Jason Ford, news editor
A quarter of a century ago a series of cranes appeared on the north east Suffolk skyline that would help engineers with the construction of the last nuclear power station to be built in Britain.
The construction site at Sizewell B witnessed a number of deployments in what was dubbed the Year of the Big Lifts, including the station’s four-beam turbine hall crane, and a Gottwald MK1500.
Each of the former’s beams measured 65m and weighed 130 tons. Once coupled, the crane was deployed – with its ability to raise 320 tons – to lift plant and equipment into place in the twin-turbine hall.
It took 71 lorry loads and a week of construction to raise the Gottwald MK1500, a machine whose lifting schedule had been planned nine years in advance.
The most high-profile lift of them all was the topping out of the reactor building, a feat that could be witnessed from miles around, and one which prompted a gung-ho advertising campaign proclaiming that all nuclear power stations would be built the same way from that moment onward.
The UK is now set for its first new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point in Somerset, but in the interim cranes on nuclear sites – whether generating electricity or being decommissioned – have been doing the job asked of them by their operators from behind the perimeter fence.
To this end, a seminar is being held on November 16 at Manchester United Football Club where attendees can gather to discuss best practice.
IMechE’s Nuclear Lifting 2016 brings 13 speakers under one roof to discuss topics that addressing the challenges facing nuclear lifting operations, the regulatory landscape, and strategies that ‘balance maintenance with safety regulations.’
Included among the speakers are Mammoet’s Erik Kroes and Alex Scott who will present case studies on Mammoet’s involvement in raising the Russian submarine Kursk, plus the company’s involvement in the Chernobyl project.
Further contributions sharing best practice will be provided by representatives from EDF, AWE, Sellafiled Ltd, Radioactive Waste Management Ltd, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and Dounreay Site Restoration.
Still with nuclear and news that the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) wants government to work with industry to ensure that industrial strategy is focused on energy infrastructure in its submission ahead of the Autumn Statement, due on 23 November.
With Hinkley Point C approved, NIA has highlighted the significant industrial, economic and export potential that can come from a focus on nuclear power to replace retiring power stations, reduce emissions and improve energy security.
According to NIA, policy needs to focus on providing the framework for the UK’s industrial base to maximise opportunities that will drive jobs, growth and exports in low carbon energy infrastructure.
To do this, the NIA has called for:
- The roadmap for delivery on Small Modular Reactors (SMR), following the Phase 1 competition, to be released as soon as possible, so industry can capitalise on increasing international interest and for the UK to benefit from the supply chain and intellectual property developed here
- Clarity following the decision to leave the European Union, to give investors in key infrastructure developments the confidence that a stable policy framework will be maintained to deliver vital new projects that promote growth
- Assurance that the Levy Control Framework, or successor mechanism, is set for the period beyond the current 2020-21 funding cap, to accommodate Contracts for Difference agreed for further low carbon energy infrastructure, including new large scale nuclear power stations at Moorside in Cumbria and Wylfa Newydd in Wales
- Sustained and predictable funding for decommissioning the nuclear legacy, and maintaining progress made in recent years, while also promoting our advanced supply chain and decommissioning expertise in export markets
Absolute disaster. Why are we going this way? We do not need to reignite this industry; it needs to die and die fast. We should be concentrating on cleaning up and trying to find a way of disposing of the last lot of disasters. 72Bn£ that’s costing the tax payer. And the tax payer has to dispose of the new round of nukes because the government was stupid enough to let them get away with it. They are not even going to take their radioactive waste back to France. This is dumb and goes against the ethos of the polluter pays. Why is Nuclear power an exception to the rule? Speaking of which if there is an accident, and you only have to look at EDFs records to find out how many, because they cannot get insurance, the tax payer pays again. What other form of power generation would get away with that? None of them would. So why is Nuclear energy off the hook again?
This is a desperate situation. We don’t need nuclear energy anyway. Other forms of energy are now much less expensive, less risky and more easily disposed of. Any they create British jobs.
The government needs a rethink – quickly.
Managing Director at Far Offshore Renewables didn’t declare this commercial conflict!
This rant carries no evidence, scientific, medical or financial. Nuclear power is cheaper than other forms of green power. It is safer. It is reliable. I worked on Berkeley Nuclear Power station many years ago. It is now decommissioned. I have visited the museum at Nagasaki: not nuclear power but a different technology aimed at destruction. The site of Ground Zero is a museum illustrating that fear of the danger of long lasting radiation is unwarranted.
The real tragedy revealed in this article and the responses to it is that the UK is now a civil contractor only and no longer designs nuclear power station reactors or the boiler and turbines used with them. Nuclear power is a fraction of the price of unreliables when subsidies are taken away; but as with that technology the UK is a customer not a supplier.
The UK was, a mere generation ago, a major supplier of technology in power plant including the large gas turbines, large steam turbines and power station boilers. Apart from the short-termism beloved of Thatcherites, how did we come to this pass???
Richard,
Many people quote the £72 Billion as though it was something special. To clean up after the millitary bomb making rush as well as decomisioning 10 useful nuclear power plants at a cost of around 3-4 p/kWhr generated is a bargin if you look at the subsidies given to the so called renewables.
Best regards
Roger