Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Ash4781

Uk Signals Nuclear Fast-track, Offers New Sites

Recommended Posts

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustr...692291520080306

By Pete Harrison

LONDON, March 6 (Reuters) - Britain said on Thursday it was making up to 18 more sites available for the next generation of nuclear power stations and signalled an acceleration of its plans for new reactors.

The UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which owns 18 sites including two with operational reactors, issued a notice giving operators four weeks to pick the assets they wanted.

And Business Secretary John Hutton said he expected the new generation of nuclear power stations to supply much more of the country's electricity than the current 19 percent.

The government gave the go-ahead to a new generation of reactors in January, setting no limits on nuclear expansion and adding momentum to atomic energy's worldwide renaissance.

The nuclear industry estimates it could have new plants up and running by 2017, but all but one of the existing 10 sites are scheduled to close by 2023.

"Interest in building new nuclear power stations in the UK is strong," Hutton said in a statement.

"It's welcome that the NDA is making its significant land and other assets available to the market," he added.

Until now, the only sites that were clearly available were eight belonging to British Energy (BGY.L: Quote, Profile, Research), which is in talks to build more with a number of other power firms including Centrica (CNA.L: Quote, Profile, Research), Germany's E.ON EONG.DE) and EDF <EDF.PA of France.

Hutton told the Financial Times on Thursday he wanted to see an increase in nuclear power's contribution to British electricity and he wanted it as soon as possible.

"We need the maximum contribution from nuclear sources in the next 10 to 15 years," Hutton said, adding that it should increase beyond the current 19 percent share.

"That's the ambition we should have... I'd be very disappointed if it's not significantly above the current level," he was quoted as saying.

"If we can accelerate the time-scale, we should," he added. "We've got to be completely serious about this... we should keep our foot down on the pedal." He also said the government may sell its stake in British Energy, worth over 2 billion pounds ($3.99 billion).

"We have to consider for the medium term what view we should take about holding on to these shares," he was quoted by the FT as saying.

British Energy shares rose 3.2 percent to 564-1/2 pence by 1628 GMT. (Reporting by Pete Harrison; Editing by Louise Ireland/Rory Channing)

Good planning :lol: . How are they doing with Olympic 2012 work ?

Edited by Ash4781

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know whether nuclear power stations are a good idea or a bad one.

I am, however, certain that building more of them while we still can't work out what to do with the waste from the ones we already have is a stupid thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't know whether nuclear power stations are a good idea or a bad one.

They're a good idea, as the alternative (i.e. sitting around tossing off over pictures of windmills) doesn't actually generate electricity. "Something" has to be done, and for once NuLabour are actually doing something, rather than setting up a committee to look into the possibility of setting up a working committee to debate doing something. Quite a refreshing change, but not really enough - they're still going to have to see me after school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a hideous flash of paranoia and misreading the title I thought the thread read `...UK Signals Nuclear Fast Attack...`

My blood ran cold for a split second there... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're a good idea, as the alternative (i.e. sitting around tossing off over pictures of windmills) doesn't actually generate electricity. "Something" has to be done, and for once NuLabour are actually doing something, rather than setting up a committee to look into the possibility of setting up a working committee to debate doing something. Quite a refreshing change, but not really enough - they're still going to have to see me after school.

So you favour the "pile the country waist deep in radioactive shit" option. Well, I bow to your superior expertise.

Edited by microbe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skint Academic
So you favour the "pile the country waist deep in radioactive shit" option. Well, I bow to your superior expertise.

Aren't we already piled waist deep in other countries radioactive shit? Foreign fuel is reprocessed at Sellafield.

What's more worrying than the problem of where to store it is the fact that it's moved here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you favour the "pile the country waist deep in radioactive shit" option. Well, I bow to your superior expertise.

Not exactly "favour", but compared to the "sit on our hands and hope it's all okay option", it's pretty good. I'm never going to jump up and down in support of nuclear power, but inaction on generation capacity is, frankly, bloody dangerous.

If I'm honest, I'd rather see windfarms all over the place than an over-reliance on nuclear, but seeing as the former won't happen until it's a choice of that or the lights go out, we're gonna get the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Further reading: Nuclear spin dot org

Each to their own, and I can fully understand antipathy towards nuclear power, but alternatives are thin on the ground.

Okay, so we could technically (and, I suspect, ultimately will) get an awful lot of our oomph from renewables, but in order to do that you've got to sell the idea of using up serious amounts of Britain for the purpose. Personally, I have no problem with miles and miles of wind turbines, if that's what it takes to power us sustainably, but until you get that point across to the mix of NIMBYs and (this cracks me up...) environmental campaigners who seem to have such a problem with them, you're wasting your time.

Out of interest, what's actually wrong with teaching kids about nuclear power? They're taught the principles of burning stuff to make things spin for generation purposes, so why not nuclear? After all, it's just physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This maybe of interest: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/economics.pdf

And I've previously posted a document that says how nuclear facilities in America have a positive effect on house prices (in a vain attempt to make this relevant)

EDIT: here you go http://inderscience.metapress.com/app/home...mp;pagecount=23

Edited by daiking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of interest, what's actually wrong with teaching kids about nuclear power? They're taught the principles of burning stuff to make things spin for generation purposes, so why not nuclear? After all, it's just physics.

The link is just for context. The oil lobby is far worse for diverting funding from renewable sources. On the bright side if we reprocess nuclear waste in breeder reactors and use up the Earth's known thorium reserves, our supply of uranium could last for 100,000 years (at todays rates), assuming the waste is not just pumped out into the sea/ sent to McDonalds or whatever they do with the stuff. I'm not convinced the powers that be have plans to deal with the waste adequately though, given the fast tracking of nuclear (they planned to build the dome in London for longer afaik) it'll probably be shipped to China or half way there to be scuttled or whatever. Whatever's the cheapest option and gets the best poll ratings for the next few years <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 293 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.