Nuclear Power Nein Danke?

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Why are they blowing 40 billion on HMS1 when they could be spending that on this kind of stuff instead of relying on foreign "investment"?

I currently don't bother with Train as it is, let alone when the cost will go up 3 or 4 x.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

The NIMBY's need to realise that Nuclear is the only logical option for long term, sustainable power production, and if they bleat on about the safety issues they need to remember that Fukishama was the result of the fifth most powerful earthquake since records began, a magnitude 9.0!!!!

Cool. We can put all the waste in your shed then by the sounds of it - probably more secure than BNFL anyway.

[vetran]

Cool. We can put all the waste in your shed then by the sounds of it - probably more secure than BNFL anyway.

not sure what else you can recommend, we have faffed around with wind farms and not much else out there works and will have a significant impact.

If we want to avoid fossil fuel. We only really have Shale or domestic solar we could have done all government buildings & social housing if we started 20 years ago. it could be generating 1-10% of energy needs. But getting that done in 10 years would be difficult.

[NotAllThere]

Cool. We can put all the waste in your shed then by the sounds of it - probably more secure than BNFL anyway.

"All that waste". As a percentage of toxic industrial waste, radioactive waste is a tiny component, and unlike, e.g. antimony, phosphorous, mercury etc. over time the toxicity of radioactive substances decreases. Some of these non-radioactive poisons are also carcinogenic.

[Doggy Styles]

"All that waste". As a percentage of toxic industrial waste, radioactive waste is a tiny component, and unlike, e.g. antimony, phosphorous, mercury etc. over time the toxicity of radioactive substances decreases. Some of these non-radioactive poisons are also carcinogenic.

We could put it in an asbestos shed to stop the glow coming out.

[OwlHoot]

Why are they blowing 40 billion on HMS1 when they could be spending that on this kind of stuff instead of relying on foreign "investment"? ...

Because the French have one, so the UK can't be seen to be getting behind - It's that simple.

[darmstadt]

Love it:

Liberal Democrat energy secretary Ed Davey in 2006:

"In addition to posing safety and environmental risks, nuclear power will only be possible with vast taxpayer subsidies or a rigged market"

and

"Recent international experience of the cost of nuclear power shows it remains highly uncompetitive"

"nuclear power is unaffordable and unnecessary."

And now:

"This is an excellent deal for Britain and British consumers ... It will increase energy security and resilience from a safe, reliable, home-grown source of electricity"

"For the first time, a nuclear station in this country will not have been built with money from the British taxpayer"

BTW, it will be subsidised by the British taxpayer through Contracts for Difference (CfD) and in the policy announcement:

"Hinkley Point C had been pre-qualified for consideration for a UK Guarantee. EdF and HM Treasury are in discussions regarding the terms of a potential UK Guarantee".

Also the profits will not only be going to the French government (85% owners of EDF) but also to Boris and CMD's new friends, the Chinese government, but still, the lights won't go out in 2030 when it goes live...

[Peoplesoft bloke]

not sure what else you can recommend, we have faffed around with wind farms and not much else out there works and will have a significant impact.

If we want to avoid fossil fuel. We only really have Shale or domestic solar we could have done all government buildings & social housing if we started 20 years ago. it could be generating 1-10% of energy needs. But getting that done in 10 years would be difficult.

The Germans are building new Coal-Fired power stations......

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Love it:

BTW, it will be subsidised by the British taxpayer through Contracts for Difference (CfD) and in the policy announcement:

Also the profits will not only be going to the French government (85% owners of EDF) but also to Boris and CMD's new friends, the Chinese government, but still, the lights won't go out in 2030 when it goes live...

Yeah - The Energy Sec kept talking about "our no public subsidy policy" in the Commons - it's a wonder the ground doesn't swallow 'em up some days.

and this -

"The government estimates that with new nuclear power - including Hinkley - the average energy bill in 2030 will be £77 lower than it would have been without the new plants."

Good sound byte since it's utterly untestable and unknowable - but I wonder what odds I'd get at Paddy Power .........

[smatty]

Are there any forms of generation they don't subsidise? Wind power has a higher strike price than nuclear power, although it's not just about the money.

If fracking starts up then it may not look like such a good deal, read that one new nuke plant in the states was cancelled as it wasn't economically viable given how cheap shale gas is.