5 ms·

Don't mention nuclear on HN if you value your karma ... but in the UK, at least, civilian and military nuclear have never really been independent. See, for exa

by gmac 6y ago

Don't mention nuclear on HN if you value your karma ... but in the UK, at least, civilian and military nuclear have never really been independent. See, for example, the UK government's otherwise incomprehensible willingness to pay extraordinary sums for new nuclear capacity such as Hinkley C[1]: "it is difficult fully to comprehend the persistent intensity of official UK attachments to nuclear power, without also considering aims to maintain nuclear submarine capabilities". [2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c... [2] https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2016-16-swps-cox-et-al.pdf&site=25 https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2016-...

masklinn 6y ago
> Don't mention nuclear on HN if you value your karma ... but in the UK, at least, civilian and military nuclear have never really been independent. By "military nuclear" what is meant is mostly "nuclear arsenal". Hence the peace part of Greenpeace.
fuoqi 6y ago
I don't think the military angle plays a big role in the British case. Hinkley C uses mostly foreign technologies and expertise, not domestic one. There were even talks about building a plant using Chinese technologies! Also submarine and power plant reactors are two very different beasts, so building the latter does not help much with maintaining expertise for the former. Plus Britain is quite dependent on the US help to maintain its nuclear capabilities. But I think it's true for Russia, maintaining full nuclear cycle does help with supporting its military nuclear capabilities. Thus the substantial political support which the industry gets there. For example the floating plant [0] is based on reactors used in icebreakers, which in turn have roots in submarine reactors. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...
sgt101 6y ago
I think that doesn't explain Hinkley, but it does explain the Rolls Royce initiative. These modular nukes are much more like the zip it up and leave it for 25 year nuclear powerplants that they make for subs.

by gmac 6y ago

masklinn 6y ago

> Don't mention nuclear on HN if you value your karma ... but in the UK, at least, civilian and military nuclear have never really been independent. By "military nuclear" what is meant is mostly "nuclear arsenal". Hence the peace part of Greenpeace.

fuoqi 6y ago

I don't think the military angle plays a big role in the British case. Hinkley C uses mostly foreign technologies and expertise, not domestic one. There were even talks about building a plant using Chinese technologies! Also submarine and power plant reactors are two very different beasts, so building the latter does not help much with maintaining expertise for the former. Plus Britain is quite dependent on the US help to maintain its nuclear capabilities. But I think it's true for Russia, maintaining full nuclear cycle does help with supporting its military nuclear capabilities. Thus the substantial political support which the industry gets there. For example the floating plant [0] is based on reactors used in icebreakers, which in turn have roots in submarine reactors. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...

sgt101 6y ago

I think that doesn't explain Hinkley, but it does explain the Rolls Royce initiative. These modular nukes are much more like the zip it up and leave it for 25 year nuclear powerplants that they make for subs.