Clearly not the “sci-fi clean” kind of reactor, though.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13887579

Here’s a nice picture of Bradwell. It’s the cubic structure across the water.


IMG_3200 by hairydalek, on Flickr

That's another blow to south Kent, then. Pfizer going, and Dungeness not getting a new reactor.

You can have the Bradwell one if you really want it. I’m sure it could be popped in the post to you.

No real surprises. Can't happen soon enough!

Ducks below parapet.

Seriously, there's only about 80 years worth of Uranium left in the earths crust. WTF are they doing, copy China and go Thorium.

I'm fairly sure that any new sites will be fast breeder reactors, for which there are at least several thousands of years worth of fuel readily available*. And I would suggest that, what with them knowing this, and you apparently not knowing it, whoever made the decision probably knows more about this stuff than you do.




* edit, I would like to be sure, but apparently it is not so, we will be buying crap reactors which waste massive amounts of perfectly good fuel that FBRs would use, and create piles of low level waste, which FBRs would use.

Thousands of years, what could possibly go wrong.

Well to be honest, even if there are only 80 years of fuel for cheap LWRs - and let's face it I wouldn't be surprised if we are going for the cheapest option* - the reactors we build today aren't likely to be in use when the fuel runs out.

Perhaps by then somebody will have cracked the fusion issue, or thorium will be a commercial reality.


* a bit pointless given that the funding which the government will graciously cough up on your behalf we be exponentially less efficient than the actual reactors. So we ought to at least opt for the good stuff.

Indeed, and they probably know more than you too. That does not mean I cannot see a fundamental flaw in future planning.

The point I was making was that this is all far too short sighted. That doesn't change no matter whether or not we had an infinite supply of uranium.

Your complaint was that there was only 80 years worth of Uranium. If I could respond that there's an infinite supply, then this would definitely invalidate your argument. That's just simple, innescapable logic.

Perhaps you can see a fundamental flaw in future planning. But if so, you failed to mention it when you were carping about 80 years supply of fuel for reactors with a shelf life of less than that, and you still haven't detailed it.

Yay!

Maybe now we can stop f***ing about with windmills.

I like the windmills.

I think that depends on your scale of reference. Fission power is certainly not the power source we should be intending to use for the next 1000 years. However for the next 30 years it's the best option we've got. Now some people would consider 30 years to be short term but others would consider it to be quite long term.

Jon

So do I.

But they are useless.

M'kay.... Bit melodramatic in a fishy way.

My point - waste billions on the current nuclear crop that are economically unviable on a global scale to make any practical difference to the environment or % of energy produced, or invest it in cleaner, cheaper alternative options that would help reduce the time until their implementation.


I think they look lovely, they're only really productive at killing bats at the moment though.