The retreat from nuclear power had a profound impact not only on the nuclear ordering pattern but also on the traditional concerns of the CEGB’s own conventional power station engineers, and on the private enterprise constructors and manufacturers of both nuclear and conventional plant. Within a few years, in the later 1950s, it became evident to those concerned with conventional plant that, far from being phased down within the decade to a minimal role, they would, as before, have to take the weight of the burden of meeting the still rapidly-growing demand for electricity.
KeywordsProject Group Nuclear Station Capital Expenditure Load Forecast Conventional Plant
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
- 2.For an excellent, balanced but admiring character sketch of Hinton see M. Gowing, Independence and Deterrence: Britain and Atomic Energy 1945–1952 (1974) pp. 7–21. Hinton’s faults, described there, were arguably more of a handicap in the situation of taking on an existing team, rather than, as in his earlier Risley career, building one up from scratch.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.R. Pryke, Public Enterprise in Practice (1971) p. 384.Google Scholar
- 5.For a general account see F. J. Lane and A. Chorlton, ‘The 400kV System in England and Wales’, Proceedings of the American Power Conference, vol. 28, 1966, pp. 897–914.Google Scholar
- 6.F. H. S. Brown and R. S. Edwards, ‘The Replacement of Obsolescent Plant’, Economica, vol. 28, 1961.Google Scholar
- 15.A somewhat happier experience than some private enterprise research laboratories, cf. D. C. Coleman, Courtaulds: An Economic and Social History (Oxford, 1980) vol. 3, pp. 295, 316.Google Scholar