Hitachi takes over Horizon project to build 6 nuclear power plants in UK

Not wanted in Japan, the nuclear mafia goes abroad, not unlike the American tobacco industry. Next nuclear disaster could be in the UK. Cheerio.

Didn't Hitachi supply Fukushima's troubled No. 4 unit, which is now sinking and on the verge of collapse?

Will people ever learn?!?!

With Japan's track record on nuclear safety, I'm surprised they accepted. And where on earth are all these nuke countries going to store all this nuclear waste? No pun intended. I guess the 21st century will be the last.

Not wanted in Japan, the nuclear mafia goes abroad, not unlike the American tobacco industry. Next nuclear disaster could be in the UK. Cheerio.

So are you trying to say that Hitachi is responsible for Fukushima because of Tepco? Or is Hitachi at fault because the plant was built by GE? Do you think that Japanese standards are transferable to the UK and will bypass EU regulations? Or did you post without any thinking?

This will apparently create 12,000 jobs in the UK which as one of the world's largest economies is no bad thing.

UK oil running ougt so not sure they have a choice except nuclear. Place is already covered in wind turbines and the tidal project has come up against environmental oopposition.

This is a clear sign that there is something very strange going on in Japan. Or does anyone think the british are stupid enough to give an account for billions of dollars to a foreign company, had they not sure they would be getting a good deal ?

Japanese people, learn more from the british, they have much to teach!

The Uk does not need any new nuclear power plants to meet its demand.

Are we talking about current demand or future demand. Because you and I both know that the UK is facing a power shortfall in the coming years unless they build new nuclear power plants or continue current plants past their retirement date.

Great! We'd better stock up on car batteries!

Why anybody would by a Japanese nuclear plant after the Fukushima disaster is beyond me !

So are you trying to say that Hitachi is responsible for Fukushima because of Tepco? Or is Hitachi at fault because the plant was built by GE?

You need to get your facts straight. The plant was "built" by Kajima, a Japanese company, not GE. The reactors were designed by GE, which built 3 of them, the others built by yes, Hitachi, and others by Toshiba.

The critical decisions -- on how to shield the site from quakes and tsunami -- were up to Tepco. The Hitachi-built unit is currently sinking, and some say it may well collapse.

the safety standards at all the EU reactors, are not much better than the standards used here in Japan.

The bigger issue is implementation. Do European plant workers mix lethal substances in buckets, as in Tokaimura? Do they engage in a string of coverups over fires and explosions spanning several years, as with Monju and others?

Do they rely on the local fire brigade to handle catastrophic disasters? Do European emergency workers have holes in their worksuits? The list goes on.

Meanwhile Japan Tobacco acquired RJ Reynolds and Gallaher. Hope these people know what they are doing.

zichiOct. 31, 2012 - 09:23AM JST

The Uk does not need any new nuclear power plants to meet its demand. They can buy power from the French. I don't think there are even any British owned power companies left?

Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE) are still British owned.

Now, the joke will be: You know why the British drink warm beer? They have refrigerators made by Hatachi! E ON and RWE leaving the biz sounds like they know something others haven't seen.

Zichi, Feasibility projects (smart grit) in Great Manchester City area are about to be realized in cooperation with the New Energy Development Organization. Yet, studies (not Japanese anyway) show that even with the smart grit being introduced and implemented in the country the energy supply in Britain after the close-down of the country’s old reactors will be not enough to prevent shortages.

The Uk does not need any new nuclear power plants to meet its demand. They can buy power from the French

...which is 70% nuclear.

Zichi, While I agree with you that with better consumption management the use can be reduced to a certain extent and other renewables increased, it amazes me how you still insist on buying energy from France which basically is the largest producer of energy from nuclear and oil in Europe. Nuclear holds the largest share in the energy mix of France, followed by oil. Though separated by sea Britain and France are neighbour countries. Why is it ok to have so many nuclear plants (and support that production by buying energy from the said country) in your neighbour's and unacceptable to have some new ones in your yard? Chernobil clearly showed that Europe is small enough to be affected as a whole by a nuclear accident in any of the countries there. So if you are so opposed to nuclear energy, why is it ok to have nuclear plants next door?

The UK does not need any new nuclear power plants to meet its demand. They can buy power from the French. I don't think there are even any British owned power companies left?

There's a limit to how much power you can pump through the channel cables, so they can only buy so much power from the French.

Build the nuclear plants.

Europe already has about 140 reactors, why do we need more?

I think that the answer to this question is to replace the ones that are going offline. So it's not an additional six is it? But I also think that you knew that.

Incidentally it seems that the UKs government is moving away from wind farms that 'blight the countryside'. And it's highly unlikely that they would be moving towards LNG which as you know has serious environmental impacts.

We are already buying power from France since some of the power companies in Britain are French.

No. We are buying power from French companies not from France. A bit like buying a Nissan in the UK, it's a Japanese car but it's not from Japan. It's from Washington.

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would think it would be a good idea to rely on a foreign power to provide a large percentage of your power.

LNG = Environmental pollution so that's not going to happen. There are numerous studies questioning the validity of wind power. It's neither as effective or Green as has been alleged. And the idea of not being responsible for your own power is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

What happens if someone in France decides that they want to phase out nuclear power to the point where it will only support France. Where would that leave you? You simply cannot have an energy policy which is wholly reliant on a different country. And yes, EVERYONE should be looking at improving their energy usage and demand but that still doesn't change an underlying need for power.

Yes, it's very strange, why pretend to rule that there are no good ways to use wind energy, particularly in England, where her enough so that the whole of Europe could I sell ... Here, an obvious example, experience, and wind energy can be used .... Just that instead of balls used in the experience of wind lifted up the water ... I have no visible movement of energy to use ... But why insist, pretending that there is no such solutions?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Fb8IFfnbjY8

UK need to invest in it's tidal energy potential instead of nuclear.

This article in the guardian states that the UK has a tidal power potential of 153GW, or 216TWh a year. That is equal to more than one hundred of these new nuclear reactors.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/11/uk-tidal-power-estimate.

But sure, come on and tell me how it cant be done. Time will judge.

There's a rather interesting discussion on the values of wind farms on the Daily Telegraph today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9644558/Death-knell-for-wind-farms-Enough-is-Enough-says-minister.html

Lots of interesting comments but you shouldn't read them as you'll be disappointed.

Squidbert, from that article:

However, the report stresses that the figures for different technologies should be read separately and that the results are theoretical.

But also

"The UK has the largest wave and tidal resource in Europe, which could produce 20 per cent of current UK electricity demand and cut carbon emissions."

20% is great and if the UK can get 20% of their energy from there that would be excellent. But where would the remaining 80% come from?

You do understand that there is a huge difference between buying power from a foreign company that is based in the UK as opposed to buying it from an overseas nation.

And what you've suggested means that you are happy for the UK to have to follow the policy of an overseas nation for it's power? Incredible.

Heda Madness,

However, the report stresses that the figures for different technologies should be read separately and that the results are theoretical.

Yes that was why I did not include the 27GW of wave power energy in the above number (which was just tidal, as I stated).

20% is great and if the UK can get 20% of their energy from there that would be excellent. But where would the remaining 80% come from?

The 20% quote was from Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Davey, who stated the 20% figure at a different occasion, his number is politics, not science.

Perhaps try to re-read the article?

And what you've suggested means that you are happy for the UK to have to follow the policy of an overseas nation for it's power? Incredible.

Pretty much all industrialized countries buys a lot of their energy from foreign nations. Be it in the form of electricity, oil, coal, uranium etc.

Only renewable energy sources gives you a chance to produce what you need within your country's borders.

So the person in charge of the UK's energy thinks that tidal power could produce 20% of the UK's energy and I'm the one that needs to re-read the article. Perhaps he's talking politics. Perhaps he's talking finances. Or perhaps he's not talking 'theoretically'.

So perhaps you need to re-read the article?

Heda,

His comment was made at an unrelated event, prior to the publication of the numbers.

As I said, perhaps he has a better overview of the feasibility as opposed to the theory.

Perhaps like most politicians, he is just burping numbers?

Perhaps he is. But it's probably closer to 20% than 30% (which would be a 50% increase)

It is an ally. But it's also reliant on them making decisions that help you as opposed to being in charge of your own power. The UK's just come out of a double dip recession. Imagine how the markets would react to that.

Which does not change the fact that they can't just switch off the power to the UK. Which they could if it was coming from overseas.

Then we'd buy it from elsewhere. But I don't think that's going to happen overnight and if it does we have a stockpile of it that will get us through a while.

Scotland has a much smaller population and much lower population density.

This is hardly rocket science.

I don't have a narrow view of the EU. I do feel that the idea of being reliant on someone else to provide your energy is ludicrous. Have you not seen what happens with oil? You may feel comfortable living in that kind of world. I can pretty much guarantee that the markets wouldn't feel that way.

Interestinly enough that the nuclear power that's created in England also goes in to the national grid and is used in Scotland...

Fukushima was built using old General Electric technology. Japanese reactors are usually more reliable.

What? Horizon couldn't find the fault lines to build on top of?

zichiOct. 31, 2012 - 09:23AM JST

According to a recent leaked EU document, the safety standards at all the EU reactors, are not much better than the standards used here in Japan. It will now cost 25 billion Euro to update the safety standards.

Leaked? Freely available on the EU's website: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/stress_tests_en.htm

Two reactors would go into meltdowns if they lost power for more than one hour, according to the document.

I doubt they are UK ones though - probably ones in the ex-Warsaw pact.

zichiOct. 31, 2012 - 07:20PM JST

Britain could generate all the power it need without using nuclear energy or coal. If at times it needed additional energy, well France would be a good country to buy it from since it is next door. France is also mostly an agricultural country so overnight demand for power drops. Britain is a manufacturing countries with factories working 24/7.

Maybe in the 60s Zichi, as for now the UK ranks 9th in the world for manufacturing output, behind France. http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05809.pdf

Also, how do you suggest Britain generates its power?

But I have stated several times that what is needed for the EU is a smart grid connecting all the EU countries. Each country generates power with its resources and puts the power into the grid. Countries buy their power off the EU grid. That way, power can quickly be moved to the places where its most needed.

Smart Grids have not been proven on such a scale - and transferring electricity over such a distance will lead to large losses in the power lines. And what happens if the grid fails?

"Interestinly enough that the nuclear power that's created in England also goes in to the national grid and is used in Scotland..."

but if Scotland became independent would that situation remain. No answers for that until it happens.

Scotland will need the power grid of the rest of the UK to balance its large renewables load, and the UK-France power line to get it to Europe.

So instead of just a British grid system a better way would be an EU grid system with France being the main country generating power from nuclear energy.

And if the UK gets booted out of the EU we can just hope the French play nice?

Just build them... we don't have tsunamis or massive earthquakes to worry about.

Fukushima was built using old General Electric technology. Japanese reactors are usually more reliable.

Like Monju? LOL!!!

The scary thing about the pro-nuke crowd is that they either have very short memories or they're totally ignorant.

Anyway, the main safety issues at Fukushima were the cooling systems and the chosen location, which were based on decisions by Japanese officials, not the reactors per say.

Since the japanese have long been involved in atomic/nuclear weapons/power it sure would be nice for them to officially announce they are technically a nuclear weapon capable nation instead of their usual pussyfooting around the topic.

zichiOct. 31, 2012 - 10:37PM JST

More companies need to generate 20-30% of their own power needs. This has been happening for some time in America with the Fortune 500 companies. Its starting to happen here in Japan and there's no reason why it can't be done in Britain.

Depends on how they are generating it.

Does Britain have a feed-in-tarrif, if not then there should be one so that companies and individuals who can generate power can also sell it.

Not that keen on them myself - just an excuse for people who can afford their renewables to push the price of them onto the poor.

If Britain makes full use of all forms of tidal power and off shore wind plants linked with the new breed of gas turbines, which can run on LNG or biogas, then all the power needed could be generated. Better use of biomass for generating power.

Tidal needs some kind of storage, off-shore wind needs it too - and also has to be backed-up in case of long periods of time with low winds. As for the gas turbines - how much biomass can the UK produce for them, and how much power can they produce?

There needs to be a smart grid system and the Americans have stated its possible to build it there so there should be no technical reason that the same can't be achieved in a small country like Britain, and even in the larger EU even if it means two grids linked, one for Western Europe and another for Eastern Europe.

A large smart grid being stated as possible is hardly concrete enough.

It has already started in the EU with the Smart grid policy organized as Smart Grid European Technology Platform.

Good luck to them. As for now, we have to assume that they won't pan out as promised.

In Britain the smart grid was demonstrated by the OpenADR standard, in Bracknell, England, where peak use in commercial buildings was reduced by 45 percent.

So, good on a small scale - but are there figures for total use? I assume they stay pretty static?

Some America cities are already using smart grid systems

No national ones yet?

zichiNov. 01, 2012 - 10:50AM JST

There are interconnectors between the UK-France, UK-Ireland and UK-Norway. A fourth is planned for UK-Spain. These are high voltage direct current (HVDC). UK-France is 2,000 MW. UK-Norway 1,200 MW and UK-Ireland 500 MW.

No, only the UK-France one exists at present. There is one to the Netherlands though.

Currently the Uk buys in about 7 GW of French power and sells about 4.5 GW.

Actually, currently it is around zero, but it varies up and down by 2GW over the last 6 months. Ref: http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~dcurtis/NETA.html

The French nuclear energy is in over capacity and uses a system of grid loading. Some reactors are shut down at weekends because of the lack of demand.

So, that's load-balancing for you.

The UK could import 500MW of power from Ireland generated from wind power. 1200MW from Norway again from wind generated power and 2,000MW from French nuclear.

If interconnectors were built in the case of Ireland and Norway, and if they had surplus power.

When the UK-Spain interconnector is made solar power could be imported from Spain.

If.

Does Britain need to spend £170 billion to replace the current reactors to provide 10-15GW of power over 30 years?

Well, your assertions give us 3.7 GW from Ireland, Norway and Spain vs. 10 - 15 GW Nuclear - so yes, reactor replacements seem reasonable.

zichiOct. 31, 2012 - 09:43PM JST

when I read the original story a few weeks ago, the two reactors were in Finland, according to a report on the BBC.

Thanks Zichi, probably the two Soviet-designed ones they have. They were built with Western containment structures though.