Talk:Hinkley Point C nuclear power station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Construction start after first reactor basement concrete pour[edit]

@Absolutelypuremilk and Rodw: preparatory works at the site do not count as construction start. They are low budget that are addressed also if full commitment has not yet been made (generally awaiting for "the money"). It happens often that after the preparatory works, any other activity stops for years, especially, but not only, with new nuclear plants. The "point of no return" is the week long concrete pour for the basement of the first reactor, that is the moment where "hard money" starts to flow. At this moment there is no mention of Hinkley C at IAEA's PRIS information system, and neither of a construction start at the World Nuclear Association News site. The last reference is of four day ago, where it is stated that Hinkley C just got the go-ahead, but until now it is to see when hard money is "pouring" in.

For example, the construction start of Astravets is given as 2013, but you may see that the foundation pit was already dug in 2012. If you check at PRIS you find a construction date start of 06 November 2013, more than a year later.

Another example is Gorakhpur Nuclear Power Plant, which started "construction" with much news, but after two years there is a open pit with no construction activity.

I don't know when Hinkley C will start construction (EDF has the money ?), but I am sure that the PRIS date, when it will come, will not be March 2017. Next time, is it not better to start a talk, replying to the edit summary I gave ("Construction start after first basement reactor concrete pour"), instead of re-reverting ? --Robertiki (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe I have reverted any of your edits on this article & my only recent contribution has been to add a reference Striking drone footage shows Hinkley Point C under construction – video from a reliable source. I do not have specialist knowledge of nuclear power stations (although I do have a fair amount of knowledge about Somerset and started this article when it was first announced in Sept 2008) and technical definitions of what constitutes "construction start" (I have never heard of PRIS dates), but I suspect that most readers would see 1,000+ workers with diggers & concrete pouring as representing construction work.— Rod talk 16:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Rowd, sorry, you are right, you did not revert. About what is "construction", it is not our opinion that counts, but any edit should rely on reputable sources: the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is surely one of the best. The Guardian reference only states about a busy activity in these days, but let us wait what happens after a couple of months. About "City A.M." I would not comment; it states: "A key milestone has been reached at Hinkley Point power station as EDF successfully builds some of the first permanent structures at the Somerset site." Please ? Key milestone ? Are we making a joke ? --Robertiki (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Robertiki, could you give a secondary source which says that a nuclear power plant is only in full construction once the concrete pour for the basement of the first reactor begins? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I am speechless. Not only in the nuclear construction, but in any building work, the "construction" is started at first concrete pour. Example: new soccer stadium (archived):
“The Los Angeles Football Club has begun construction of its new soccer stadium on the former site of the Los Angeles Arena. The effort began with the pouring of the stadium's first concrete slabs, building the foundation for the new $350 million state-of-the-art facility, Banc of California Stadium.”
Where the site preparation works is described as:
“After several weeks of demolition, excavation and digging, construction workers and club owners gathered with over 130 concrete trucks to pour the initial 1,300 cubic yards of concrete needed to form the foundation, marking the beginning of the stadium’s next phase of construction.”
Anyway, it looks that that of the construction start date is a recurring theme in the nuclear sector, so you may have a point in asking. Here (Cambridge Energy Studies - The realities of nuclear power - S.D. Thomas - Cambridge University Press, 1988 - ISBN 978-0-521-12603-8) we have some thoughts (page 102):
“The importance of Table 5.10 is that it attempts - unlike other analyses of US construction times - to put US experience on a basis identical to that used for other countries in this book: namely, to express construction times from the start of serious construction on site (first concrete) up to the point of commercial operation.”
I would underline "serious construction"; and:
“From a utility's (economic) point of view, the period chosen here [My comment: i.e. first concrete pour] is the most appropriate as it represents the time over which significant capital is tied up without return.”
I would stress "significant capital" tied up; and about initial site work:
(which may in fact refer to initial site work; this can precede first concrete by months or years)
I underline "may precede ... by years". Some other examples of the World Nuclear Association here (archived), a self explaining text:
“Safety-related concrete has been poured for the basemat of the first of two AP1000 units at the VC Summer plant in South Carolina. The milestone marks the official start of construction of the USA's first new reactor in 30 years.”
and from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), here:
The concrete pour means nuclear construction is under way for both new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the Fairfield, S.C., site.
And some year counting examples from IAEA here (archived), at page 14:
From F/C to C/O: 62 -> 49 months
From F/C to C/O: 64 -> 47 months
where F/C is "First concrete pouring". Following page describes site preparation times of up to 18 months and than follows construction time. Page 20, 54 and 56 are some more examples. I have extended a request of comments to the Energy Project. --Robertiki (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You seem to have a lot of knowledge about the topic - I would suggest that maybe you might like to write Construction of nuclear power plants or at least a section on construction at Nuclear power plants. However the point here is that construction has started here whether you define it as serious construction or not. If in the article someone wants to compare the construction of Hinkley to other plants then we can certainly use the metric of first concrete pour. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

What has started is only the site preparation. The source added by Rowd states: " ... where new footage has revealed the full scale of the site being prepared for Britain’s first new nuclear power station in a generation.". I read "site being prepared". No less, no more. Anyway, no problem, I can wait until PRIS or other expert source gives us a sourced reputable start date. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we should not feel to urgent updates. I am worried that after a couple of weeks of frenzy site preparation, all will freeze down again. Remember what happened before. And that was October 2015. --Robertiki (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Found: Construction officially starts at Summer (archived March 3, 2016) quote:“However, the pouring of the first concrete - the recognised event by which construction on a new reactor is deemed to be officially underway - was delayed due to issues with the shear reinforcement for the basemat.“ and Second Summer AP1000 under construction (archived March 3, 2016) quote:“Safety-related concrete has been poured for the basemat of the second AP1000 unit at the VC Summer plant in South Carolina. It comes seven months after the same milestone for the first unit there.” and “The basemat provides a foundation for the containment and auxiliary buildings that are within the unit's nuclear island. Measuring 1.8 metres thick, the basemat required some 7000 cubic metres of concrete to cover an area about 76 metres by 49 metres. The concrete-pouring process took just over 43 hours and was completed on 4 November.” That's all folks. --Robertiki (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
concrete pour for the first reactor is planned only at earliest in 2019. No comment. --Robertiki (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Sample at PRIS: today (as archived), under Highlights, I read at the Construction starts section, KUDANKULAM-3 on 29 June, but no reference to Hinkley Point C. --Robertiki (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I've not been closely following the Hinkley saga lately, but can offer a recent good cite that might help the article: 5 July 2017 Nuclear Engineering International - EDF said ... "The milestone for the first nuclear safety concrete for the building of Unit 1, scheduled for mid-2019, is confirmed, assuming that the final design, which is on a tight schedule, is completed by the end of 2018." Rwendland (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Height above sea ?[edit]

How high above sea-level are the reactors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2017‎ (UTC)

According to this ref it is to be built 14 meters above sea level and located slightly inland, with a 900 meter long seawall that will be 13.5 meters tall.

Number of years radioactive waste will remain dangerous for?[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if anybody new the number of years that the fuels of this power station would need to be stored for is? thanks Chendy (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)