Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Aug 19, 2018 12:55 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Feb 03, 2013 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
The LPD17 Class is what the Navy got when they tried to build what was supposed to be a war ship using commercial practices. The issue is that a lot of basic requirements are so folded into the "Navy Way" that they often don't get specifically written down. So when trying to CHANGE the "Navy Way" into a commercial way, there is a lot of fumbling and rework as said basic requirements get missed and then re instituted. Folks call it "requirements creep" but in fact it is only requirements retention when folks who are more crafty than wise try changing things.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 04, 2013 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 28, 2011 10:44 am
Posts: 250
Kiteman is making my point.

The pure warships are even worse.

Consider the USCG Legend class.
cost 650 million for 4500 ton displacement bloated patriol boat.
The commerical yards could build eight 350,000 ton displacement
tankers for 650 million.

But that's nothing compare to the Zumwalt destroyer:
7 billion dollars for a 15,000 ton ship.
If a single destroyer can cost
7 billion, than a 7 billion dollar 1 GWe NPP
is a spectacular bargain.

Kite thinks these are reasonable numbers.
Like I said "different planet".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 04, 2013 3:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
You missed my point. Navy ships are not commercial ships. They have VASTLY different requirements. A commercial ship loaded with weapons is a piece of expensive worthless crap.

If you want an "inexpensive" Navy Ship, build the Navy Ship the Navy way. If you want a hideously expensive Navy ship, try building to Navy requirements a cheap commecial way. You get stupid results.

The DDG1000 was one of those attempts, while also attempting to shoehorn a battle cruiser's worth of capability into a "destroyer's" chassis. The surface ship architect's wet dream!

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 04, 2013 9:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 495
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
The navy uses a written standards based system while commercial uses an expert based system. When they forced this appraoch on our little group the time and expense we spent on simple things increased 10 times.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 22, 2015 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 12, 2011 2:24 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Taunusstein, Germany
Does anyone understand this?

UK regulators raise issue with ABWR design

What do they mean by "The definition of the radioactive source term; the nature and amount of radioactivity"?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 06, 2018 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3733
Location: Alabama
UK Labour party split over nuclear power

Quote:
The Labour party is divided over whether to back nuclear power stations in the UK, creating further uncertainty over the future of several new plants that are seen as crucial to Britain’s energy security. The high cost of the Hinkley Point power station, under construction for £20bn in Somerset, has prompted questions across Westminster about whether nuclear still represents value for money. The debate is especially intense within the opposition Labour party, where some MPs favour the industrial benefits of building power stations, while a growing faction wants to support only renewable wind and solar energy programmes.

“It’s like a wasp’s nest, the differences are really bad,” said one shadow minister. “The jury is out and personally I’m still not convinced that nuclear should be part of the mix.”

Labour’s wrangling over energy policy comes at a sensitive time for the UK, as it plans a new generation of nuclear plants to replace ageing reactors and dirty coal-fired power stations. Theresa May, prime minister, held talks in Downing Street on Thursday with Hiroaki Nakanishi, chairman of Hitachi, about a proposed nuclear plant to be built by the Japanese company’s Horizon subsidiary at Wylfa in Anglesey. The UK and Japanese governments have been in discussions with Hitachi for months about potential financial support for the project. But that backing could be thrown into doubt if Labour were to win the next election. In its general election manifesto last year, Labour said it would “support further nuclear projects and protect nuclear workers’ jobs and pensions”.

Rebecca Long-Bailey, shadow business secretary, remains adamant that Labour should continue to support Wylfa, as well as another project at Moorside in Cumbria. “Public investment in nuclear energy would bring huge benefits through the nuclear supply chain and energy security,” she said last year. Ms Long-Bailey’s position is also supported by Sue Hayman, shadow environment secretary, whose constituency is in Cumbria. Large unions, including Unite and the GMB, are also strong advocates of nuclear energy. But other senior Labour figures are arguing for a U-turn, unless the cost of new nuclear plants can be reduced sharply. One compromise under consideration could see Labour keep the commitment it made in last year’s manifesto by supporting smaller “modular” reactors, rather than bigger, more expensive schemes such as Wylfa and Moorside. John McDonnell, shadow chancellor, is officially in favour of new nuclear projects, but was previously opposed. As a backbench MP in 2012, he suggested a Labour government should announce an end to nuclear power within the first 100 days of taking office. Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader, is a life-long sceptic of nuclear power, although he swung behind it early last year, just before a by-election in Copeland, home of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site and the proposed Moorside plant. Mr Corbyn is understood to have given Ms Long-Bailey free rein on the issue, despite his own anti-nuclear instincts.

“In private, Jeremy is against, as is the majority of the shadow cabinet, but no one wants to put Rebecca in an awkward position,” said one of his allies. “The big question is whether John [McDonnell] would personally sign off all the loan guarantees and subsidies needed, which I don’t believe [he would].”

Hinkley Point C, the UK’s first new nuclear power station since the 1990s, was approved by Mrs May last year, but the project continues to attract widespread criticism for the hefty subsidy to be paid by consumers for its electricity. The government signed a deal in 2013 guaranteeing EDF, the French company leading the project, £92.50 per megawatt hour for Hinkley’s power. That compares with £57.50/MWh for electricity from the latest UK offshore wind projects, although advocates for nuclear point out that wind power is not available all the time.

“There’s no way I can see a Labour government going ahead with the sort of subsidies we saw with Hinkley again,” said one senior Labour figure. “The companies behind Wylfa and Moorside would need to offer much better value for money.”

Horizon and other nuclear developers are aiming to reduce the cost of constructing nuclear plants by 20 to 30 per cent compared with Hinkley, in an effort to remain competitive against the falling cost of renewables. Senior people in the nuclear industry said they remained confident about Labour’s continued support for their projects, because of the strength of union backing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 06, 2018 7:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3733
Location: Alabama
UK in last ditch new nuclear crunch talks as ageing power plants falter

Quote:
The Japanese conglomerate behind plans to build a new reactor at the Wylfa nuclear site in Wales is expected to call on the Government to take a direct stake in the new plant, or risk the £27bn project falling through. The last-ditch talks between Hitachi chairman Hiroaki Nakanishi and the prime minister were scheduled for the same day that fresh cracks in one of the UK’s oldest nuclear plants underlined the need for new investment in low-carbon power.


If the UK does another deal like Hinkley Point C it will permanently put the electorate off nuclear power.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 07, 2018 5:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1546
A direct stake is an anathema to the Thatcherite ideology of the current government.

It will be a ludicrous Hinkley Point type deal or nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 07, 2018 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3733
Location: Alabama
Japan’s Plans for Nuclear Exports Hit Speed Bumps

Quote:
Nikkei, a Japanese business wire service, reports that Hitachi CEO Toshiaki Higashihara is asking the UK government to take a 50% direct stake in the Horizon nuclear power project. The project located at Wylfa in Wales is expected to be composed of two 1350 MW Hitachi ABWRs. Currently, it is 100% owned by Hitachi. What the firm’s CEO would like to see is a consortium of UK firms and the government take half of the risk of financing the project.


Attachment:
nuclear-power-in-the-uk.png
nuclear-power-in-the-uk.png [ 289.9 KiB | Viewed 1831 times ]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 10, 2018 7:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 511
E Ireland wrote:
A direct stake is an anathema to the Thatcherite ideology of the current government.

It will be a ludicrous Hinkley Point type deal or nothing.


I don't think the current Government has any Thatcherite ideology. In fact, it has no ideology other than Brexit.

I suspect a direct stake, showing a decent ROI, and enabling a strike price to be below £60, would be preferable to a strike price of above £75.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 10, 2018 12:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1546
KitemanSA wrote:
You missed my point. Navy ships are not commercial ships. They have VASTLY different requirements. A commercial ship loaded with weapons is a piece of expensive worthless crap.

If you want an "inexpensive" Navy Ship, build the Navy Ship the Navy way. If you want a hideously expensive Navy ship, try building to Navy requirements a cheap commecial way. You get stupid results.

The DDG1000 was one of those attempts, while also attempting to shoehorn a battle cruiser's worth of capability into a "destroyer's" chassis. The surface ship architect's wet dream!


HMS Ocean says otherwise tbh.

alexterrell wrote:
E Ireland wrote:
A direct stake is an anathema to the Thatcherite ideology of the current government.

It will be a ludicrous Hinkley Point type deal or nothing.


I don't think the current Government has any Thatcherite ideology. In fact, it has no ideology other than Brexit.

I suspect a direct stake, showing a decent ROI, and enabling a strike price to be below £60, would be preferable to a strike price of above £75.


Ha Ha Ha

The Government is desperate to avoid the appearance of state ownership of anything, because if they admit that state ownership is not evil, the Overton window will shift drastically in Corbyn's favour.
They spent all their time attacking him for wanting state ownership - they can't be seen doing anything of the sort.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 11, 2018 9:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2016 12:37 pm
Posts: 8
Britain offers $18 bln loan for Hitachi UK nuclear project

Quote:
The British government has proposed to arrange all 2 trillion yen ($18.28 billion) in loans that Hitachi Ltd needs to build a nuclear power plant in Wales, the Nikkei business daily says. London, which had previously suggested that it would guarantee 1 trillion yen in lending, has boosted its offer to reduce Hitachi’s financial exposure, the report says. The plan also calls for a total investment of 900 billion yen, with Hitachi as well as Japanese and British public-private interests each taking a one-third stake, and guarantees for corporate loans, the report says. The total cost of the project is expected to rise to 3 trillion yen, the report says ($1 = 109.4100 yen)


Update:

British government offers $18 billion to Hitachi's UK nuclear project

Quote:
The British government has offered 2 trillion yen ($18 billion)in financial support to a unit of Japan’s Hitachi Ltd (6501.T) to build nuclear reactors in Wales, Kyodo News reported on Thursday.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 13, 2018 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 28, 2011 10:10 am
Posts: 354
E Ireland wrote:

Ha Ha Ha

The Government is desperate to avoid the appearance of state ownership of anything, because if they admit that state ownership is not evil, the Overton window will shift drastically in Corbyn's favour.
They spent all their time attacking him for wanting state ownership - they can't be seen doing anything of the sort.


Yes exactly, they go to great length (and cost) to avoid the impression of state ownership and anything that might go against 'free market' doctrine and ideology. The scheme that was devised for Hinkley, to compensate EDF at 92.50 Pounds per MWh, with a guaranteed ROI, is ludicrous. It would have been much better and cheaper to borrow the money as government (rate UK Guilts: 2-3% ?) and then build and operate the nuclear power plant.

The problem is IMHO also that private investors lack a real long-term investment horizon and the capacity for long-range planning, spanning decades, which is required for very capital intensive investment projects like nuclear power plants. The spreadsheet models employed by financial analysts in the City of London likely won't stretch further than a couple of years. That is why these beancounter types will always favour things like a natural gas fuelled plant: cheap to build and a quick return, without really having to care what the price of natural gas will do in 10 or 20 years down the line.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 17, 2018 2:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2237
UK should be utilising their RG plutonium assets to convert to fast or thorium plutonium to U233 reactors.
If they are unable to do it, they should sell the stuff as nuclear fuel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 31, 2018 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3733
Location: Alabama
New £20bn Hitachi nuclear plant looks set to be built in Wales – with taxpayer funding

Quote:
UK Government ministers are reportedly planning to pay £15bn worth of taxes to aid the construction cost of Japanese multinational Hitachi’s proposed nuclear power plant in north Wales. The news comes as a hammer blow to those opposed to the plant’s construction in Wylfa Newydd, including Welsh protesters from the group Pawb (People against Wylfa B), who went to Japan earlier this week to voice their opposition. Their concerns were merited by local councillors, who suggested in March that the project – which has a total cost of about £20bn – could lead to an increase in homelessness.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group