| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night 09:08 - Nov 18 with 7756 views | bluelagos |
Can anyone up on the arguments explain a bit more please.
One problem with a format like QT is those who speak in the audience don't get more than a few seconds and what they say doesn't get explored/challenged/fact checked.
From the outside it does have the feel of old fashioned ninbyism but am open to persuasion...
|  |
| |  |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 13:07 - Nov 18 with 2299 views | StokieBlue |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 13:03 - Nov 18 by N2_Blue |
Isn't much of the opposition due to the fact that the technology is already kind of outdated.
France have several facilities to what Sizewell C will be and many of them are offline and unable to produce power.
SO i think the issue is why we are putting so much resource in to something that is going to take years and when complete could almost be redundant or not have a very good shelf life.
More focus on renewables needed. |
Certainly there should be more investment in renewables, we should even have a new public owned company to design and build all our renewable technology within the country - good for jobs and capital inflow.
However, we also need something to produce base line power, the grid itself needs to be balanced, it can't be over or under loaded and something reliable and known is needed to produce that power.
On the tech you're right, we should be looking at 4th generation reactors which can actually burn all the waste we have in Scotland another 250 times which both generates power and reduces the issues with the waste itself.
SB |  | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 13:49 - Nov 18 with 2250 views | Sarge |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 13:07 - Nov 18 by StokieBlue |
Certainly there should be more investment in renewables, we should even have a new public owned company to design and build all our renewable technology within the country - good for jobs and capital inflow.
However, we also need something to produce base line power, the grid itself needs to be balanced, it can't be over or under loaded and something reliable and known is needed to produce that power.
On the tech you're right, we should be looking at 4th generation reactors which can actually burn all the waste we have in Scotland another 250 times which both generates power and reduces the issues with the waste itself.
SB |
Space-based solar power is the ultimate renewable (although I’m biased as I’m working on it) since it is 24/7/365 with the exception of about 6 hours per year when it’s in shadow. However need an astonishing level of funding that can only be achieved by investment from oil and gas companies (who much prefer to say they’re funding green tech rather than actually doing it) and unfortunately isn’t likely to be online for at least 10-15 years.
We need to find a way to adequately fund both these longer term, more effective solutions and the quicker but less substantial ones. |  | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 13:55 - Nov 18 with 2241 views | StokieBlue |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 13:49 - Nov 18 by Sarge |
Space-based solar power is the ultimate renewable (although I’m biased as I’m working on it) since it is 24/7/365 with the exception of about 6 hours per year when it’s in shadow. However need an astonishing level of funding that can only be achieved by investment from oil and gas companies (who much prefer to say they’re funding green tech rather than actually doing it) and unfortunately isn’t likely to be online for at least 10-15 years.
We need to find a way to adequately fund both these longer term, more effective solutions and the quicker but less substantial ones. |
That would be amazing but if people are concerned about the timings around nuclear then they are going to be even more concerned around the timings for space based solar using microwave transmission to Earth.
If you want the solar route then at the moment it would be better to build solar plants in North Africa and Southern Spain and create a grid to transport that energy around Europe.
SB | | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 14:01 - Nov 18 with 2232 views | Sarge |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 13:55 - Nov 18 by StokieBlue |
That would be amazing but if people are concerned about the timings around nuclear then they are going to be even more concerned around the timings for space based solar using microwave transmission to Earth.
If you want the solar route then at the moment it would be better to build solar plants in North Africa and Southern Spain and create a grid to transport that energy around Europe.
SB |
Check out Xlinks if you haven’t already which is proposing just that in Morocco. They suggest they’ll be online by the end of the decade.
Re timings of space-based, agree the lead time and cost are factors that may turn off many. Like with many other things if we can throw more money at it we can move it faster but both the UK through BEIS and ESA are seriously looking at it now so hopefully we can continue to gain traction. | | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 14:04 - Nov 18 with 2226 views | StokieBlue |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 14:01 - Nov 18 by Sarge |
Check out Xlinks if you haven’t already which is proposing just that in Morocco. They suggest they’ll be online by the end of the decade.
Re timings of space-based, agree the lead time and cost are factors that may turn off many. Like with many other things if we can throw more money at it we can move it faster but both the UK through BEIS and ESA are seriously looking at it now so hopefully we can continue to gain traction. |
I've seen various plans for directed solar in North Africa which would be the way to go given the cheaper construction costs.
It's definitely something that could be part of the long term solution but the lift capacity to get enough infrastructure up there to rival a land based nuclear plant for output just doesn't exist at the moment.
Maybe if Starship is working it would be feasible but not right now.
SB | | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 14:05 - Nov 18 with 2226 views | Pinewoodblue |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 13:55 - Nov 18 by StokieBlue |
That would be amazing but if people are concerned about the timings around nuclear then they are going to be even more concerned around the timings for space based solar using microwave transmission to Earth.
If you want the solar route then at the moment it would be better to build solar plants in North Africa and Southern Spain and create a grid to transport that energy around Europe.
SB |
Can you imaging the carbon footprint creating the necessary storage facilities. |  |
| |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 14:09 - Nov 18 with 2219 views | StokieBlue |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 14:05 - Nov 18 by Pinewoodblue |
Can you imaging the carbon footprint creating the necessary storage facilities. |
What storage facilities?
SB | | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 14:11 - Nov 18 with 2213 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
There's kicking the can down the road and then there is the management of nuclear waste for thousands of years. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 14:29 - Nov 18 with 2183 views | longtimefan |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 10:30 - Nov 18 by Mookamoo |
Its going to have a huge knock on effect on transport, and will cause irreparable damage to Minsmere. Plus add on that planned large substation at Leiston and the Sunnica solar energy farm - Suffolk is going to take a hit in the next few years.
Perhaps its just Anglia's turn to take the brunt of energy development. We've been happy all the coal fired power stations were somewhere else. |
"We've been happy all the coal fired power stations were somewhere else."
You have obviously forgotten about Ipswich power station  | | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 14:57 - Nov 18 with 2163 views | Pinewoodblue |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 14:09 - Nov 18 by StokieBlue |
What storage facilities?
SB |
For energy to be stored for use outside of daylight hours. | |
| |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 15:05 - Nov 18 with 2147 views | StokieBlue |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 14:57 - Nov 18 by Pinewoodblue |
For energy to be stored for use outside of daylight hours. |
There are many ways of doing that although with a molten salt solar plant you don't even need to.
The sunlight is directed at a central tower using polished steel mirrors, in that tower is some salt which is turned molten from the heat of the focused sunlight. You then use that heated salt to create steam and thus turn a turbine. The salt stays molten for a long time and thus you could bleed electricity into the grid when it was needed rather than having to store it.
If you did want to store it then things like pumped hydro don't take a lot of building. Even if there is a carbon footprint to building the storage it's not a zero sum game, the emissions saved from generating the power would fairly quickly negate the carbon used to build any storage.
SB | | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 15:09 - Nov 18 with 2142 views | SpruceMoose |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 15:05 - Nov 18 by StokieBlue |
There are many ways of doing that although with a molten salt solar plant you don't even need to.
The sunlight is directed at a central tower using polished steel mirrors, in that tower is some salt which is turned molten from the heat of the focused sunlight. You then use that heated salt to create steam and thus turn a turbine. The salt stays molten for a long time and thus you could bleed electricity into the grid when it was needed rather than having to store it.
If you did want to store it then things like pumped hydro don't take a lot of building. Even if there is a carbon footprint to building the storage it's not a zero sum game, the emissions saved from generating the power would fairly quickly negate the carbon used to build any storage.
SB |
Word is that the facility pictured also doubles as a timeshare tanning bed for Trump, Robby Savage and Paul Hollywood. |  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 15:56 - Nov 18 with 2121 views | GeoffSentence |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 09:51 - Nov 18 by StokieBlue |
Why would pylons be a concern?
SB |
They aren't normal pylons, they are huge ones, 180KM of them. They will be a blot on the landscape. There is an alternative, to route the cabling under the sea. An alternative that is being pursued up North, but not in East Anglia. It is more expensive than pylons, but as usual profits are being put before people. |  |
| |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 16:01 - Nov 18 with 2115 views | GeoffSentence |
The other thing , is that sizewell C will require vast amounts of fresh water. In the driest part of the country. Just this is likely to be devastating to the local environment unless they can come up with some solution to overcome this. So far no such solution is in evidence. | |
| |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 12:55 - Nov 22 with 1850 views | Parsley |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 13:49 - Nov 18 by Sarge |
Space-based solar power is the ultimate renewable (although I’m biased as I’m working on it) since it is 24/7/365 with the exception of about 6 hours per year when it’s in shadow. However need an astonishing level of funding that can only be achieved by investment from oil and gas companies (who much prefer to say they’re funding green tech rather than actually doing it) and unfortunately isn’t likely to be online for at least 10-15 years.
We need to find a way to adequately fund both these longer term, more effective solutions and the quicker but less substantial ones. |
Came across a story today which reminded me of this thread. ESA to start a 3-year feasibility study into space-based solar technology so seems like it's still a little way off. Sounds really exciting though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62982113 |  | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 13:30 - Nov 22 with 1807 views | Meadowlark |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 09:26 - Nov 18 by StokieBlue |
A lot of it is nimbyism, there seems to be a list of concerns here:
https://stopsizewellc.org/why-stop-sizewell-c/
The ones around renewables and climate change are missing the point, you need baseline power which can be "always on" to manage the load of the grid.
I especially liked this one:
"It won’t help ‘level up’ the UK. Sites in the north and west would do more to narrow the economic gap. "
Which was then followed by how it would destroy the countryside, clearly they don't care about levelling up but just at the fact it's not built near them.
SB |
Baseline power requirement is a fallacy perpetrated by the nuclear lobby.
Nuclear power is capable of only being on or off (often off in reality) and in recent times our cheaper wind power production has had to be curtailed because expensive polluting nuclear is not flexible enough to reduce its output.
Nuclear is not clean energy.
Also the cost is escalating and the time to produce the electricity will not be fast enough (10 years) to have an effect on our immediate climate crisis.
EDF is a state owned French company. Taken over by the government due to its precarious financial situation and running several failing nuclear power stations in France. Hardly a case of the UK being in charge of its own energy future.
I could go on, but Sizewell C has already started to trash it's local environment and it has yet to be signed off.
Finally, and a bit cynically, if Johnson, Kwarteng and Hunt (as well as local Tory MPs) are backing it you can be sure that someone has their fingers in the till. |  | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 16:02 - Nov 22 with 1770 views | ClareBlue |
I did the transboundary consultation and risk assessment in Ireland for this with a small team in our Health Service and Environmental Protection Agency, which is a requirement for large projects of this nature under international law. The UK government did everything they could to avoid doing it until forced by the courts by action taken around the development at Hinkley Point by campaigners (which is obviously more of a concern for us due to geographical location). When they eventually entered into what was always a legal requirement, they withheld information under every excuse they could think of, ignored what we submitted in their final 'report' (I actually think they wrote that before the consultation even started) and had, in my opinion, no genuine interest in consultation whatsoever.
I would not trust a word they say on viability of the project or environmental protection. What ever their motives are for the project, they do not include any belief in transparency or meaningful consultation. | | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 19:17 - Nov 22 with 1727 views | bournemouthblue |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 11:46 - Nov 18 by ElephantintheRoom |
Its a bit like having an extension being built next door only going on for a decade and 1000 x worse. I do not know how well you know Sizewell but the surrounding roads beloved by weekenders on bicycles are not conducive to construction traffic as the locals found out the last time. And the time before that.
Add on the absurd cost, the fact that it won’t come on line for decades and that rising sea levels will swamp Suffolk with radioactivity should make it a non-starter - as with most things there are lower cost alternatives in other peoples back yards. |
The four villages currently sitting on the A12 need a dual carriage bypass
I believe EDF only wanted to bypass two and there was even debate among Suffolk County Council on whether it needed to be Dual Carriageway or not!
Anyone who drives from Ipswich to Lowestoft or beyond will know how desperately that road needs improving |  |
| |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 19:21 - Nov 22 with 1724 views | unbelievablue |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 09:37 - Nov 18 by nodge_blue |
well off area not liking nuclear power plant continuation shock.
its a necessary evil in the battle v climate change. they will have to suck it up. |
Well off area? The closest place is Leiston, which is the opposite. [Post edited 22 Nov 2022 19:22]
|  |
| |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 20:59 - Nov 23 with 1620 views | HARRY10 |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 13:30 - Nov 22 by Meadowlark |
Baseline power requirement is a fallacy perpetrated by the nuclear lobby.
Nuclear power is capable of only being on or off (often off in reality) and in recent times our cheaper wind power production has had to be curtailed because expensive polluting nuclear is not flexible enough to reduce its output.
Nuclear is not clean energy.
Also the cost is escalating and the time to produce the electricity will not be fast enough (10 years) to have an effect on our immediate climate crisis.
EDF is a state owned French company. Taken over by the government due to its precarious financial situation and running several failing nuclear power stations in France. Hardly a case of the UK being in charge of its own energy future.
I could go on, but Sizewell C has already started to trash it's local environment and it has yet to be signed off.
Finally, and a bit cynically, if Johnson, Kwarteng and Hunt (as well as local Tory MPs) are backing it you can be sure that someone has their fingers in the till. |
It is as much as with HS2. Something that seemed a good idea a few years back, but has quickly become a costly white elephant. Almost obsolete now, way before the hoped for completion date of 2040.
Given that
"The University of Greenwich forecasts predict it will take 15 years to build Sizewell C, or 17 years under its gloomiest forecast, and cost £43.8bn."
it is likely to be yet another costly mistake. It was only 9 years back that the gutbucket gobsh ite was telling us
"Labour put in a load of wind farms that failed to pull the skin off a rice pudding," he said. "We now have the opportunity to get shale gas - let's look at it. It is part of the 2020 vision we have for this city" - London
Whereas wind power " has gone from generating only enough energy for 4% of British homes to generating enough for 33% of British homes". Homes, not total requirements though.
The future will be one where individual houses, buildings etc have battery storage all linked to the grid, whereby electricity can be stored and drawn back into the grid as required. With houses/buildings having the capacity to generate electricity themselves.
The one major problem we have is having ignorant windbags like Johnson making decisions, as with the feeble minded Dories regarding CH4. We need to upgrade our Parliamentary system to something more reliant upon the select committees as seen in another thread. There we saw the kind of cross party unanimity demanded by many voters. Which works as opposed to PR which pushes evermore factions into squabbling.
Sizewell is wrong for so many reasons. We should be building for the future not clinging to the past - outdated technology. Which will mean using a variety of sources (as now. gas, coal, oil, nuclear) - some of which will improve rapidly
We can't know exactly what will work, much as I doubt 9 years ago when the windbag was waffling his sh yte could we have seen how much the internet, through the mobile phones, would transform so much of the way society does things. That transformation will continue, but mostly determined by how we adapt our infrastructure
So stop HS2 almost immediately. Use the money and the workforce to link ALL of the UK to fast fibre. Look at upgrading ALL of our utility supply methods. A good part of Londons sewage system is still what was built by the Victorians.
Part of this should be a recognition of what is socially useful. Schools, hospitals, transport. Yes, use the private sector at the sharp end. Building stuff. But never at the top, Those decisions should be taken by the public on behalf of the public, and not now with water, sewage, trains where huge sums are leached out as profit, so meaning cheap shoddy delivery.
And finally lets have a political system where an average (sort of) bloke can be PM. A man of the people.
Vote Harry | | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 21:05 - Nov 23 with 1617 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 20:59 - Nov 23 by HARRY10 |
It is as much as with HS2. Something that seemed a good idea a few years back, but has quickly become a costly white elephant. Almost obsolete now, way before the hoped for completion date of 2040.
Given that
"The University of Greenwich forecasts predict it will take 15 years to build Sizewell C, or 17 years under its gloomiest forecast, and cost £43.8bn."
it is likely to be yet another costly mistake. It was only 9 years back that the gutbucket gobsh ite was telling us
"Labour put in a load of wind farms that failed to pull the skin off a rice pudding," he said. "We now have the opportunity to get shale gas - let's look at it. It is part of the 2020 vision we have for this city" - London
Whereas wind power " has gone from generating only enough energy for 4% of British homes to generating enough for 33% of British homes". Homes, not total requirements though.
The future will be one where individual houses, buildings etc have battery storage all linked to the grid, whereby electricity can be stored and drawn back into the grid as required. With houses/buildings having the capacity to generate electricity themselves.
The one major problem we have is having ignorant windbags like Johnson making decisions, as with the feeble minded Dories regarding CH4. We need to upgrade our Parliamentary system to something more reliant upon the select committees as seen in another thread. There we saw the kind of cross party unanimity demanded by many voters. Which works as opposed to PR which pushes evermore factions into squabbling.
Sizewell is wrong for so many reasons. We should be building for the future not clinging to the past - outdated technology. Which will mean using a variety of sources (as now. gas, coal, oil, nuclear) - some of which will improve rapidly
We can't know exactly what will work, much as I doubt 9 years ago when the windbag was waffling his sh yte could we have seen how much the internet, through the mobile phones, would transform so much of the way society does things. That transformation will continue, but mostly determined by how we adapt our infrastructure
So stop HS2 almost immediately. Use the money and the workforce to link ALL of the UK to fast fibre. Look at upgrading ALL of our utility supply methods. A good part of Londons sewage system is still what was built by the Victorians.
Part of this should be a recognition of what is socially useful. Schools, hospitals, transport. Yes, use the private sector at the sharp end. Building stuff. But never at the top, Those decisions should be taken by the public on behalf of the public, and not now with water, sewage, trains where huge sums are leached out as profit, so meaning cheap shoddy delivery.
And finally lets have a political system where an average (sort of) bloke can be PM. A man of the people.
Vote Harry |
https://resizing.flixster.com/MOBfpTZ4OwDX4O2xjxhdlcIY7to=/740x380/v2/  | |
| |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 11:04 - Nov 24 with 1496 views | ronnyd |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 09:46 - Nov 18 by Sarge |
There are better options for baseline power generation but unfortunately they currently have longer lead times than Sizewell C and until they can be scaled up sufficiently to provide most of the load themselves it will always be a mixture required, into which nuclear plays a big part. A quick look at gridwatch will ram home just how reliant we currently are on natural gas. |
The Wash barrage might help. | | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 11:05 - Nov 24 with 1493 views | StokieBlue |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 11:04 - Nov 24 by ronnyd |
The Wash barrage might help. |
It's not really on a big enough scale, it'll only provide power for 600,000 homes and once again, barrages aren't really always on base line power.
SB | | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 11:08 - Nov 24 with 1488 views | ronnyd |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 11:05 - Nov 24 by StokieBlue |
It's not really on a big enough scale, it'll only provide power for 600,000 homes and once again, barrages aren't really always on base line power.
SB |
How about one across the Orwell estuary as well.
Save a long drive round too. [Post edited 24 Nov 2022 11:09]
| | | |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 11:15 - Nov 24 with 1479 views | StokieBlue |
| A lot of opposition to Sizewell C on QT last night on 13:30 - Nov 22 by Meadowlark |
Baseline power requirement is a fallacy perpetrated by the nuclear lobby.
Nuclear power is capable of only being on or off (often off in reality) and in recent times our cheaper wind power production has had to be curtailed because expensive polluting nuclear is not flexible enough to reduce its output.
Nuclear is not clean energy.
Also the cost is escalating and the time to produce the electricity will not be fast enough (10 years) to have an effect on our immediate climate crisis.
EDF is a state owned French company. Taken over by the government due to its precarious financial situation and running several failing nuclear power stations in France. Hardly a case of the UK being in charge of its own energy future.
I could go on, but Sizewell C has already started to trash it's local environment and it has yet to be signed off.
Finally, and a bit cynically, if Johnson, Kwarteng and Hunt (as well as local Tory MPs) are backing it you can be sure that someone has their fingers in the till. |
Firstly, I totally agree we should be going heavy on renewables, in fact I'd be delighted to see offshore wind farms from Suffolk to Yorkshire all along the coast designed and built in the UK but unfortunately the political will doesn't seem to be there.
Nuclear power for baseline use isn't really a fallacy.
The whole point of baseline supply is that it's either on or off and that it can become on very quickly if the grid needs balancing (ie. there is a shortage of electricity due to environmental factors with renewables or high usage). You equate this to wind power but they are totally different things with different applications. Wind power is not baseline energy, as it stands that is only coal, gas or nuclear. Conceivable you could go molten salt which would be superb but directed energy solar plants aren't going to be very efficient in the UK.
I didn't discuss the cleanness of nuclear energy or the reactor type which should ideally be 4th generation so that the nuclear waste produced is far smaller in both quantity and radioactivity. Your points are valid though and should be discussed both generally and in the specifics of the Sizewell project.
Can you propose another method of generating baseline electricity almost instantly when it's required to balance the grid?
Your last line, whilst being something I would agree with in the general case is a strawman unless you have evidences of Tories taking backhanders (which could definitely exist).
SB | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
