Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

Based on the UK energy provider wing of EDF I wouldn't trust them to build a shed, let alone a nuclear reactor.

Who the HELL uses two customer management systems in parallel?!

Is this not common?
I certainly know a place or two that do- one for the help desk folk which is fairly locked down, one where any idiot with access can destroy the company in minutes.
Logically not the best way to do it. But for reasons they just don't have different access levels and view only is somehow impossible.

[Tamas]

Based on the UK energy provider wing of EDF I wouldn't trust them to build a shed, let alone a nuclear reactor.

Who the HELL uses two customer management systems in parallel?!

Is this not common?
I certainly know a place or two that do- one for the help desk folk which is fairly locked down, one where any idiot with access can destroy the company in minutes.
Logically not the best way to do it. But for reasons they just don't have different access levels and view only is somehow impossible.

No I mean some customer accounts are on one system, the others are on the other.

They messed up moving my account with them to our new address, moved electricity but cancelled gas instead of moving. I have been fighting them since late October because I have been on a very favourable fixed contract. As part of restoring it (still ongoing, lol) they opened a new gas account for me, which they put on the new system but my electricity one is on the old so every time I call them to ask for progress I have to tell my story all over again to at LEAST 2 different people as they fluff around.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not understanding exactly what the problem is here. Costs and time always seem to overrun to extreme degrees in the UK.
Its depressing

As the piece notes, this may be part of it (and seems a recurring theme):

In a note to staff, Stuart Crooks, managing director at Hinkey Point C, said the firm has had to "substantially adapt" the design of the plant to satisfy British regulations, requiring 7,000 changes and adding 70% more steel and 25% more concrete.

Edit: This is, I think, also a bit linked to a British exceptionalism and across the political spectrum (not least because I think the Guardian - perhaps because it's a Tory government - has a very small c conservative streak when it comes to literally any reform), where the UK comes up with unique bespoke solutions that are somehow vastly more expensive and complex and deliver terrible outcomes. But it is seen as the natural order/way things are done and proposing any changes is dangerous radicalism - whether it's rail, housing, infrastructure, childcare or even bits of education. This is one that doesn't much have an impact on cost but the Guardian, various actors etc reaction to Sunak proposing that kids learn maths until 18 when, in reality, that is the norm in most countries and doesn't seem to inevitably lead to a society of philistine worker bees.

[Tamas]

I wanted to mention that Orban was coerced into signing signed the super-expensive agreement to expand the Hungarian nuclear plant in, what, 2011, and nothing has been built yet, but then I remembered that plan was just an excuse to receive a ridiculously huge Russian loan to spend on who knows what.

[Sheilbh]

Well this is very much being built at least:


I think Sizewell C has entered construction phase too.

Practically one of Labour's big plans is to decarbonise the grid/electricity supply in the UK by 2030. I think that's very ambitious and probably impossible without the new nuclear.

Also I like Patrick Vallance's idea that if, say, the FDA or the EMA or some other regulators like in South Korea or Japan approve medicine as safe for x use, then we should automatically approve them as safe in the UK. I think there could be something similar with nuclear here. This is a design that is in use in France, I'm not convinced how necessary the Office of Nuclear Regulation's 7,000 design changes really were. I'm sure some were important and maybe site specific etc. But in general I think if a design is safe for France or South Korea then we should be assuming it's safe here and the default should be to make only essential changes.

[The Brain]

My understanding is that there's work being done by various national regulators to streamline licensing of reactor types that have already been approved by other countries, to avoid unnecessary work and delays. There is unlikely to be automatic approval  though.

[Gups]

I'm not understanding exactly what the problem is here. Costs and time always seem to overrun to extreme degrees in the UK.
Its depressing

The problem (if it is one) is that nobody will build another big nuclear power station without huge governement guarantees on the stroke price or on costs. Seems very unlikely that the new Sizewell will go ahead now.

[Gups]

Well this is very much being built at least:


I think Sizewell C has entered construction phase too.

Practically one of Labour's big plans is to decarbonise the grid/electricity supply in the UK by 2030. I think that's very ambitious and probably impossible without the new nuclear.

Also I like Patrick Vallance's idea that if, say, the FDA or the EMA or some other regulators like in South Korea or Japan approve medicine as safe for x use, then we should automatically approve them as safe in the UK. I think there could be something similar with nuclear here. This is a design that is in use in France, I'm not convinced how necessary the Office of Nuclear Regulation's 7,000 design changes really were. I'm sure some were important and maybe site specific etc. But in general I think if a design is safe for France or South Korea then we should be assuming it's safe here and the default should be to make only essential changes.

The licence has been in place since 2012. That's not the cuase of the delay or the costs increasing.

[Zanza]

Practically one of Labour's big plans is to decarbonise the grid/electricity supply in the UK by 2030. I think that's very ambitious and probably impossible without the new nuclear.

2030 is six years away, so new nuclear will certainly not contribute to that goal. What is the fastest a nuclear plant has been built anywhere in the last decade?

[Tamas]

2030 is six years away

 

[Barrister]

Practically one of Labour's big plans is to decarbonise the grid/electricity supply in the UK by 2030. I think that's very ambitious and probably impossible without the new nuclear.

2030 is six years away, so new nuclear will certainly not contribute to that goal. What is the fastest a nuclear plant has been built anywhere in the last decade?

I'm eligible to retire in 2030...

[Grey Fox]

Practically one of Labour's big plans is to decarbonise the grid/electricity supply in the UK by 2030. I think that's very ambitious and probably impossible without the new nuclear.

2030 is six years away, so new nuclear will certainly not contribute to that goal. What is the fastest a nuclear plant has been built anywhere in the last decade?

I'm eligible to retire in 2030...

You should. Our economies are going to need all of you 55 years old to quit your career jobs & go work retail.

[Sheilbh]

2030 is six years away, so new nuclear will certainly not contribute to that goal. What is the fastest a nuclear plant has been built anywhere in the last decade?

I'd guess South Korea where they can take about 5 years of construction.

Obviously in the UK you'd probably add at least a decade before that for planning applications and work etc. Then, obviously, significntly more time for construction too.

I should say I'm not sure Labour's goal to decarbonise the grid entirely by 2030 is attainable at all (the government target of 2035 seems possible - but even then I think new nuclear is necessary).

[Zanza]

I'd guess South Korea where they can take about 5 years of construction.

Wiki suggests about ten years each for their last two reactors. Still faster than Europe or North America, but still not helping short term until 2030.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - as I say I think it's a pretty impossible target (I think that's the consensus in the sector too). But when it was first made in the early days of Starmer's leadership so 2020-ish there were supposed to be three new nuclear plants coming online by the end of the decade. I imagine that was part of the plan.

So the delays in the last few years make an already very very challenging target, I think, probably even more difficult (arguably it never should have been made and Ed Miliband might be a bit of a liability).