On 16/02/16 09:57, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Doesn't say whether this extension has been approved by the Nuclear
Inspections Inspectorate (or whatever they're called today), presumably
so or they wouldn't have made the announcement.

The reactors a

Heysham 1 (5 yrs)
Heysham 2 (7 yrs)
Hartlerpool (5 yrs)
Torness (7 yrs)

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...tends-life-of-
four-nuclear-reactors-hinkley-point-decision

Aren't the Heyshams the ones that had cracking in the boiler spine?

They ALL have SOME cracking in the boiler spines, but not enough to
actually be dangerous


--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

They ALL have SOME cracking in the boiler spines, but not enough to
actually be dangerous

With the level of scrutiny the industry gets, I doubt there is any cause
for concern. If there were any real risk, they'd shut down just to
cover their own arses.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

They ALL have SOME cracking in the boiler spines, but not enough to
actually be dangerous

With the level of scrutiny the industry gets, I doubt there is any cause
for concern. If there were any real risk, they'd shut down just to
cover their own arses.


One would hope so, but perhaps a government who had badly cocked up their
energy policies might be tempted to encourage an operator to stretch a
point rather than let the lights go out...

Tim

En el artÃ*culo , Tim+
escribió:

One would hope so, but perhaps a government who had badly cocked up their
energy policies might be tempted to encourage an operator to stretch a
point rather than let the lights go out...

They'd have to get through this lot first:

http://www.onr.org.uk/index.htm

and I believe they're not just a toothless watchdog; they have
international commitments too. No one is going to take the chance of a
Eurobyl happening.

Who we really need to be watching, I think, is EdF. Profits way down,
shareholder dividend slashed, and they're having trouble raising money
to pay their share of Hinkley Pt C. They're about to go cap in hand to
the French govt for more money.

The temptation to cut costs on their existing plant (such as, ooh, to
take an example at random, artificially extending its lifetime by
several years) must be overwhelming. And not just in the UK, either.
Where else are they going to make savings?

Grauniad (yes, yes, I know):

q
"EDF, which is 85% owned by the French government, announced the
extensions as it reported a 68% plunge in profits last year and cut its
annual dividend. The company, which has been hit by falling power
prices, said net debt increased by E3.2bn (£2.5bn) to E37.4bn.

The fall in EDFs annual net profit to E1.19bn was caused by a tripling
of provisions, asset writedowns and other one-off items to E3.64bn. EDF
surprised markets by cutting its dividend to E1.10 a share after paying
E1.25 for the previous three years"
/q

Anyone who has seen the '70s disaster movie "Towering Inferno" will see
where I'm going with this.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

On 16/02/2016 13:23, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Tim+
escribió:

One would hope so, but perhaps a government who had badly cocked up their
energy policies might be tempted to encourage an operator to stretch a
point rather than let the lights go out...

They'd have to get through this lot first:

http://www.onr.org.uk/index.htm

and I believe they're not just a toothless watchdog; they have
international commitments too. No one is going to take the chance of a
Eurobyl happening.

Who we really need to be watching, I think, is EdF. Profits way down,
shareholder dividend slashed, and they're having trouble raising money
to pay their share of Hinkley Pt C. They're about to go cap in hand to
the French govt for more money.

The temptation to cut costs on their existing plant (such as, ooh, to
take an example at random, artificially extending its lifetime by
several years) must be overwhelming. And not just in the UK, either.
Where else are they going to make savings?

SNIP

Certainly, here in the UK, extending the operating life of nuclear plant
requires extremely time consuming and expensive evaluation of physical
state, the suitability (in light of up to date knowledge) and
reliability of control and safety systems and even planning for
obsolescence (ie: if any component is going to be supported by the
manufacturer for long enough, or whether enough spares need to be
purchased before it goes out of production, or if it needs to be
replaced by something more modern.)

SteveW

In article , Tim+
writes
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

They ALL have SOME cracking in the boiler spines, but not enough to
actually be dangerous

With the level of scrutiny the industry gets, I doubt there is any cause
for concern. If there were any real risk, they'd shut down just to
cover their own arses.


One would hope so, but perhaps a government who had badly cocked up their
energy policies might be tempted to encourage an operator to stretch a
point rather than let the lights go out...

Tim

Maybe in a few years time but the penny hasn't dropped yet. They still
think windmills and solar farms are going to work. 100% subsidy on the
latest off shore wind farm.
--
bert

On 16/02/16 15:43, bert wrote:
In article , Tim+ writes
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

They ALL have SOME cracking in the boiler spines, but not enough to
actually be dangerous

With the level of scrutiny the industry gets, I doubt there is any cause
for concern. If there were any real risk, they'd shut down just to
cover their own arses.


One would hope so, but perhaps a government who had badly cocked up their
energy policies might be tempted to encourage an operator to stretch a
point rather than let the lights go out...

Tim

Maybe in a few years time but the penny hasn't dropped yet. They still
think windmills and solar farms are going to work. 100% subsidy on the
latest off shore wind farm.

No, they already know thanks to the soon-to-be-late David Mackay, that
that stuff wont work. The problem is a large proportion of the voting
public thinks it will.


--
He who ****s in the road, will meet flies on his return.

"Mr Natural"

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:44:45 -0000 (UTC), Tim+ wrote:

One would hope so, but perhaps a government who had badly cocked up
their energy policies might be tempted to encourage an operator to
stretch a point rather than let the lights go out...

You mean like they did during the Miners Strike, Littlebrook?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:31:10 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 16/02/16 09:57, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Doesn't say whether this extension has been approved by the Nuclear
Inspections Inspectorate (or whatever they're called today), presumably
so or they wouldn't have made the announcement.

The reactors a

Heysham 1 (5 yrs)

Which is only 1 year extension isn't it?
Heysham 2 (7 yrs)
Hartlerpool (5 yrs)

This is currently good to 2023 also I thought, both have graphite
moderators which aren't likely to get another extension.

I'm not a fan of nuclear power but nothing else is likely to provide
for the needs of the masses.

AJH