Thanks for a well presented and detailed overview. I guess you meant to say that Sizewell B is the only civil PWR in the UK. I'm sure there are some "naval propulsion" reactors elsewhere ;-)
Here here! Working on pre-fabbed "things" for HPC atm, yet Sizewell is only 1hr up the road from where i live. Once that kicks off, with a bit of lucky can get myself working on the project in a less "remote" way. Bradwell too, once that comes about.
Interesting fact about the seawater temperature increase of 3c, I remember back in the late sixties and early seventies when the old A station was working its cooling water temperature was somewhat higher than that. Its outlet was a lot closer to the beach and the sea temperature was like a warm bath.
a few years ago I was watching a documentary about the history of aircraft carriers, towards the end they got onto the new US carriers. a direct quote from the programme was; "the carrier has two reactors, each reactor can power a city the size of Leeds" my immediate thought was, build one near Drax, then others around the country. if they fit inside a ship they can't be that big! And yes they should be built by British firms not France, China or anywhere else. too much of our water, energy, hospital buildings etc; is owned by foreign firms
That's literally what Rolls Royce is trying to do. Getting the government on board to actually buy them is far more problematic - it'll be the end result but they're screwing around more than a lil bit.
Nuclear reactors are safe especially with the technology available today and I would like more nuclear reactors built in the UK but my concern is the nuclear waste disposal.
Nice. I remember going on an IEE (now IET) South Anglian Younger Members tour in the early 90s as a undergraduate student. Had a nice look round the old Magnox 'A' and the mid-construction PWR 'B'. I think the primary dome was on 'B' by that stage. Somewhere I have a photo of me holding a (replica!) Magnox fuel rod assembly.
It’s a shame we threw our own nuclear industry under a bus and opted for American, Sizewell could have a SGHWR that the uk has successfully designed and run but Maggie was determined to undermine our own science and industry
I joined the CEGB just prior to privatisation. I'm pretty sure that it's chairman Lord Marshall; was an advocate of the PWR. Possibly because it was a proven design and as such more appealing to private investors. I believe Torness had originally been considered for an SGHWR but instead became the site for the last AGR to be built.
@@tomroland5467 I've never been a liker of light water reactors, but as you say that had the market, but required enriched fuel which costs , the CANDU SGHWR using natural uranium and the ability to burn up PWR used fuel as we know now I feel is much more elegant, that's just me and my own thoughs on it , plus on load refueling not having to dismantle the reactor to refuel
Could you handle a meteor strike? ...Earthquake What if a potential terrorist is employed at the plant, would they be able to do any damage? Nuclear energy is great, glad to see safety is your top priority.
Hi there. The UK has used nuclear power since 1956 and has 8 power plants designed with these types of threats in mind. They have layers of extremely robust security. Nuclear is one of the most comprehensively regulated industries. ^Colin
Armed police on site, I see. Sign of the times I suppose. I've been to Hinkley A and Hinkley B umpteen times and never encountered armed police patrols there, but then again the last time I was in the Hinkley A control room was about 20 years ago, now I think about it.
There's always been armed police on all nuclear sites in the UK. Always. You might not have seen them, but they were there. The AEAC that preceded the CNC were established in 1955 and before that it was probably more of a military thing.
The water outfalls do have an impact on marine life.... they create havens of life. Huuge colonies of shellfish and crustaceans, in turn huge numbers of fish and marine mammals. 👍👍👍 Was the same in the Thames and Thames Estuary while Tilbury PowerStation was operating (ok not nuclear but still used sea water for cooling). Now that Tilbury A and B have been long closed, the amount of marine life has had a huge drop in the local area👎👎👎
Why Britain can’t build turbines at home - even though we invented them with companies like Rolls Royce still a huge manufacturer today and also build nuclear reactors- even though we invented our own before France did. It always angered me why we bought it all from France. Hence “EDF only operators in the U.K.” There was no reason for it.
Cant build at home? It's not that they "cant", it's more that they wont. European labour equals cheap labour. Screw the British tradesmen over, yet again.
@@davidturnbull310 kinda - it's more that the best manufacturers with all the really important patents for example may only have factories in France (looking at you, GE). We can build steam turbines, it's not that hard but you have companies that are very good at it and highly experienced that will sell you a steam turbine at a reasonable price, in quick time and of high quality. It isn't just a price issue.
When you privatise an industry companies from abroad can move in and buy it up, that is how capitalism works. If you've ever voted Tory in your life then you are partly to blame for the lack of industry in this country as it was all nationalised and untouchable under Labour until 1980.
the presentation doesn't really tell anybody exactly how a nuclear reactor works! it's my guess the fuel rods are continually zapped by neutrons or a radioactive source generated by a neutron howitzer or particle accelerator. The fuel resists the flow of neutons or radiation and consequently heats up. The heat produced then heats the pressurised water and the hot pressurised water is then pumped to heat the water to turn to steam to then turn turbines which then produces ac electricity! In other words, some of the electricity produced is used to power the reactor!
It's reasonably basic physics that is taught to most kids in school at a relatively young age so presumably they thought it wouldn't need to be - nuclear fuels like uranium emit neutrons, which are absorbed by other assemblies in the reactor to cause fission which causes them to emit fission products including neutrons, which are absorbed by even more assemblies which fission and so on in a chain reaction. Without a moderator like water this reaction would be a runaway self-sustaining reaction. It's more complex but that's the basic deal, other than the fuel itself you don't need to put anything in to cause the reaction to take place. Fusion reactors you have to inject high energy neutral particles because the reaction isn't self-sustaining, which is one of the reasons we like fusion reactors; they're not totally safe (they still emit neutrons which you have to shield against and deal with the damage that does to the materials the reactor is made of) but the non-self-sustaining part makes them safer in the event of catastrophic failures.
@@streaky81 Do you know of anything in life where energy is produced for 6 years without any input power whatsoever? I don't. It's too fantastical. The way you have just explained how nuclear reactors work defies the law of conservation of energy. What you get told in school is not always true!!! If you think I've got it wrong show me a demonstration of a chain reaction in a laboratory. Over to you!!!
@@streaky81 incorrect imo simply because there is nothing in man's practical world that exhibits the kind of chain reraction dreamt up by nuclear physicists Does a kettle keep water boiling afterr you've switched the kettle off at the mains? Does a car engine keep running after you've run out of fuel or after you've switched the engine off? Does a wind turbine keep rotating when there is no wind? I can give you so many practical examples in real life where machines and devices need power to make them work and yet all you can give me is an example of energy production where you cannot demonstrate that they work in the manner you think they work. The way you think about this topic goes against practical everyday life experience! Where on earth do you live?? In a dreamworld most likely!
@@PeterPete diesel engines. Keep putting air and fuel in and the reaction sustains itself - with a net gain of useful power, but no energy gain because the energy is in the fuel: exactly like in a nuclear reactor. There are thousands of known self-sustaining reactions you'll find. That or it's the unicorns they strap into the reactor and force to run around in circles: could go either way.
@@DXmYb A solar flare would shut down electronics. Some people think they are prepared. But a major solar flare would instantly kill any one on life support as circuits fried. Planes would fall from sky, nuclear plants would melt down a as how would emergency protocols kick in? No computers. A third world war could be started by a country setting off a nuke over a country. The EMP would shut down the country including most of the military.
@@vincitveritas3872 Thanks for replying. I've never researched solar flares. More nuclear disasters are a certainty. Interesting to see what will cause the next one. They are a great source of energy.
@@vincitveritas3872 not really, but that's literally why reactors have passive safety systems. Fukushima wasn't badly designed but it was very very old and they had been repeatedly warned by the US about the dangers at the plant and they chose to ignore those dangers. All the potential issues with nuclear reactors are well known and understood, and can be in almost all instances trivially mitigated. You just have to chose to do it; which in that instance was a matter for the Japanese regulator.
I am not against to the country having expert in nuclear power plant,this is renewable enegy but harmful to everyone once it damage accidentlly....what is ever danger is,,proceed european country,if nucelar power is key to make independent to russian gas supply.👍🙏
If the Chinese company CGN has a modicum of sense, it will not touch any project in the UK. There's strong opposition from sections of the public which it does not need. China will be needlessly tarred with bad press to add to the already overflowing canards. Then, the UK is permanently afflicted with poor labour skills and work ethics, leading to chronic bad workmanship, overruns in costs and time. It's impossible to change. Look at Crossrail and Heathrow and HS2. That's only less than 1% of the failed and failing projects. Don't even touch it with a barge pole from Shanghai. It's not even long enough.
Thanks for a well presented and detailed overview.
I guess you meant to say that Sizewell B is the only civil PWR in the UK. I'm sure there are some "naval propulsion" reactors elsewhere ;-)
Raynesway in Derby i think is where there are a couple of naval reactors operating.
Sharing this with my students - thank you. Nice to have a more recent video
Great to see a young lady so adept at talking and so enthusiastic.
Excellent! Well done too to the young lady who presented this! Your enthusiasm shines through and we need more women in engineering roles.
This was an interesting video but I had to give up as I couldn't hear the voice over the music: very frustrating
Great video guys! Its good to see the nuclear industry is becoming a lot better when it comes to PR
#Nuclear4NetZero
yes
Bring on Sizewell C!
Here here! Working on pre-fabbed "things" for HPC atm, yet Sizewell is only 1hr up the road from where i live. Once that kicks off, with a bit of lucky can get myself working on the project in a less "remote" way. Bradwell too, once that comes about.
@@kf8575 Do you think Bradwell B will go ahead?
Interesting fact about the seawater temperature increase of 3c, I remember back in the late sixties and early seventies when the old A station was working its cooling water temperature was somewhat higher than that. Its outlet was a lot closer to the beach and the sea temperature was like a warm bath.
Worked in Control room 94 to 96. Hope Sizewell C gets built soon. Without Coal we need more Nuclear baseload.
Awesome. I'm changing to EDF energy!!
Nice one Dave, welcome aboard!
look in the landfill 4 towns north - hidden stuff
Any evidence to back up that claim?
@@marvintpandroid2213 he read it in a blog on the Internet, created by a member of the tinfoil hat brigade👍
a few years ago I was watching a documentary about the history of aircraft carriers, towards the end they got onto the new US carriers. a direct quote from the programme was;
"the carrier has two reactors, each reactor can power a city the size of Leeds" my immediate thought was, build one near Drax, then others around the country. if they fit inside a ship they can't be that big! And yes they should be built by British firms not France, China or anywhere else. too much of our water, energy, hospital buildings etc; is owned by foreign firms
That's literally what Rolls Royce is trying to do. Getting the government on board to actually buy them is far more problematic - it'll be the end result but they're screwing around more than a lil bit.
I used to work here. Much of the spent fuel is sent to Sellafield as Sizewell doesn't have to capabilities nor capacity for long-term storage.
That could be the spent flue from Sizewell A.
Nuclear reactors are safe especially with the technology available today and I would like more nuclear reactors built in the UK but my concern is the nuclear waste disposal.
Very well done video.
I remember wheh you done open days! Remember walking around and standing on the 'A' reactor.
Nice. I remember going on an IEE (now IET) South Anglian Younger Members tour in the early 90s as a undergraduate student. Had a nice look round the old Magnox 'A' and the mid-construction PWR 'B'. I think the primary dome was on 'B' by that stage. Somewhere I have a photo of me holding a (replica!) Magnox fuel rod assembly.
It’s a shame we threw our own nuclear industry under a bus and opted for American, Sizewell could have a SGHWR that the uk has successfully designed and run but Maggie was determined to undermine our own science and industry
I joined the CEGB just prior to privatisation. I'm pretty sure that it's chairman Lord Marshall; was an advocate of the PWR. Possibly because it was a proven design and as such more appealing to private investors. I believe Torness had originally been considered for an SGHWR but instead became the site for the last AGR to be built.
@@tomroland5467 I've never been a liker of light water reactors, but as you say that had the market, but required enriched fuel which costs , the CANDU SGHWR using natural uranium and the ability to burn up PWR used fuel as we know now I feel is much more elegant, that's just me and my own thoughs on it , plus on load refueling not having to dismantle the reactor to refuel
Could you handle a meteor strike?
...Earthquake
What if a potential terrorist is employed at the plant, would they be able to do any damage?
Nuclear energy is great, glad to see safety is your top priority.
Hi there. The UK has used nuclear power since 1956 and has 8 power plants designed with these types of threats in mind. They have layers of extremely robust security. Nuclear is one of the most comprehensively regulated industries. ^Colin
Armed police on site, I see. Sign of the times I suppose. I've been to Hinkley A and Hinkley B umpteen times and never encountered armed police patrols there, but then again the last time I was in the Hinkley A control room was about 20 years ago, now I think about it.
Country wasnt full of islamic militants 20yrs ago
There's always been armed police on all nuclear sites in the UK. Always. You might not have seen them, but they were there. The AEAC that preceded the CNC were established in 1955 and before that it was probably more of a military thing.
Hello, Good day! I'm asking how to apply in your company? I'm a future mechanical engineer by next year and am willing to learn in your company.
Hi there. You can check out our career opportunities here: www.edfenergy.com/careers
Very reassuring ...
Beautiful
Is that seagull on an apprenticeship?
It's a very complicated method of boiling water.
Every form of Thermal Power station including Solar Thermal uses steam turbines, so just a complex way of boiling water
The water outfalls do have an impact on marine life.... they create havens of life. Huuge colonies of shellfish and crustaceans, in turn huge numbers of fish and marine mammals. 👍👍👍
Was the same in the Thames and Thames Estuary while Tilbury PowerStation was operating (ok not nuclear but still used sea water for cooling). Now that Tilbury A and B have been long closed, the amount of marine life has had a huge drop in the local area👎👎👎
Funny, I was thinking that, most marine life is cold blooded and prefers some heat, that's good for predators and their prey.
Ayooe they use 3 million liters every minute
Tha k you excellent
I thought they come from France?
That would of been nice without the music.
nice keyboard ^^ 5:31
Why Britain can’t build turbines at home - even though we invented them with companies like Rolls Royce still a huge manufacturer today and also build nuclear reactors- even though we invented our own before France did.
It always angered me why we bought it all from France. Hence “EDF only operators in the U.K.”
There was no reason for it.
the Magnox Nuclear Power program stopped building nuclear power stations long ago, they are only decommissioning them now
Cant build at home? It's not that they "cant", it's more that they wont.
European labour equals cheap labour.
Screw the British tradesmen over, yet again.
We can build them, maybe outsourcing is cheaper.
@@davidturnbull310 kinda - it's more that the best manufacturers with all the really important patents for example may only have factories in France (looking at you, GE). We can build steam turbines, it's not that hard but you have companies that are very good at it and highly experienced that will sell you a steam turbine at a reasonable price, in quick time and of high quality. It isn't just a price issue.
When you privatise an industry companies from abroad can move in and buy it up, that is how capitalism works. If you've ever voted Tory in your life then you are partly to blame for the lack of industry in this country as it was all nationalised and untouchable under Labour until 1980.
the presentation doesn't really tell anybody exactly how a nuclear reactor works! it's my guess the fuel rods are continually zapped by neutrons or a radioactive source generated by a neutron howitzer or particle accelerator. The fuel resists the flow of neutons or radiation and consequently heats up. The heat produced then heats the pressurised water and the hot pressurised water is then pumped to heat the water to turn to steam to then turn turbines which then produces ac electricity!
In other words, some of the electricity produced is used to power the reactor!
It's reasonably basic physics that is taught to most kids in school at a relatively young age so presumably they thought it wouldn't need to be - nuclear fuels like uranium emit neutrons, which are absorbed by other assemblies in the reactor to cause fission which causes them to emit fission products including neutrons, which are absorbed by even more assemblies which fission and so on in a chain reaction. Without a moderator like water this reaction would be a runaway self-sustaining reaction. It's more complex but that's the basic deal, other than the fuel itself you don't need to put anything in to cause the reaction to take place. Fusion reactors you have to inject high energy neutral particles because the reaction isn't self-sustaining, which is one of the reasons we like fusion reactors; they're not totally safe (they still emit neutrons which you have to shield against and deal with the damage that does to the materials the reactor is made of) but the non-self-sustaining part makes them safer in the event of catastrophic failures.
@@streaky81 Do you know of anything in life where energy is produced for 6 years without any input power whatsoever? I don't. It's too fantastical.
The way you have just explained how nuclear reactors work defies the law of conservation of energy.
What you get told in school is not always true!!!
If you think I've got it wrong show me a demonstration of a chain reaction in a laboratory. Over to you!!!
@@PeterPete it doesn't defy any laws of physics at all, you just haven't understood them.
@@streaky81 incorrect imo simply because there is nothing in man's practical world that exhibits the kind of chain reraction dreamt up by nuclear physicists
Does a kettle keep water boiling afterr you've switched the kettle off at the mains? Does a car engine keep running after you've run out of fuel or after you've switched the engine off? Does a wind turbine keep rotating when there is no wind?
I can give you so many practical examples in real life where machines and devices need power to make them work and yet all you can give me is an example of energy production where you cannot demonstrate that they work in the manner you think they work.
The way you think about this topic goes against practical everyday life experience!
Where on earth do you live?? In a dreamworld most likely!
@@PeterPete diesel engines. Keep putting air and fuel in and the reaction sustains itself - with a net gain of useful power, but no energy gain because the energy is in the fuel: exactly like in a nuclear reactor. There are thousands of known self-sustaining reactions you'll find. That or it's the unicorns they strap into the reactor and force to run around in circles: could go either way.
The presenter is pretty cute LOL.
A major solar flare would be bad news
What would happen. The idiots that designed Fukushima probably thought they thought of every disaster possible.
@@DXmYb A solar flare would shut down electronics. Some people think they are prepared. But a major solar flare would instantly kill any one on life support as circuits fried. Planes would fall from sky, nuclear plants would melt down a as how would emergency protocols kick in? No computers.
A third world war could be started by a country setting off a nuke over a country. The EMP would shut down the country including most of the military.
@@vincitveritas3872 Thanks for replying. I've never researched solar flares.
More nuclear disasters are a certainty. Interesting to see what will cause the next one.
They are a great source of energy.
You are aware that all control systems have at least one back-up system, a final backup being a manually not remote operated system?
@@vincitveritas3872 not really, but that's literally why reactors have passive safety systems. Fukushima wasn't badly designed but it was very very old and they had been repeatedly warned by the US about the dangers at the plant and they chose to ignore those dangers. All the potential issues with nuclear reactors are well known and understood, and can be in almost all instances trivially mitigated. You just have to chose to do it; which in that instance was a matter for the Japanese regulator.
Bye Scottish power hello edf
I am not against to the country having expert in nuclear power plant,this is renewable enegy but harmful to everyone once it damage accidentlly....what is ever danger is,,proceed european country,if nucelar power is key to make independent to russian gas supply.👍🙏
all of this basically means it cant blow like chernobyl
If the Chinese company CGN has a modicum of sense, it will not touch any project in the UK. There's strong opposition from sections of the public which it does not need. China will be needlessly tarred with bad press to add to the already overflowing canards. Then, the UK is permanently afflicted with poor labour skills and work ethics, leading to chronic bad workmanship, overruns in costs and time. It's impossible to change. Look at Crossrail and Heathrow and HS2. That's only less than 1% of the failed and failing projects. Don't even touch it with a barge pole from Shanghai. It's not even long enough.
You don’t have a clue what your on about lol.
Poor work ethics haha.. how are we the 5th largest economy you numb skull
@@Largeandincharge22 dream on
Yes, Mr Chinese propaganda bot......
@@Largeandincharge22 Because you treat your workforce as disposable.
China is touching the poor souls in its ‘re-education’ camps with a lot of barge poles; some of them electric baton barge poles.
3 % not worth the risk just look at the history
The history is exactly why it's worth the risk, we've had clean air and no accidents since the first reactors came online in the 50's.
another Sellafield coming up now look at the State of that place now
Erm, no
You can't kid people. It's no go.
Couldn't find an adult?
The adults are too busy running the reactor.
Build that thing some neighbourghs.
Do you think it is getting lonely since they closed Sizewell A?
@@derekp2674 Might be.
Great to see a young lady so adept at talking and so enthusiastic.