[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8349715.stm ]Guide to the U.K. hotspots[/url]
England and wales only which is not the UK. None will be built in Scotland
Good to see the ones near me are going ahead. Much better than those pathetic windmills.
Looks good to me. Lots of jobs for chemical engineers, so the daughter can care for me in my old age
Expensive dirty and unneeded. Its all about jobs for the boys not about clean energy.
Why the hell do we get 3 of the things in Cumbria though... I mean - there are few people who live here to be using that much power.
And none in London.
They should build power stations where the folk that leave office lights on all the time live and work, that would be a much better solution, and I bet the obsession with nuclear power would be quelled pretty swiftly too.
So which would we rather have a large steel shed painted green, patrolled by armed police, a terrorist object, that contains material that will be dangerous for a very long time,is expensive to produce, and health and safety is a job creation scheme for printers, printing all the signs.
Or a nice tall windmill that makes little noise,is environmentally freindly, and cheap.
Perhaps we should be saving energy, switching of lights, etc.
Saving energy first. Tidal barrages and wave next.
'tis OK tho - Scotland will show you the way. Should be nuke free in a decade or less.
TandemJeremy - Member
England and wales only which is not the UK. None will be built in Scotland
Ah! I see the cunning plan TJ. Scots oil and gas runs out and England and Wales hold the Scots to 'energy' ransom. It will be like the Russians turning the gas off?!
If they want nuclear power perhaps london town would be a good place, Hyde Park is just a green field that needs a use,and just think of all the jobs that would be created for all the unemployable bankers.
Good I could get a job as a Safety Inspector. Can't be that hard if Homer can do it.
England and wales only which is not the UK
You'll find that both England and Wales are in the UK. Scotland might not be having any new nuclear power stations, but neither will Surrey - even though it is part of the UK.
It's worth remembering that some of these new nuclear power stations will be built and owned by the French government, although none will be built or owned by the British government. Nice.
Tankslapper - IMO this is wee eck ( salmonds) big test. He has talked the talk about nuke free and renewables - can he do it? scotland is in prime place to do so with both the resources and the skills. It will be his big test and his legacy if he can.
Scotland does not have much gas BYW - but plenty of oil and plenty of coal
Why the hell do we get 3 of the things in Cumbria though... I mean - there are few people who live here to be using that much power.
Well, there are these things...you may have seen them about the place called pylons, they transmit the power form one place (cumbria+low population=perfect Nuclear sites) to another. 😉
Saving energy first. Tidal barrages and wave next.'tis OK tho - Scotland will show you the way. Should be nuke free in a decade or less.
I'd agree, but wind and wave power isn't going to satisfy our energy needs, we just don't want to save energy even though the privatised utilities are going to fleece us big time in the next few years. Speaking of which:
It's worth remembering that some of these new nuclear power stations will be built and owned by the French government, although none will be built or owned by the British government. Nice.
Our Government (previous and present) don't want to invest in this sort of infrastructure and knowing that once again the privatised energy companies are essentially doing a "USA" when it comes to it, gets another governments nationalised energy company to build them for us...at a tidy price of course. 🙄
Good old British ingenuity. Or something.
About time too. Why environmentalists are against nuclear I can never understand, it seems to be some wierd anti-science romantic neo-rustic arts and crafts twaddle to me.
As long as it is safe...
Ok how dangerous/safe is it? as one is near Bristol?
I thought some of the Rocks had radeon in them anyway in the west.
About time too. Why environmentalists are against nuclear I can never understand, it seems to be some wierd anti-science romantic neo-rustic arts and crafts twaddle to me.
Why I am against nukes? Polluting, dangerous and unreliable.
When someone works out a permanent solution to the waste then I might accept it.
It is not clean energy by any means due to the pollution involved in building and decommisioning sites ( which no one knows how to do)
Supply of fuel is unreliable and finite.
Its the wrong answer to the wrong question. Energy saving and renewables could easily fill the gap if the same money was spent.
A few years ago the founder of the green movement said that the only viable solution at the time was nuclear power.
TJ.... England and wales only which is not the UK. None will be built in Scotland
Ernie.... You'll find that both England and Wales are in the UK.
I [b]think[/b] TJ is correct in strict constitutional terms in that there was never a union between England and Wales. Wales was conquered by England. Incidentally this is why there is no Welsh element to the Union Flag (and also why the powers of the Welsh Assembly are different to the Scottish Parliament?)
So 'England and Wales' [i]is[/i] in the UK. As is Scotland. As was Ireland (although things have changed somewhat there)
Having said that, it is completely correct to say that all the new nuclear sites will be in the UK. As it would be to say that they're all in Europe.
p.s. I'm pro-nuclear, simply because I'm pro having reliable energy into the foreseeable future. The waste issue is a bit of a non-argument in that we already have to deal with 'some' waste. Building new nuclear means we'll have to deal with more waste but we won't have to solve any problems that we don't already have.
Higs - what was the solution to the waste then? They must have sneaked a solution in when no one was looking ''cos as far as I am aware we have no permanent solution to some very dangerous and unstable waste.
IETR is the answer at Cadarache.
TJ Energy saving in theory is a great idea, but how to you see it producing significant savings in reality? Esp. when the social-economic fabric of the country is based on continuous growth?
Where did I say we had a permanent solution to the waste? It can be managed quite safely in the short/medium term and we will have to find a permanent solution some day for the waste that already exists.
It is arguable that we should never have got into nuclear power in the first place without a permanent waste solution. But we did.
p.s. my view is that we will find a permanent solution in existing technologies. The issue at the moment is a combination of political will, NIMBYism and the ease of medium term storage meaning that we don't yet have a [b]really[/b] pressing need to decide on the long-term strategy.
Ian - there is massive amounts of energy saving that could be done. Energy is too cheap which is part of the reason why there is no incentive to do so but stopping offices leaving the lights and air con on 24/7 and properly insulating homes would go a long way.
One thing I have heard quoted is that if everyone turned their TV off rather than leaving it on standby that would save the output of and entire nuclear power station. If that really is true think how much energy could be saved with strong measures.
Higs - so there still is no solution to the waste -and we have not got a satisfactory short / medium term solution. - the ponds at sellafeild are a real danger and mess for example.
to create more of this toxic waste without any solution even for the medium term is highly irresponsible IMO
[i]If that really is true think how much energy could be saved with strong measures.[/i]
My question is what are these 'strong measures'?
More expensive energy just means increased poverty for the poor.
Strong measures? Insulation of all homes to a high standard. Legislation to stop offices leaving lights on all the time. That sort of thing.
More expensive energy need not affect poor people more - it depends what you do with the money raised. give every adult £500 worth of free energy and then charge at twice the rate?
If nuclear is safe, then the power stations should be built right in the middle of the big cities.
This would avoid transmission losses.
Fat chance 🙂
. Why environmentalists are against nuclear I can never understand, it seems to be some wierd anti-science romantic neo-rustic arts and crafts twaddle to me.
Or possibly the extremely long half life of the waste products, the difficulty decommissioning them , finding somewhere safe to store them - of which there is still no answer- and the actual effects of it going t1ts up-which is unlikely but not inconcievable. You really can’t understand this ? What a pity.
Not yet but we will.Higs - so there still is no solution to the waste
We have. It's perhaps more expensive than it needs to be but it works.Higs - we have not got a satisfactory short / medium term solution.
No, they're not. How are you defining 'a real danger' by the way?Higs - the ponds at Sellafield are a real danger and mess for example.
I'm not sure it's going to work out that simply TJ. Let's assume that Scotland went for the make energy expensive route with a lot of business legislation, whilst England went for the build loads of reactors and keep energy cheap with a light touch business regulation. Loads of business will move out of Scotland and into England.
Which will of course reduce Scotland's energy demand, but also it's employment levels, tax income and all the problems which come with that.
I don't for a moment dispute that saving energy is for the good, and that at the moment we squander loads, but I think that changing that situation is far harder than people imagine.
Blair fudged this 10 years ago. The decision to go for nuclear new build should have been taken in the late 90s.
The long term answer has to be energy saving and alternative technology - but we need to replace the ageing fleet of existing nuclear plants, as well as reducing reliance on coal and gas burning.
If nuclear is safe, then the [s]power stations[/s] reactors should be built right in the middle of the big cities
I think you'll find that this is already the case
Ohh - and the charge more / energy is too cheap view will not be widely accepted until shareholder benefit is taken out of the equation
Ian - I am not saying it would be easy. It could be done with the political will tho.
rkk - where is there a nuke power station in a city?
[i] It could be done with the political will tho.[/i]
Again, I'm not sure. Political will still requires an electoral mandate, and the population as a whole tend to be as short-sighted and after a quick fix as the politicians they vote for.
TandemJeremy - Memberrkk - where is there a nuke power station in a city?
I chose my words carefully...
[s]power stations[/s] reactors should be built right in the middle of the big cities
Plymouth certainly. [s]Less sure about[/s] Edinburgh (historically), but certainly in the past
TJ - I simply cannot conceive that Torness B will not be built in 20 years time. The present administration will not be in power for ever and the blackouts will have started to happen by then.
You mean small university reactors? Rather a different level of risk to nuclear power stations
No - the first pressurised water reactors were in use at these locations - long before the controversy over the introduction of PWR at Sizewell B.
The navy were operating PWRs in their submairne fleet since 1963. When I was young it was sometimes possible to see 6-8 Churchill and Swiftsure (and latterly Trafalgar) class subs tied up alongside at Devonport.
Because the reactors remain active when the boats are alongside, there was a proposal muted to use this capacity to run turbogenerators to supply electricity to Plymouth
It's a panic measure because thay have been sitting on the fence for so long. Goverment was afraid their popularity would take a nose dive by spending money on sustainable energy sources and efficiency, and anyway, they gave all our money to the bankers, rather than encouraging sustainable development.
It'll all cost us hugely more than they predict in the long run, not to mention our kids generations who will be left to clear up the radioactive mess it'll leave.
Donald. There is a clear large majority against new nuclear power stations in the scottish political bodies and amongst the public. Nor is there any need for new nukes to supply power for scotland. Over tha past years the amount of power exported to England is equivalent to the amount generated by nukes in Scotland.
I do not believe any new nukes will be built in scotland. Certainly not in this review nor whilst there is a SNP administration
Scotland will not be nuclear free, irrespective of who is in the Scottish Parliament,and irrespective of whatever enrgy reviews or needs...
.
.
.
.
.
.until there is no further need for Faslane
Rikk - faslane will go as soon as the scots parliament has the power. Its one of the main reasons I support scots independence and I bet its within a decade
TJ - "Its the wrong answer to the wrong question. Energy saving and renewables could easily fill the gap if the same money was spent."
Partly right on renewables but (not) if you include wind. Energy saving process is already starting in lots of industry I can assure you, however the message is not getting to everyone. We do not help wasting power on the interweb. In fact many technologies that are in common use in homes now are much more power hungry than those that they replace (flat screen tellies etc).
Lets assume that we have 5,000 windmills it's winter, very cold due to the high that is covering most of the country (this happens at some point each year, maybe for a day sometimes a week our more), it will not be windy on most of these days. Cover will be required for times like this, so the choice will be coal or nuclear as the rest of the renewables will be at full stretch. With the increase of powered airconditioning in summer a similar situation can (nearly did last year) occur, not enough power produced for that being used. We will have CHP/waste to energy or incinerators in old money as the programme for building these is now well underway but it will not be enough to provied cover for windbased renewables.
At some point someone is going to get there head round the idea that everyone can be a micro generator and provied small amounts of energy for themselves, perhaps all it will do is keep acouple of lights on but alternatively it may be just enought to keep the electric central heating pump running on their gas central heating, oh and the pilot light on.
Power generation is a strategic issue in the UK now and the enviroment is sadly not at the top of the list of issues to solve. It could have been if plans had been made ten years ago. But hey who'ed trust a politician to see past the next election of a vested interest and think of the good of the country.
Thats say on the subject, off to look at making a small windmill for the garage. Had to edit as usual.
Certainly not in this review nor whilst there is a SNP administration
Which is why I say in twenty years time.
