on renewables and energy storage. UK National Grid having to build a new high voltage transfer line North at again huge cost that is never talked about?
Simon,
absolutly not, renewables are not suited for large scale grid supply, intermittent, incapable of load following, no inertia, and a couple of other minor technical deficiencies, You can't compare renewables to proper generators.
So what's happening with all the piosoned wast from this plant, hardly green is is....? Oh that's right, dump it on someone else's backyard.....
Who paying for the decommissioning costs ???, -
The operator. In the UK' there is a charge made on every fresh element loaded into reactors such as Sizewell B and - when ready - Hinkley C. This charge goes into the Nuclear Liabilities Fund to pay for future waste and decommissioning.
9,3p, extremly expensive power.
What a waste of money
Shame that this type of reactors are now defunct, to costly to make and an disaster to decommission. Billions wasted and an environment time bomb, they only build this when the taxpayers and the customers will get shafted with the governments help. Total madness from a bunch of conmen. The Fast reactor system was far better back in the day , but things have moved on but the powerful need to make money .
没有中国人你们根本没能力建好这个项目
I often wonder if the UK government had not wasted taxpayers money on green energy. How far would the UK be towards energy independents!
There’s room for both nuclear and renewables and indeed they’re entirely complimentary. I wish government would leave it all alone and let us all do our thing. This new green fanboy zealously is causing all trouble and no benefits for the whole energy sector.
@@robinwells8879 agreed but we need energy independence first and wind/solar are not able to provide, currently.
@@TheJon2442 I am a big nuclear fan. But you get security from not putting all your eggs in one basket. We need nuclear for baseload and renewables coupled with storage. We need a government with a comprehension of the strategic and the will to have a grownup conversation about strategic issues.
@@robinwells8879 sadly the "government" tends to only listen to leftwing activists. Currently there is not sufficient technology for storage of large scale power reserves without a radical rethink. Ninbies are very happy to not have power supplies generated near their properties. But totally behind green part-time power supplies. Not understanding that without hot standby power supplies, preferably nuclear, the lights will go out when there is no sun/wind!
What a waste of taxpayer's money.
Why? Don’t you like having electricity at home?
@@rolletroll2338 Not if it means nuclear pollution in somebody's backyard. There are cleaner ways to produce electricity.
@@adbogo you have no idea what you are talking about. Nuclear doesn't produce pollution . Only a tiny amount of waste fuel (which isn't some glowing green slime). That is very safely disposed of.
@@dandylion1987 You don't know what you are talking about, but you can look it up. All the uranium mine sites are a disaster for the poor people living there. Go and look it up, it's not hard to find.
@@adbogoway to not address my comment. Nuclear power is safe, and is clean.
and what's clean about radioactive waste again ? LOL
The fact that it can be safely stored in a contained room the size of your house, whereas non recyclable wind turbine blades and solar panels get dumped in Africa.
@@melo1174How Do you know the size of his/her house ?
... or is/was it an olimpic SIZE swimming pool?
@@melo1174 helping pave africa , good it's a 2 fer , there is no SAFE radio active road and fuel storage .. it's all temporary , dry storage is just a catastrophy waiting to happen
@@marcwinkler That is obvious, stupid people can't afford large houses.
A Disaster in the Making haha Engaland
Only if you count a reliable electricity grid as a disaster
You don’t know what your talking about.
You do? What was anyone talking about? Disasters in England? Leave that to England
@@Tgspartnership England was the first nuclear energy user
We need a plentiful and affordable energy supply, is this it?? I don't think so, and as for net zero what a crock of $#!@.
This energy crisis is all of our pass and present governments and salesmens MAKING.
This video is shirt
So have EDF etc mitigated against exponential Sea Level rise???? I understand HP is only 12 meters above currently. Or is it just one of the silent Elephants in the room, the other being the ultimate stupid; Humans and War??