The problem with adopting French or South Korean nuclear plant designs isn't merely about safety concerns, its the whole "standards system". Different countries have different standards, for electrical sockets, stainless steel screws, cable colours.
Although the differences between countries aren't unsurmountable, its like that thing with British tanks, how the turret uses imperial parts and the chassis uses metric, so they need to keep two sets of toolkits and spare parts.
I don't know whether copying South Korean designs and converting them into British units and standards is quicker than creating the whole thing from scratch, but its not going to be cheaper. Some bugger is going to have to look at every single part of the design and decide if it needs to change or not. And if that person gets it wrong, is it their fault or the South Korean's fault?
I don't work in nuclear power station design. But even with other industries, there are significant differences between countries. Take for example streetlights, the UK uses mostly class 1 electrical standards, mains leads with three cores - live, neutral and earth. But in France, just twelve miles away, they traditionally use Class 2 electrics for there streetlights, mains leads with two cores.
Its not that class2 is inherently more dangerous than class1, its just a difference design choice, and it has repercussions in the rest of the electrical system. Do French lighting columns need to be earthed? What happens if UK columns aren't earthed?
Whoever is responsible for transferring foreign designs to UK systems now has to be literate and experienced with two different country's standards, and that's an expensive skill.
I think it quite likely that by the time this plant is completed, the threat from sea level rise will be raising serious questions about its operating lifespan.
Unlikely, as this was incorporated into the design of the plant’s raft and sea defences already (and the latter are designed to be raised further if needed in the future).
I do know how they work, and I agree the French experience with river-cooled plants has not been great lately. But I'm surprised if the engineers are confident about future sea levels, when climate scientists aren't, though it's not really our problem of course.
I still don't get why we should build nuclear power stations on low-lying coasts that will be subject to tidal flooding within a century, and will be underwater before the structures are safe, when other technologies are available.
They put them by the coast because you need access to large amounts of reliable water for cooling, which would be a problem if you built the reactor inland and e.g. your lake or river dried up in a drought. They’re also designed to take future sea levels into account - the whole thing is built on a raised concrete ‘raft’ and protected by sea defences that can be adapted over time.
The problem with adopting French or South Korean nuclear plant designs isn't merely about safety concerns, its the whole "standards system". Different countries have different standards, for electrical sockets, stainless steel screws, cable colours.
Although the differences between countries aren't unsurmountable, its like that thing with British tanks, how the turret uses imperial parts and the chassis uses metric, so they need to keep two sets of toolkits and spare parts.
I don't know whether copying South Korean designs and converting them into British units and standards is quicker than creating the whole thing from scratch, but its not going to be cheaper. Some bugger is going to have to look at every single part of the design and decide if it needs to change or not. And if that person gets it wrong, is it their fault or the South Korean's fault?
I don't work in nuclear power station design. But even with other industries, there are significant differences between countries. Take for example streetlights, the UK uses mostly class 1 electrical standards, mains leads with three cores - live, neutral and earth. But in France, just twelve miles away, they traditionally use Class 2 electrics for there streetlights, mains leads with two cores.
Its not that class2 is inherently more dangerous than class1, its just a difference design choice, and it has repercussions in the rest of the electrical system. Do French lighting columns need to be earthed? What happens if UK columns aren't earthed?
Whoever is responsible for transferring foreign designs to UK systems now has to be literate and experienced with two different country's standards, and that's an expensive skill.
I think it quite likely that by the time this plant is completed, the threat from sea level rise will be raising serious questions about its operating lifespan.
Unlikely, as this was incorporated into the design of the plant’s raft and sea defences already (and the latter are designed to be raised further if needed in the future).
Let’s hope they got it right. There’s a whole load of unknowns to deal with.
I do know how they work, and I agree the French experience with river-cooled plants has not been great lately. But I'm surprised if the engineers are confident about future sea levels, when climate scientists aren't, though it's not really our problem of course.
I still don't get why we should build nuclear power stations on low-lying coasts that will be subject to tidal flooding within a century, and will be underwater before the structures are safe, when other technologies are available.
They put them by the coast because you need access to large amounts of reliable water for cooling, which would be a problem if you built the reactor inland and e.g. your lake or river dried up in a drought. They’re also designed to take future sea levels into account - the whole thing is built on a raised concrete ‘raft’ and protected by sea defences that can be adapted over time.