I support the use of nuclear energy despite the issues of waste reprocessing and disposal. The UK's demand for electricity is only going to increase as time goes on. Renewables are all well and good, but to support it we'll always need a stable, dependable base of low-carbon generation that's ready to go at the drop of a hat, and to my mind the only realistic option is nuclear (fission - since fusion isn't likely to be a viable option for the foreseeable future), however, the reality of planning issues, and arguments over the location of plants, would significantly delay the roll-out of small modular reactors in towns and cities.  

I missed the talk. Can the talk be viewed by any other means.

This is a complicated question.

It has to be seen as part of the UK new energy for Power equation.


Future UK Power has to be broken down into what is engineeringly possible aand what is economical - just saw a E&T article criticising HP3 EPR 

IET France called for a seminar where it was explained that the UK was short of baseline power and the only option was EPR at any price.

This should not happen again.


There are is a mass of companies in the nuclear engineering field.

None of them design & build NPP. They will tell everyone that they are experts but it is not true.


I am a nuclear engineer with all round nuclear experience, there are a handfull of us left, able to advise. 

These Nuclear companies need work and contracts, beware.

I have posted blogs on the IET energy forum, no one is interrested.

I have demonstrated why Fusion is only a plasma physics experiment, yet CCFE have posted job vacancies claiming that fusion is the only option for nuclear power plant. Where's the mathematical model.


David says he is pro-nuclear. 

I can tell you that from my last two contracts, no one knows what has happened in the nuclear reactor sites, not even the site managers today.

Rolls Royce make a US 70 year old PWR model reactor that has proven its worth.

Rolls Royce made thermal power stations using my companies out of date Diesel engines. So they know a little about Power Plant.

I do not seem to have heard of a RR NPP. 

Believe me, what goes wrong in NPP, is what you have not engineered or even thought about, I can give you a list of events but risk my life if I devulge them.


I was one of the first liquidators in experimental reactor revamping.


We have to be aware of the lobbyists even if they have reputable names.


Yes the UK needs NPP to fit into the reliable UK power equation.

This equation is COP 21 23 orientated, etc - power today, 2035, and for after 2050.

These NPP have to be cost competitive and engineeringly sound.


David is right, the only option available for the next 35 years for UK base load power is NPP and the Swansea barrage. (Hydro is already at full capacity)


Rushing to buy a RR SMR before the US launch their SMR before Engie etc they are all on the ball game is a typical UK solution. I was a GB white elephant hunter - Falstaff, Concorde etc engineering adventures with no deep analysis, it was in the days of boffins and endless government money.


The UK new-build NPP has to be a proven design, meeting UK regulations. it has to be cost competitive. UK Nuclear regulations have to be rationalised to match engineering security)

The ideal NPP model does not exist. it has to be based around the complete nuclear cyle.

The nuclear island ( block Pyle and radioactive parts ) could be RR designed.The next NPP is and engineering complexity, it has to be designed to industrial and production engineering standards. it involves all the branches of process engineering. Therefore it should be devided into constituent parts, subcontractyed and project managed.


I surveilled the Chinese EPR and my recomendatrions went into the UK EPR design, The EPR is designed and built by an ephimere company that employs expert engineers for the time of each task.

These tasks have to be re-engineered. All components have to be standardised. we need just one UK model.


The UK made a real mess of nuclear engineering which will take 100 years to clean up - DAD.

We will need to train nuclear engineers for 100 years.

We do not have competent nuclear engineers on the market, they will have to come from Europe Africa and Asia, as for the EPR.


On the EPR we had engineers ( HNC BSc aged 20 to 35 and 55 to 65. the CEng and 35 to 55 were not competent enough. RR employs only CEng !


There is no NPP, SMR, 1GWe or EPR equivalent on the market for UK NPP rebuild.


Two identical NPP differ by 75% engineering.


We have to analyse the ecology the implantation, the cooling, COGEN heat recovery. NPP thermal efficiency will always be about 35% and COGEN 65% or more.

Engineering efficiency has to improve to lower NPP costs.


Dismantling , (A) Clean up and Demolition DAD costs 1 1/2 the total cost of design & operation of a NPP . It has to be part of the new NPP equation.

The nuclear fuel is a subcontract part of NPP including nuclear  fuel waste. Electrical production has nothing to do with NPP operation.

All thermel and fluid mechanical PP have the same objective, to turn a big mechanical shaft to drive an electrical generator, AC or DC. Look at a submarine for example.


Do not be fooled by lobbyists and experts with titles and no experience, we need independent process engineers to analyse and build a NPP for an electrical company that sells electrons. The electrons are injected into the network which is worn out and has to be redesigned. 

Where do we need power in 2050 - good question GB Plc will be different after BREXIT?


Why make it simple when you can make it complicated.

if you can DAD dismantle a NPP you have a goog chance of designing one. Do not reinvent the wheel, do not invent a new process or Nuclear Island before 2050.


We need power today, that is why the UK Gov bought EPRs at any price.


Did you know that NPP designers do not design maintenance.

Did you know that NPP operators do not carry out maintenance, they cannot, they would be irradiated.

DAD has to be part of NPP newbuild from day one.

they do not do these actions to save on costs.


I could go on for a long time, the UK has NPP operators but not constructors. The old models have to be reengineered.

We do not want 30 different NPP models; just one model for each power scale.

Radioactive operational waste transport and disposal is a mjor problem, look at Russia a few days ago.


Here's the key question how much does it cost and how long does it take to wash NPP operators underwear and boilersuits.

It is like Ocean liners, the biggest cost is paint. In France they have only one nuclear washing machine! It is one of the major NPP operational costs all has to be re-engineered.

Do not copy past poor models.


The ideal Project Manager for a NPP is an ocean liner constructor. 

Not a submarine builder.


J Gowman 

Ingénieur  Chercheur Nucléaire - DAD, retired.

I'm 100% behind nuclear. Anecdotally, I have noticed a correlation between being anti-nuclear and being anti-science.