Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

aa3

Chris Huhne To Announce Eight Sites For New Generation Nuclear Plants

Recommended Posts

By Patrick Hennessy in the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/business/businesstruth/energy_and_environment/8068460/Chris-Huhne-to-announce-eight-sites-for-new-generation-nuclear-plants.html

A new generation of nuclear power stations will go ahead on eight sites in Britain, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary, is expected to announce this week...

The list of areas earmarked for power stations to be built by 2025, according to sources close to the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is: Bradwell in Essex, Hartlepool in County Durham, Heysham 2 in Lancashire, Hinkley Point in Somerset, Oldbury in South Gloucestershire, Sellafield in Cumbria, Sizewell C in Suffolk and Wylfa Head on Anglesey.

My comments.. France with 75% nuclear power generation, the highest in the world. And France has the lowest electric costs in Western Europe, EDF pays a 10 billion Euro annual dividend to the government of France. And EDF is generously staffed, with employees generously compensated.

We don't have to re-invent the wheel, we just have to get Areva to build us a bunch of nuclear reactors too, and we are set for the next 60-80 years, until they need re-furbishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By Patrick Hennessy in the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/business/businesstruth/energy_and_environment/8068460/Chris-Huhne-to-announce-eight-sites-for-new-generation-nuclear-plants.html

My comments.. France with 75% nuclear power generation, the highest in the world. And France has the lowest electric costs in Western Europe, EDF pays a 10 billion Euro annual dividend to the government of France. And EDF is generously staffed, with employees generously compensated.

We don't have to re-invent the wheel, we just have to get Areva to build us a bunch of nuclear reactors too, and we are set for the next 60-80 years, until they need re-furbishing.

No panacea over the Channel - just the same madness as over here.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

Thousands of tons of waste from the 1st generation reactors not cleared up. Reactors closed for 25 years that can't be dismantled. Multi £bn subsidies kept off the books. Target date for opening a long term waste storage facility - 2025, 65 years after the first reactor opened. 3,115 communities with favorable geology to consider hosting a facility for disposal of long-lived LLW. Any takers?

Of course the nuclear industry would have you think their 'new' reactors will be cheap, quick, completely safe and create less waste than your Marks & Spencer's microwave meal. I'm not aware of anybody offering to design, build, maintain and decommission one? And if they were, the contract would be worth its weight in highly irradiated graphite.

If the big oil slick taught us anything it is that there is no such thing as total safety, not in highly regulated sectors, not where humans are involved and not where costs and risks have to be balanced. There are accidents, spillages, leaks and fires in the nuclear industry all the time (invariably covered up or downplayed) and it is only a matter of time and probability when and where something really nasty will happen. Type Aldermaston and fire into google if you want to read more.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By Patrick Hennessy in the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/business/businesstruth/energy_and_environment/8068460/Chris-Huhne-to-announce-eight-sites-for-new-generation-nuclear-plants.html

My comments.. France with 75% nuclear power generation, the highest in the world. And France has the lowest electric costs in Western Europe, EDF pays a 10 billion Euro annual dividend to the government of France. And EDF is generously staffed, with employees generously compensated.

We don't have to re-invent the wheel, we just have to get Areva to build us a bunch of nuclear reactors too, and we are set for the next 60-80 years, until they need re-furbishing.

LibDems are against nuclear power. And Cleggy was instrumental in destroying a key sector of the nuclear technology manufacturing sector before it even got going (Forgemasters).

'kin idiots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what fuel this power stations will be using?

I wonder if we might look into Thorium as a possible fuel or maybe something else?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html

Put it like this, if we are to pay some sort of tax or an increase in power bills to pay for these nuclear power stations then surely we should also have a say in what fuel goes into it?

In the future thorium could be useful. India has a long term plan to take advantage of its thorium reserves with breeder reactors. But the thing is right now in 2010 uranium is so cheap there is no reason to do it. Only 1/100th of the retail cost of electricity from nuclear is from the cost of the fuel.

And the other thing is any uranium we use now, we can store for future use in breeder reactors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No panacea over the Channel - just the same madness as over here.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

Thousands of tons of waste from the 1st generation reactors not cleared up. Reactors closed for 25 years that can't be dismantled. Multi £bn subsidies kept off the books. Target date for opening a long term waste storage facility - 2025, 65 years after the first reactor opened. 3,115 communities with favorable geology to consider hosting a facility for disposal of long-lived LLW. Any takers?

Of course the nuclear industry would have you think their 'new' reactors will be cheap, quick, completely safe and create less waste than your Marks & Spencer's microwave meal. I'm not aware of anybody offering to design, build, maintain and decommission one? And if they were, the contract would be worth its weight in highly irradiated graphite.

If the big oil slick taught us anything it is that there is no such thing as total safety, not in highly regulated sectors, not where humans are involved and not where costs and risks have to be balanced. There are accidents, spillages, leaks and fires in the nuclear industry all the time (invariably covered up or downplayed) and it is only a matter of time and probability when and where something really nasty will happen. Type Aldermaston and fire into google if you want to read more.....

Imo the risks are worth paying for getting cheap, abundant and reliable electric power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands of tons of waste from the 1st generation reactors not cleared up.

Which is less low-level waste than a typical coal-powered plant generates in a year.

Interestingly I visited a low-level nuclear waste storage plant a while back, they basically pack it into shipping containers and bury it in the desert below the depth that animals and water ever reach. What's so hard about that?

Well, OK, not so easy in France due to the lack of deserts but I'm sure there's somewhere in Africa which would be happy to take it from them for a few Euros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No panacea over the Channel - just the same madness as over here.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

Thousands of tons of waste from the 1st generation reactors not cleared up. Reactors closed for 25 years that can't be dismantled. Multi £bn subsidies kept off the books. Target date for opening a long term waste storage facility - 2025, 65 years after the first reactor opened. 3,115 communities with favorable geology to consider hosting a facility for disposal of long-lived LLW. Any takers?

Of course the nuclear industry would have you think their 'new' reactors will be cheap, quick, completely safe and create less waste than your Marks & Spencer's microwave meal. I'm not aware of anybody offering to design, build, maintain and decommission one? And if they were, the contract would be worth its weight in highly irradiated graphite.

If the big oil slick taught us anything it is that there is no such thing as total safety, not in highly regulated sectors, not where humans are involved and not where costs and risks have to be balanced. There are accidents, spillages, leaks and fires in the nuclear industry all the time (invariably covered up or downplayed) and it is only a matter of time and probability when and where something really nasty will happen. Type Aldermaston and fire into google if you want to read more.....

The worst has already happened, it was called Chernobyl. Failed to destroy the world as we know it; indeed failed to kill as many people as coal pollution kills year in, year out. On a per-kWh basis, Nuclear is safer then any alternative.

Nuclear power is not perfect - no power source is - but I don't understand why it is held to impossibly extreme standards compared to every other power source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst has already happened, it was called Chernobyl. Failed to destroy the world as we know it; indeed failed to kill as many people as coal pollution kills year in, year out. On a per-kWh basis, Nuclear is safer then any alternative.

Nuclear power is not perfect - no power source is - but I don't understand why it is held to impossibly extreme standards compared to every other power source?

I've noticed over the years there seems to be two organized groups against nuclear power. One is from competing ways to produce electricity or people benefitting from them in some way. Coal, natural gas especially, and now also solar and wind. Also things like rail where in places half of rail use is moving coal, which would not be needed with nuclear plants.

The other opposition I've seen is from alleged environmentalists but really are against all industrial civilization. With nuclear we never have to worry about doing with less, and especially 'going back to the old ways.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as they stick them smack bang in the middle where the power generated will be used I'm all for it.

A great big reactor in the middle of London for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

If they are so safe, it should be entirely possible - and what's more it'll save a huge amount of loss from transmission. Go for it!

Well, it would be vastly safer than a coal or even gas-fired plant in the same place (think how many people Battersea must have killed via air pollution). But transmission losses are typically highly overstated, and land prices within the M25 a little on the high side for a power station now. Plus there is the NIMBY factor, whereby people who have the incredible luxury of mains electricity complain bitterly about the means to provide it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear power is not perfect - no power source is - but I don't understand why it is held to impossibly extreme standards compared to every other power source?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

People are scared of anything "nuclear", and don't you know those evil Iranians are building a NUCLEAR weapon?

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed over the years there seems to be two organized groups against nuclear power. One is from competing ways to produce electricity or people benefitting from them in some way. Coal, natural gas especially, and now also solar and wind. Also things like rail where in places half of rail use is moving coal, which would not be needed with nuclear plants.

The other opposition I've seen is from alleged environmentalists but really are against all industrial civilization. With nuclear we never have to worry about doing with less, and especially 'going back to the old ways.'

What about the third group: those who are very dubious about the economics of nuclear power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the decommission costs? How secure is the fuel? How long a life do the plants have?

3 plants for £15bn someone reckoned on radio4 this morning - with a life of 40 years.

The same buys you a severn barrage with a life of 120 years.

Someone was saying gas is abundent and we should be building more gas stations...

I just think we should be going the renewable way via small scale stuff that has no nasty toxic afterlife before we build another nuclear power station.

15bn would provide massive employment for installing CHP, solar PV, solar hot water, insulation, etc.

It's ok saying france has massive nuclear power - they do - but how much of it needs replacing and at what cost is the cleanup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a lifelong Liberal Democrat who supported the coalition initially, as the only dish on the menu, I am seriously considering switching allegiance to Labour and I consider myself to be right-wing in terms of Lib Dem supporters (although left-wing in terms of HPCers!). The question I ask myself is 'if I'm thinking like this, what are other lib Dems thinking?' The Lib dems in government seem to have abandoned ALL of their principles and seem hell-bent on supporting a chancellor who wants to punish us, the public, for the stupidity of Gordon Brown in giving OUR money to the reckless bankers.

To me the skids look like they're in place under the coalition and it will fall apart in months. The collapse will be led by the grass roots the Lib Dem party - a membership exodus - MP rebellions and increasingly isolated leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the decommission costs? How secure is the fuel? How long a life do the plants have?

3 plants for £15bn someone reckoned on radio4 this morning - with a life of 40 years.

The same buys you a severn barrage with a life of 120 years.

Someone was saying gas is abundent and we should be building more gas stations...

I just think we should be going the renewable way via small scale stuff that has no nasty toxic afterlife before we build another nuclear power station.

15bn would provide massive employment for installing CHP, solar PV, solar hot water, insulation, etc.

It's ok saying france has massive nuclear power - they do - but how much of it needs replacing and at what cost is the cleanup?

Most of the questions you bring up have been answered. Usually repeatedly. Are you serious about finding the best way to keep the lights on, or just repeating talking points that you have heard, devoid of analysis or context?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the questions you bring up have been answered. Usually repeatedly. Are you serious about finding the best way to keep the lights on, or just repeating talking points that you have heard, devoid of analysis or context?

They're not answered in a useful way when it comes to pricing stuff up.

Nulabour has just sold off the bit that builds nuclear power plants ...

We could have 10,000 wind turbines and that'd be enough to keep the lights on ... (Am sure that was the figure on that bbc play-around thing not so long back) ...

I don't like the idea of nuclear power being seen as a positive thing - again we're selling our children's futures down the river when they have to pay to clear up the mess.

I'd take energy production away from private companies. They make massive profits - so either the govt would be able to make the same profits or pay for the infradstructure from them.

I don't get how we're expected to pay for new plants AND the companies make a profit. IF they don't build more stuff they will stop making money - their business plan seems to revolve around raping the general public's purse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not answered in a useful way when it comes to pricing stuff up.

Nulabour has just sold off the bit that builds nuclear power plants ...

We could have 10,000 wind turbines and that'd be enough to keep the lights on ... (Am sure that was the figure on that bbc play-around thing not so long back) ...

I don't like the idea of nuclear power being seen as a positive thing - again we're selling our children's futures down the river when they have to pay to clear up the mess.

I'd take energy production away from private companies. They make massive profits - so either the govt would be able to make the same profits or pay for the infradstructure from them.

I don't get how we're expected to pay for new plants AND the companies make a profit. IF they don't build more stuff they will stop making money - their business plan seems to revolve around raping the general public's purse.

Well, if you assume 3MW wind turbines (i.e. very big ones), then 30GW is not enough to keep the lights on. And that is nameplate capacity; you'd be very lucky to average 10GW, roughly 15% of demand. Does your pricing bring in realistic estimates for backup capacity, or are you assuming that it'll just happen to be there. And there are going to be cold winter nights under high pressure systems where demand skyrockets and wind/solar are at near zero. Which is also the worst possible time for the grid to go down.

Nuclear waste and decomissioning is perfectly doable, I don't understand why it is 'selling our children down the river'. Choosing unrealistic non-solutions that lead to future energy shortages seems much worse to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear waste and decomissioning is perfectly doable, I don't understand why it is 'selling our children down the river'. Choosing unrealistic non-solutions that lead to future energy shortages seems much worse to me.

Does "Privatise the profits, socialise the losses" ring any bells? :)

Go ahead, build the nuclear power stations... but before you do, get the nuclear power industry to pay for all the costs of cleanup - not the current situation where they throw a few pennies in a kitty, and the taxpayer then steps in with an unlimited backstop "just in case things go wrong".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this flags up the move to electric powered cars too.

That's where the extra revenues will ultimately come from. As soon as the infrastructure is deployed and we're all running around in Nissan Leafs, they can start ramping the taxes on off-peak leccy.

100% guaranteed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qutie frankly we need nuclear power. Wind just doesn't cut it. What do you think would've happened in the largely cold and calm last winter? Doesn't bear thinking about. Any practical means of power generation beyond the small-scale "some occasionally is better than none" situation has to be able to operate all day, every day, at least until someone comes up with a huge-scale battery (pumped storage can't do the job due to the limited number of suitable sites).

So, off-shore is just a waste of resources, and on-shore additionally seems to rely on sticking huge turbines up on some of the few places we haven't managed to already make a big negative impact on. Not worth it. Give me a nuclear power station down the road from where I live rather than that, any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you assume 3MW wind turbines (i.e. very big ones), then 30GW is not enough to keep the lights on. And that is nameplate capacity; you'd be very lucky to average 10GW, roughly 15% of demand. Does your pricing bring in realistic estimates for backup capacity, or are you assuming that it'll just happen to be there. And there are going to be cold winter nights under high pressure systems where demand skyrockets and wind/solar are at near zero. Which is also the worst possible time for the grid to go down.

Nuclear waste and decomissioning is perfectly doable, I don't understand why it is 'selling our children down the river'. Choosing unrealistic non-solutions that lead to future energy shortages seems much worse to me.

Quite, our children would be cold and left in the dark!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a lifelong Liberal Democrat who supported the coalition initially, as the only dish on the menu, I am seriously considering switching allegiance to Labour and I consider myself to be right-wing in terms of Lib Dem supporters (although left-wing in terms of HPCers!). The question I ask myself is 'if I'm thinking like this, what are other lib Dems thinking?' The Lib dems in government seem to have abandoned ALL of their principles and seem hell-bent on supporting a chancellor who wants to punish us, the public, for the stupidity of Gordon Brown in giving OUR money to the reckless bankers.

To me the skids look like they're in place under the coalition and it will fall apart in months. The collapse will be led by the grass roots the Lib Dem party - a membership exodus - MP rebellions and increasingly isolated leadership.

I'm a Lib-Dem too. I think most Lib Dems feel betrayed because they aren't really happy the their party is in power but is unable to stick to their promises. Sticking to principles when in opposition is much harder than in power. Sticking to them when you are in a Coalition is even more difficult.

Personally I'd prefer that we punish Gordon Brown for his stupidity but as he doesn't have £500 billion in assets for us to strip, I think there is no point. I really cannot see any alternative to doing what George Osbourne is doing. We haven't cut anything yet, we won't until April, most of the cuts announced so far are to hit in 2012 or later ( like Child Benefit ).

Back to the nuclear power thing. I was under the impression that the Lib Dem position at the last election was that nuclear power was not practical because it couldn't be deployed in time to meet our carbon emission targets. Their veiw was that it wasn't economically viable. I thought that was a bad decision then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst has already happened, it was called Chernobyl. Failed to destroy the world as we know it; indeed failed to kill as many people as coal pollution kills year in, year out. On a per-kWh basis, Nuclear is safer then any alternative.

Nuclear power is not perfect - no power source is - but I don't understand why it is held to impossibly extreme standards compared to every other power source?

Yes, and Chernobyl was a reactor designed to produce fuel for nuclear weapons operated by a bankrupt third world country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 261 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.