On 24/09/2010 11:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Vortex7 wrote:


Most of the new reactors proposed are unsurprsingly adjacent to old
reactors marked here. The reasons are eminently sound
- they already have grid feeds
- they already have access routes
- they already have secure sites
- they already have planning permission of a sort
- old decommissioned but still 'hot' reactors can be managed by the
newer reactor staff.
- skilled staff already exist in the area.

If all 16 sites got 3GW sets, we would entirely meet the current grid
needs for certainly base load, and a considerable amount more, at far
less cost and grid disruption and reliability than 'sustainable' energy.


I agree completely. No new sites are needed, just new hardware.

I wonder what is the cost and lead time for (say) a French "flat pack"
3GW Nuke?

Fastest nuke build from application to switch on is about 5 years IIRC,
but 7 is more reasonable. UK 10-12

Planning is the issue. Huge anti-nuke groups mobilising to delay things.

I'd love to see the Government grow some balls and get on with it.

Unfortunately the sandal wearing Libdem element would make life very
awkward.