Low Carbon Construction Of Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station
Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station is going to be built on the Suffolk Coast.
Wikipedia says this about the power station’s construction.
The project is expected to commence before 2024, with construction taking between nine and twelve years, depending on developments at the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, which is also being developed by EDF Energy and which shares major similarities with the Sizewell plant.
It is a massive project and I believe the construction program will be designed to be as low-carbon as possible.
High Speed Two is following the low-carbon route and as an example, this news item on their web site, which is entitled HS2 Completes Largest Ever UK Pour Of Carbon-Reducing Concrete On Euston Station Site, makes all the right noises.
These three paragraphs explain in detail what has been done on the Euston station site.
The team constructing HS2’s new Euston station has undertaken the largest ever UK pour of Earth Friendly Concrete (EFC) – a material that reduces the amount of carbon embedded into the concrete, saving over 76 tonnes of CO2 overall. John F Hunt, working for HS2’s station Construction Partner, Mace Dragados joint venture, completed the 232 m3 concrete pour in early September.
The EFC product, supplied by Capital Concrete, has been used as a foundation slab that will support polymer silos used for future piling works at the north of the Euston station site. Whilst the foundation is temporary, it will be in use for two years, and historically would have been constructed with a more traditional cement-based concrete.
The use of the product on this scale is an important step forward in how new, innovative environmentally sustainable products can be used in construction. It also helps support HS2’s objective of net-zero construction by 2035, and achieve its goal of halving the amount of carbon in the construction of Britain’s new high speed rail line.
Note.
- Ten of these slabs would fill an Olympic swimming pool.
- I first wrote about Earth Friendly Concrete (EFC) in this post called Earth Friendly Concrete.
- EFC is an Australian invention and is based on a geopolymer binder that is made from the chemical activation of two recycled industrial wastes; flyash and slag.
- HS2’s objective of net-zero construction by 2035 is laudable.
- It does appear that this is a trial, but as the slab will be removed in two years, they will be able to examine in detail how it performed.
I hope the Sizewell C project team are following High Speed Two’s lead.
Rail Support For Sizewell C
The Sizewell site has a rail connection and it appears that this will be used to bring in construction materials for the project.
In the January 2023 Edition of Modern Railways, there is an article, which is entitled Rail Set To Support Sizewell C Construction.
It details how sidings will be built to support the construction, with up to four trains per day (tpd), but electrification is not mentioned.
This is surprising to me, as increasingly, big construction projects are being managed to emit as small an amount of carbon as possible. Sizewell C may be an isolated site, but in Sizewell B, it’s got one of the UK’s biggest independent carbon-free electricity generators a couple of hundred metres away.
The writer of the Modern Railways article, thinks an opportunity is being missed.
I feel the following should be done.
- Improve and electrify the East Suffolk Line between Ipswich and Saxmundham Junction.
- Electrify the Aldeburgh Branch Line and the sidings to support the construction or agree to use battery-electric or hydrogen zero-carbon locomotives.
Sizewell C could be a superb demonstration project for low-carbon construction!
Sizewell C Deliveries
Sizewell C will be a massive project and and will require a large number of deliveries, many of which will be heavy.
The roads in the area are congested, so I suspect rail is the preferred method for deliveries.
We already know from the Modern Railways article, that four tpd will shuttle material to a number of sidings close to the site. This is a good start.
Since Sizewell A opened, trains have regularly served the Sizewell site to bring in and take out nuclear material. These occasional trains go via Ipswich and in the last couple of years have generally been hauled by Class 88 electro-diesel locomotives.
It would be reasonable to assume that the Sizewell C sidings will be served in the same manner.
But the route between Westerfield Junction and Ipswich station is becoming increasingly busy with the following services.
- Greater Anglia’s London and Norwich services
- Greater Anglia’s Ipswich and Cambridge services
- Greater Anglia’s Ipswich and Felixstowe services
- Greater Anglia’s Ipswich and Lowestoft services
- Greater Anglia’s Ipswich and Peterborough services
- Freight services serving the Port of Felixstowe, which are expected to increase significantly in forthcoming years.
But the Modern Railways article says this about Saxmundham junction.
Saxmundham junction, where the branch meets the main line, will be relaid on a slightly revised alignment, retaining the existing layout but with full signalling giving three routes from the junction protecting signal on the Down East Suffolk line and two in the Down direction on the bidirectional Up East Suffolk line. Trap points will be installed on the branch to protect the main line, with the exit signal having routes to both running lines.
Does the comprehensive signalling mean that a freight train can enter or leave the Sizewell sidings to or from either the busy Ipswich or the quieter Lowestoft direction in a very safe manner?
I’m no expert on signalling, but I think it does.
- A train coming from the Lowestoft direction needing to enter the sidings would go past Saxmundham junction on the Up line. Once clear of the junction, it would stop and reverse into the branch.
- A train coming from the Ipswich direction needing to enter the sidings would approach in the wrong direction on the Up line and go straight into the branch.
- A train leaving the sidings in the Lowestoft direction would exit from the branch and take the Up line until it became single track. The train would then stop and reverse on to the Down line and take this all the way to Lowestoft.
- A train leaving the sidings in the Ipswich direction would exit from the branch and take the Up line all the way to Ipswich.
There would need to be ability to move the locomotive from one end to the other inside the Sizewell site or perhaps these trains could be run with a locomotive on both ends.
The advantage of being able to run freight trains between Sizewell and Lowestoft becomes obvious, when you look at this Google Map, which shows the Port of Lowestoft.
Note.
- The Inner Harbour of the Port of Lowestoft.
- The East Suffolk Line running East-West to the North of the Inner Harbour.
- Lowestoft station at the East side of the map.
I doubt it would be the most difficult or expensive of projects to build a small freight terminal on the North side of the Inner Harbour.
I suspect that the easiest way to bring the material needed to build the power station to Sizewell would be to do the following.
- Deliver it to the Port of Lowestoft by ship.
- Tranship to a suitable shuttle train for the journey to the Sizewell sidings.
- I estimate that the distance is only about 25 miles and a battery or hydrogen locomotive will surely be available in the UK in the next few years, that will be able to provide the motive power for the return journey.
In The TruckTrain, I wrote about a revolutionary freight concept, that could be ideal for the Sizewell freight shuttle.
In addition, there is no reason, why shuttle trains couldn’t come in from anywhere connected to the East Suffolk Line.
Zero-Carbon Construction
Sizewell C could be the first major construction site in the UK to use electricity rather than diesel simply because of its neighbour.
Conclusion
I shall be following the construction methods at Sizewell C, as I’m fairly sure they will break new ground in the decarbonisation of the Construction industry.
Scientists Set To Make A Bang In Nuclear Fusion ‘Breakthrough’
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on The Times.
This is the caption under the very research looking picture at the top of the page.
Scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are expected to publish results of a controlled nuclear fusion experiment.
I shall report more, when the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory publishes their official press release.
EuroLink, Nautilus And Sea Link
EuroLink, Nautilus and Sea Link are three proposed interconnectors being developed by National Grid Ventures.
EuroLink
EuroLink has a web site, where this is said.
To support the UK’s growing energy needs, National Grid Ventures (NGV) is bringing forward proposals for a Multi-Purpose Interconnector (MPI) called EuroLink, which will deliver a new electricity link between Great Britain to the Netherlands.
EuroLink could supply up to 1.8 gigawatts (GW) of electricity, which will be enough to power approximately 1.8 million homes, as well as contribute to our national energy security and support the UK’s climate and energy goals. We’re holding a non-statutory public consultation to inform you about our EuroLink proposals, gather your feedback to help refine our plans and respond to your questions.
Note, that EuroLink is a Multi-Purpose Interconnector (MPI) and they are described on this page of the National Grid website.
In EuroLink’s case, this means it is basically an interconnector between the UK and The Netherlands, that also connects wind farms on the route to the shore.
- Coastal communities get less disruption, as the number of connecting cables coming ashore is reduced.
- Less space is needed onshore for substations.
- Electricity from the wind farms can be directed to where it is needed or can be stored.
As an Electrical and Control Engineer, I like the MPI approach.
The technology to implement the MPI approach is very much tried and tested.
There are many references to EuroLink terminating at Friston.
Nautilus
Nautilus has a web site, where this is said.
Nautilus could connect up to 1.4 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind to each country through subsea electricity whilst connecting to offshore wind farm/s at sea. By combining offshore wind generation with interconnector capacity between the UK and Belgium, Nautilus would significantly reduce the amount of infrastructure and disruption required both onshore and offshore.
With this new technology, we hope to reduce the impact of infrastructure on local communities and the environment, as well as support the government’s net zero and energy security targets. We are already working closely with other developers in the area to coordinate activities and minimise impact on local communities. We believe that through improved coordination, the UK government can achieve and support the co-existence of renewable energy with coastal communities.
Nautilus is another MPI.
This is said on the web site.
Last year, National Grid Ventures ran a non-statutory consultation for Nautilus, which proposed a connection at Friston.
NGV holds a connection agreement on the Isle of Grain in Kent as part of its development portfolio and we are currently investigating if this could be a potential location for Nautilus. Until this is confirmed to be technically feasible, Nautilus will be included as part of our coordination work in East Suffolk.
So it looks like, Nautilus could connect to the UK grid at Friston or the Isle of Grain.
Sea Link
Sea Link has a web site, and is a proposed interconnector across the Thames Estuary between Suffolk and Kent.
This is said on the web site about the need for and design of Sea Link.
The UK electricity industry is evolving at pace to help lead the way in meeting the climate challenge, whilst also creating a secure energy supply based on renewable and low carbon technologies.
The demands on the electricity network are set to grow as other sectors of the economy diversify their energy consumption from using fossil fuels towards cleaner forms, the move towards electric vehicles being just one example.
Where we’re getting our power from is changing and we need to change too. The new sources of renewable and low-carbon energy are located along the coastline. We need to reinforce existing transmission network and build new electricity infrastructure in these areas in order to transport the power to where it’s needed. This is the case along the whole of the East Coast including Suffolk and Kent.
To allow this increase in energy generation, we need to reinforce the electricity transmission system. Sea Link helps to reinforce the electricity network across Suffolk and Kent.
Our proposals include building an offshore high voltage direct current (HVDC) link between Suffolk and Kent with onshore converter stations and connections back to the national electricity transmission system.
On the web site, in answer to a question of What Is Sea Link?, this is said.
Sea Link is an essential upgrade to Britain’s electricity network in East Anglia and Kent using subsea and underground cable. The proposal includes approximately 130km of subsea cables between Sizewell area in East Suffolk and Richborough in Kent. At landfall, the cables would go underground for up to 5 km to a converter station (one at each end). The converter station converts direct current used for the subsea section to alternating current, which our homes and businesses use. A connection is then made to the existing transmission network. In Suffolk, via the proposed Friston substation; in Kent via a direct connection to the overhead line between Richborough and Canterbury.
Note, that from Kent electricity can also be exported to the Continent.
All Cables Lead To Friston In Suffolk
It looks like EuroLink, Nautilus and Sea Link could all be connected to a new substation at Friston.
But these will not be the only cables to pass close to the village.
This Google Map shows the village.
Running South-West to North-East across the map can be seen the dual line of electricity pylons, that connect the nuclear power stations at Sizewell to the UK electricity grid.
Has Friston been chosen for the substation, so that, the various interconnectors can be connected to the power lines, that connect the Sizewell site to the UK electricity grid.
This would enable EuroLink, Nautilus and/or Sea Link to stand in for the Sizewell nuclear stations, if they are shut down for any reason?
It does appear from reports on the Internet that the Friston substation is not welcome.
Exploring Opportunities For Coordination
The title of this section is a heading in the EuroLink web site, where this is said.
In response to stakeholder feedback, NGV’s Eurolink and Nautilus projects and NGET’s Sea Link project are exploring potential opportunities to coordinate. Coordination could range from co-location of infrastructure from different projects on the same site, to coordinating construction activities to reduce potential impacts on local communities and the environment.
That sounds very sensible.
Reports: Ineos In Talks With Rolls Royce To Build Nuclear Plant At Grangemouth Refinery
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on The Chemical Engineer.
These are the first two paragraphs.
INEOS is reportedly in talks with Rolls Royce about using its small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) technology to power the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland.
The Sunday Telegraph first reported the story, citing sources with knowledge of the discussions who claimed that early-stage talks between the companies have centred on the technology and that commercial negotiations are yet to take place.
This paragraph, also gives a useful summary of how large scale chemical plants can use low carbon energy.
Ineos is not the first chemicals major to explore using new nuclear plants to provide low-carbon power to help decarbonise its heavy operations. Options include raising low-carbon heat for use in chemicals processing and electrolysing water to produce hydrogen for use as chemical feedstocks. In August, Dow announced it will install SMRs from X-energy to provide power and process heat for its chemicals production on the US Gulf Coast.
It is interesting to note that Dow are also exploring the use of SMRs to power a large chemical plant.
This paragraph gives an assessment of the possible view of the Scottish government.
Scotland has set a target to achieve net zero emissions by 2045 – five years earlier than UK legislation. While the Scottish Government is opposed to new nuclear using current technologies it has said that it will assess how novel technologies might contribute to Scotland’s low carbon future.
So perhaps it is not the total opposition, that some would expect.
In the 1960s, when I worked at ICI, I can remember reading an article in a serious magazine about nuclear plants being used in chemical plants and for steelmaking. This application has taken a long time to come to fruition.
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm
I found this article on beyondradio, which is entitled Plans Unveiled To Build New Offshore Windfarms Off Morecambe Bay.
These care the first two paragraphs.
Plans are being developed to build new offshore windfarms off the Morecambe Bay coast.
Proposals have been unveiled for ‘Morecambe’ and ‘Morgan’, two new offshore wind farms being developed in the Irish Sea.
I’ve discussed Morgan and its sister; Mona before in Mona, Morgan And Morven, which describes the three projects BP are developing in a joint venture with enBW.
I haven’t come across the Morecambe Offshore Windfarm before and it has its own web site.
It has this summary of the wind farm.
Renewable energy is central to supporting the UK’s ambitions to lead the world in combatting climate change, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and embracing a future where renewable energy powers our homes and businesses.
Morecambe Offshore Windfarm which has a nominal capacity of 480MW. That’s enough to power over half a million households. It will also contribute to the UK Government’s commitment to:
- Generate 50GW of power from offshore wind by 2030
- Reach net zero by 2050.
It is located approximately 30km from the Lancashire coast.
This EnBW-BP infographic describes the Morgan and Mona projects.
it appears that the proposed Morecambe Offshore Windfarm will fit in the notch on the Eastern side of EnBW-BP’s two wind farms; Mona and Morgan.
- All three wind farms are fixed foundation wind farms.
- They have a total output of just under 3.5 GW.
- Could they share infrastructure like cables and substations?
- Heysham 1 is a 485 MW nuclear station, that will be decommissioned in 2024.
- Heysham 2 is a 1815 MW nuclear station, that will be decommissioned in 2028.
- What’s left of the two Heysham nuclear stations can probably generate 2.3 GW
Could it be that over 2.3 GW of wind power is being planned in the Irish Sea to make up for the loss of the four reactors at Heysham?
Could also the 480 MW Morecambe Bay wind farm be replacing what’s left of Heysham 1?
There would probably need to be a battery at Heysham, but it looks like the wind farms could be replacing the Heysham nuclear power station!
There will be consultation with the locals about the Morecambe ans Morgan wind farms, which will take place on Saturday, November 19, 2.30pm – 6.30pm, at Morecambe War Memorial Hall on Church Street.
I think, I might go!
Is This The World’s Best Renewable Energy Video?
This is a promotional video from Minesto about their Deep Green technology.
Is it a serious proposition or is it just kite-flying?
After reading their web site in detail, I think they are serious.
Here’s why!
The Company Is A Well-Backed Spin-Out from Swedish Aerospace Company SAAB
These two paragraphs are from the About Us page.
Minesto is a marine energy technology developer, founded in 2007 as a spin-off from Swedish aerospace manufacturer Saab. Since then, Minesto has successfully developed its unique Deep Green technology.
The company has operations in Sweden, Wales, Northern Ireland and Taiwan, with headquarters in Gothenburg, Sweden. Main owners are BGA Invest and Midroc New Technology. The Minesto share is listed on the Nasdaq First North Growth Market in Stockholm.
A company rarely succeeds without appropriate and sufficient financial backing.
One Of Their Target Markets Is Powering Remote Islands
This page from World Atlas is entitled Which Countries Have The Most Islands?
These are the top five countries.
- Sweden – 267,570
- Norway – 239,057
- Finland – 178,947
- Canada – 52,455
- United States – 18,617
Note.
- That’s a lot of islands.
- The United Kingdom is 26th with a thousand islands.
- Scandinavia has 685574 islands or 686993 if you include Denmark.
Sweden has a thousand inhabited islands, so that means that in Scandinavia alone, there are about 2,500 inhabited islands. How many need a reliable decarbonised power supply?
In the UK, we are developing Remote Island Wind to serve similar locations, which I wrote about in The Concept Of Remote Island Wind.
The UK and Minesto are both looking at the supply of power to remote islands.
One of Minesto’s projects is in the Faroe Islands and it is described in this page on the Minesto web site, which has a title of Faroe Islands – Tidal Energy To Reach 100% Renewable By 2030.
These are the first two paragraphs.
In the Faroe Islands, Minesto is part of one of the world’s most ambitious energy transition schemes.
Collaborating with the electric utility company SEV, Minesto is working to pave the way for tidal energy to become a core part of the Faroese energy mix, allowing them to reach 100% renewable energy by 2030.
Onshore wind and tidal could be an ideal combination, if they worked together.
At the bottom of the Faroe Islands page, the web site talks about The Deep Green Island Mode Project, where this is said.
In June 2019, Minesto was awarded a €2.5 million grant from the European Commission’s SME Instrument programme. The awarded funding will support the installation of Minesto’s technology in the Faroe Islands together with the utility company SEV. The aim of the project, called Deep Green Island Mode (DGIM), is to install Minesto’s first two commercially viable microgrid units in a production and customer environment.
Successful demonstration of DGIM will act as a first step to developing commercial ties with utilities across Europe, both for smaller-scale microgrid systems and as a catalyst for the market up take of larger utility-scale Deep Green systems.
This is also said about the number of installations in Europe.
15 million Europeans live on Europe’s 2,400 inhabited islands, at an average of approximately 1,500 households per island. As recognised by the European Commission, island energy is expensive, polluting, inefficient and dependent on external supply, with significant negative impacts on emissions, the competitiveness of businesses, and the economy.
It appears to me, that Minesto have researched their market well.
Minesto Can Provide Baseload Power
Another of Minesto’s projects is in Taiwan and it is described in this page on the Minesto web site, which has a title of Taiwan – Replacing Nuclear With Renewable Baseload.
These are the first two paragraphs.
In Taiwan, Minesto is carrying out site development with the purpose to establish the first tidal energy arrays with Minesto’s technology in Asia – and to demonstrate renewable baseload generation from the continuously-flowing Kuroshio current.
The conditions for extracting marine energy in Taiwan are very good due to access to both tidal streams and continuous ocean currents. Taiwan aims to produces 20% of electricity from renewable sources by 2025 and has decided to scrap its nuclear power capacity within the same timeframe. Today, 97.5 percent of the country’s total energy use comes from imported fossil fuels.
Taiwan has a well-developed industrial infrastructure and a number of stakeholders in the private and public sectors are active in marine energy.
Decarbonising Taiwan and removing nuclear is a tough ask!
Conclusion
Minesto may be kite-flying in an unusual way, but they appear to be a very serious Swedish company.
Berwick Bank Wind Farm Could Provide Multi-Billion Pound Boost To Scottish Economy And Generate Thousands Of Jobs
The title of this post, is the same as that of this press release from SSE.
This press release is all about numbers.
- 307 turbines
- 4.1 GW nameplate capacity
- 5 million homes will be powered
- 8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide avoided
- Up to £8.3 billion to the UK economy
- 4650 potential jobs in Scotland
- 9300 potential jobs in the UK
These are all large figures.
This map from SSE shows the location of the wind farm.
The press release says this about connections to the grid.
Berwick Bank has secured a grid connection at Branxton, near Torness, in East Lothian. A second grid connection will be required for the project, which has been determined as Blyth, Northumberland.
Note, that Torness is the site of Torness nuclear power station.
- It has a nameplate capacity of 1.29 GW.
- It is scheduled to be shutdown in 2028.
This Google Map shows the coast between Dunbar and Torness nuclear power station.
Note.
- The town of Dunbar is outlined in red.
- The yellow line running diagonally across the map is the A1 road.
- Torness nuclear power station is in the South-East corner of the map to the North of the A1.
This second Google Map shoes an enlargement of the South-East corner of the map.
Note.
- Torness nuclear power station at the top of the map.
- The A1 road running across the map.
- The East Coast Main Line to the South of the A1.
- Innerwick Castle in the South-West corner of the map.
This Google Map shows the location of Branxton substation in relation to Innerwick Castle.
Note.
- Innerwick Castle is in the North-West corner of the map.
- Branxton substation is in the South-East corner of the map.
I estimate that the distance between Torness nuclear power station and Branxton substation is about five kilometres. The cable appears to be underground.
I have some thoughts.
Will The Connection Between Berwick Bank Wind Farm And Branxton Substation Be Underground?
If SSE follows the precedent of Torness nuclear power station, it will be underground.
Or will they use T-pylons?
This page on the National Grid web site is entitled What’s A T-Pylon And How Do We Build Them?.
From an engineering point of view, I suspect T-pylons could be used, but aesthetics and local preference may mean the cable is underground.
It should be noted that Torness nuclear power station will be shutdown in 2028. So will the current underground cable for the nuclear power station be repurposed after shutdown for the Berwick Bank wind farm?
This would mean, that the Southern connection cable to Blyth could be built first to support the first turbines erected in the wind farm.
When Will Berwick Bank Wind Farm Be Commissioned?
This page on the Berwick Bank wind farm web site is a briefing pack on the project.
The page gives construction and commission dates of 2026-2030.
Will There Be A Battery At Torness?
As we are talking about the latter half of the current decade for completion of the Berwick Bank wind farm, I believe that a substantial battery could be installed at Torness to smooth the output of the wind farm, when the wins isn’t blowing at full power.
One of Highview Power’s 2.5 GW/30 GWh CRYOBatteries could be about the right size if it has been successfully developed, but I am sure that other batteries will be of a suitable size.
If there is a case for a battery at Torness, there must surely be a case for a battery at Blyth.
Will Berwick Bank Wind Farm Be A Replacement For Torness Nuclear Power Station?
Consider.
- Torness nuclear power station is shutting down in 2028.
- Berwick Bank wind farm will be fully operational by 2030.
- Berwick Bank wind farm could use a repurposed connection to Branxton substation, if the nuclear power station no longer needs it.
- There is space on the Torness site for a large battery.
, it looks like Torness nuclear power station could be replaced by the larger wind farm.
Should The World Call A Halt To Large Nuclear Power Stations?
When I left Liverpool University in the 1960s with an engineering degree, my fellow graduates and myself felt that nuclear power would be a sensible way to provide the electricity we need. Aberfan and other disasters had ruined coal’s reputation and not one of my colleagues joined the National Coal Board.
Over the intervening years, nuclear power has suffered a greater proportion of adverse events compared to other forms of electricity generation.
Large nuclear has also suffered some of the largest time and cost overruns of any energy projects.
My optimism for nuclear power has declined, although I do hope and feel, that small modular factory-built reactors, like those proposed by Rolls-Royce and others, might prove to be as reliable and economic as gas-fired, hydro-electric and tidal power stations, or solar and wind farms.
The smaller size of an SMR could be advantageous in itself.
- Smaller factory-built power stations are more likely to be built on time and budget.
- The amount pf nuclear material involved is only about twenty percent of that of a large nuclear station.
- A smaller site would be easier to protect from terrorists and Putinistas.
- Would the risk of a serious accident be reduced?
- SMRs would be less of a blot on the landscape.
- SMRs would not need such a high-capacity grid connection.
- An SMR integrated with a high temperature electrolyser could be the easiest way to generate hydrogen for a large customer like a steelworks.
Overall, I believe an SMR would be involve less risk and disruption.
Zaporizhzhya
Zaporizhzhya is probably the last straw for large nuclear, although the incident isorchestrated by an evil dictator, who is much worse, than any of James Bond’s cruel adversities.
I doubt Putin would get the same leverage, if Zaporizhzhya were a gas-fired or hydroelectric power station.
Conclusion
I feel, the world must seriously question building any more large nuclear power stations.
The Rolls-Royce SMR Web Site
Rolls-Royce now have a web site for their proposed small modular reactor (SMR) design.
This page is entitled Why Rolls-Royce SMR?, has this outline of the reactor program.
Rolls-Royce SMR offers a radically different approach to delivering nuclear power, we have drastically reduced the amount of construction activities and transformed the delivery environment, from a large complex infrastructure programme into a factory built commoditised product.
Our design has evolved in response to a definitive set of market driven outcomes, this is not technology for technology’s sake, but innovation, to create a transformational clean energy solution that will deliver clean affordable energy for all.
This would appear to be an approach driven by proven engineering principles and excellence, good low-risk design, backed up by the best project management.
These are all traditions inherent in the Rolls-Royce DNA.
But I also believe that Rolls-Royce have looked at the world market for nuclear reactors and designed a product to fit that market.
This paragraph is in a long section entitled Global & Scalable.
The compact footprint increases site flexibility and maximises potential plant locations, including replacement for existing coal or gas-fired plants.
Many things said on the Rolls-Royce SMR Web Site, appear to be very much market led.
In my view, this is the web site of a product designed to dominate the world market for nuclear energy.
Sizewell C Nuclear Plant Campaigners Challenge Approval
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on the BBC.
These three paragraphs introduce the article.
Campaigners against the Sizewell C nuclear power station have written to Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng to legally challenge his decision to give the scheme the go-ahead.
The £20bn project for the Suffolk coast was given government approval in July.
However, the decision was against the advice of the Planning Inspectorate and those against the scheme said the consent was therefore “unlawful”.
I summed up my attitude to nuclear power in Sizewell C: Nuclear Power Station Plans For Suffolk Submitted, where I said this.
As a well-read and experienced engineer, I am not against the technologies of nuclear power.
But I do think, by the time it is completed , other technologies like wind and energy storage will be much better value. They will also be more flexible and easier to expand, should we get our energy forecasts wrong.
I wrote that in May 2020, which was before Vlad the Mad started his war in Ukraine. So our energy forecasts are totally wrong! Thanks for nothing, Vlad!
In Plan To Build £150m Green Hydrogen Plant At Felixstowe Port, I talked about ScottishPower’s plan to build a large electrolyser at Felixstowe.
The Port of Felixstowe has in the past talked of using electricity from Sizewell C to create hydrogen.
So is the port backing another horse or just playing safe?
The Anonymous Widower 