Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Teddy Quinlan

Recent activity

Comments (14)

  • Comment on: Firms sought for £500M north London power project

    Teddy Quinlan's comment 10 June, 2019 8:59 am

    £500m for 50MW (0.1MW/£1m) production, made possible by burning waste and firing CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Compare to Hinkley Point C, at around £20Bn for 3.2 GW production... (i.e. 0.16MW/£1m) HPC comes in cheaper, with no operational CO2 put into the atmosphere. Why do we continue to fund sources of power which pollute our atmosphere?

  • Comment on: UK's deteriorating nuclear fleet poses risk to Net Zero carbon goals

    Teddy Quinlan's comment 7 June, 2019 8:53 am

    The time has come, and arguably nearly passed, for serious investment into the future of energy in this country. We must invest in Renewable and Nuclear power to provide Base plus load following power to the UK.

  • Comment on: Cracks in Scots reactor highlight UK's ageing nuclear fleet

    Teddy Quinlan's comment 11 March, 2019 8:42 am

    Unless the Govt get their finger out, arrange more successful methods of funding and support for major projects, we are going to have more and more energy woes. We will end up reverting to fossil fuels/less environmentally friendly methods of energy production unless we can get serious about build the next generation of Nuclear Reactors, seriously step up our offshore wind production and invest in emerging technologies (Small Modular Reactors, battery storage, decentralised energy production and storage). A lot going on in this country at the moment but this must take a priority for the good of all.

  • Comment on: Wylfa engineer makes case for £20bn ‘boring’ nuclear project

    Teddy Quinlan's comment 17 January, 2019 3:19 pm

    @ R Annett, Nuclear Generation Companies, starting with EDF at Hinkley Point C, are entering waste transfer contracts now to set aside revenue made during the generation period of the sites to pay for decommissioning of the new sites. “Waste transfer contracts signed today mean that, for the first time in the UK, the full costs of decommissioning and waste management associated with the new power station are set aside during generation and are included in the price of the electricity,” EDF said in a statement. (from Guardian article, not sure if i can post a URL but it's google-able). Modern sites are 'designed for decommissioning'.

    So, in a short answer to your question, no the £20Bn doesnt include it, but it is being considered.

    As for the storage of nuclear waste; after a relatively short duration the waste becomes pretty inert. No one is saying that you could stack it next to your fresh fruit and veg, but also no one would do that with the slag heaps and waste spoils from coal sites and other forms of power generation. The creation of CO2 in the atmosphere and the subsequent damage caused is morally reprehensible - it is just a lot easier to justify as we cannot hold it in our hands, or see it. Another reason we dont just 'get rid of the waste' is that it is actually a pretty valuable fuel. If you had a gas cylinder, and only burnt 5% of it, would you throw the cylinder away? the 'spent' nuclear fuel can be and is being reprocessed into other forms of nuclear fuel. More investment = more progress = better efficiencies.

    While i accept there are lots of challenges for legacy sites, as they literally were not designed to be decommissioned, modern, new build nuclear is a different beast.

  • Comment on: Chinese nuclear giant interested in canned Moorside site

    Teddy Quinlan's comment 12 December, 2018 12:10 pm

    The sale of British Energy to EDF put paid to any chance the UK has of producing 'domestically produced' nuclear new build projects. The lack of commitment off the back of Sizewell B, having built a successful fleet of AGR reactors and starting to recognise economies of scale and similarity (as alluded to in the article), put paid to a lot of the "UK Nuclear Professional" workforce.

    The mere concept of anything being entirely domestically produced and run in this modern age of international organisations and foreign investment is frankly ridiculous. Any comparable infrastructure project in the UK requires a conglomerate of international funding to not only spread the cost, but spread the risk.

    The Nuclear industry is a highly regulated industry. I have utmost confidence that the ONR has the country's best interest at heart, especially with regards to the perceived or actual threat from China.

View all comments