How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-lon...

That;s before any thoughts of thorium reactors.

Wait what? No-one is saying the uranium deposits are running out-just that the Uk has a finite amount and replenishing it is dependant on EURATOM or its replacement.

[anonymous-user]

cookie118 said:

Wait what? No-one is saying the uranium deposits are running out-just that the Uk has a finite amount and replenishing it is dependant on EURATOM or its replacement.

Do you honestly think the UK is incapable of organising this?

[b2hbm]

cookie118 said:

Einion Yrth said:

cookie118 said:

Although the UK may run out of fuel for nuclear power stations in ~2 years according to some industry sources

[wiki]citation needed[/wiki]

Professor cashmore the head of the UKAEA has said that 'by 2025 “you could be doing your writing by candlelight on a typewriter”.
"It is also a more direct problem for nuclear power stations, Cashmore said, because without new treaties Britain would not be able to get new fuel once its stockpile of uranium runs out."
Ok it's a buzz feed article but professor cashmore is the chair of the UKAEA
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/these-scientis...

Ok, I've read the link and genuinely don't understand this. There appear to be (at least) 2 stumbling blocks, one of transport legislation and one of procurement. Now I can't see a major problem with UK legislation, it may take time, it may take hassle and it might well be simpler to remain in Euratom, but can it honestly be catastrophic ?

The procurement thing seems more of a problem at first sight, but again, is it really armageddon ? The 2 years is not confirmed by any of the contributors other than the writer of the article, and they referred to it as an "estimate". So that's about as useful as the paper or pixels making up the text.

Euratom is basically EU countries from what I can see and as we all know, other nuclear powers are available. Are you seriously suggesting any government will let the lights go out in the country simply because we can't buy fuel from European nations ? One thing is certain, any government is well aware of the UK power requirements and the status of our generating industry so I find it very hard to accept that they'd leave an organisation knowing the inevitable consequence was a complete shut down of UK nuclear power. I suspect there's more to this tale than is being broadcast by the media.

As I said at the start, I really don't understand this. I can see there will be inconvenience and people will have to get used to different ways of working, sources of supply, etc, but is it really such a big deal ?

Constructive comment and explanations welcome.

[anonymous-user]

Considering Germany have cancelled all their nuclear power plans there will be some EU suppliers desperate to retain their links to the UK market.

[Eddie Strohacker]

jsf said:

Considering Germany have cancelled all their nuclear power plans there will be some EU suppliers desperate to retain their links to the UK market.

Problem solved then. I'd get my invoice off first thing if I were you. No time to waste. I mean the Euratom decision is universally condemned but you've sorted it in one sentence.

You're some kind of freaking genius.

[anonymous-user]

Eddie Strohacker said:

jsf said:

Considering Germany have cancelled all their nuclear power plans there will be some EU suppliers desperate to retain their links to the UK market.

Problem solved then. I'd get my invoice off first thing if I were you. No time to waste. I mean the Euratom decision is universally condemned but you've sorted it in one sentence.

You're some kind of freaking genius.

Easy isn't it. You just arrange a free storage option with a call off invoice for the next 100 years. I would think we can sort the supply system within that period of time.

[Eddie Strohacker]

jsf said:

Easy isn't it. You just arrange a free storage option with a call off invoice for the next 100 years. I would think we can sort the supply system within that period of time.

Yes. And by yes I mean are you fking mad?

http://sciencebusiness.net/news/80393/Pressure-inc...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/world/europe/eu...

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/mp...

https://www.ft.com/content/8c81e82c-623c-11e7-8814...

[anonymous-user]

Eddie Strohacker said:

jsf said:

Easy isn't it. You just arrange a free storage option with a call off invoice for the next 100 years. I would think we can sort the supply system within that period of time.

Yes. And by yes I mean are you fking mad?

I'll answer that question when you answer the two I previously asked you.

[Eddie Strohacker]

I'll take that as a yes, along with the melt who wants to know how I vote & tries it on all day with loaded questions & all the other wallopers who lob abuse all day long.

I call it the full Brexit. See you tomorrow.

[anonymous-user]

You can take it however you wish. It doesn't stop you from looking any less ridiculous to most sane individuals who read this forum.

[Deptford Draylons]

Eddie Strohacker said:

I'll take that as a yes, along with the melt who wants to know how I vote & tries it on all day with loaded questions & all the other wallopers who lob abuse all day long.

I call it the full Brexit. See you tomorrow.

Don't be embarrassed how you voted. I'm sure you had your reasons. Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott might still yet get the chance to decide Brexit and work their magic on the economy to your liking.

[handpaper]

Eddie Strohacker said:

I'll take that as a yes, along with the melt who wants to know how I vote & tries it on all day with loaded questions & all the other wallopers who lob abuse all day long.

I call it the full Brexit. See you tomorrow.

"Melt" as an insult?
I think Eddie's just told us who he voted for

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

cookie118 said:

Wait what? No-one is saying the uranium deposits are running out-just that the Uk has a finite amount and replenishing it is dependant on EURATOM or its replacement.

Do you honestly think the UK is incapable of organising this?

Again-missing the point. I'm not saying that the UK can't organise this, just that we don't hold all the cards in the negotiation. We can't just name a price to the EU on storing their waste (which was TBB's original point).

In terms of b2's questions-I don't have all the answers. But the chair of the UKAEA and numerous other figures in the nuclear industry are saying that they are very concerned over this.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 20th July 06:57

[b2hbm]

cookie118 said:

In terms of b2's questions-I don't have all the answers. But the chair of the UKAEA and numerous other figures in the nuclear industry are saying that they are very concerned over this.

Thanks for an honest reply, these threads would be much better if more posters could accept that they rarely have all the answers.

I get that there's some concern, what I don't get is the "we're going to need candles" bit. Most winters we see forecasts of potential black outs and it's fairly clear that the UK's margin in power generation isn't great. But to say that leaving Euratom "could" mean closure of our nuclear reactors in 2 years time does seem a touch fanciful.

According to wikipedia (yes, I know) we have 15 reactors. The USA has 100, followed by France, Japan, Russia & China. So 4 of the top 5 nuclear reactor owning nations aren't in Euratom which makes me wonder if it's a "nice to have" or "must have" membership. I can't help but think there's too much media hype behind this story.

[turbobloke]

b2hbm said:

Most winters we see forecasts of potential black outs and it's fairly clear that the UK's margin in power generation isn't great. But to say that leaving Euratom "could" mean closure of our nuclear reactors in 2 years time does seem a touch fanciful.

A touch fanciful - that's a generous assessment!

The UK's dire energy security and perilous future in that regard is related to an over-emphasis on unavoidably intermittent wind and solar power, and a degree of religious fervour concerning not using fossil fuels. Once out of the EU that may change but holding breath isn't advisable as politicians are in thrall to the renewables folly.

[wc98]

cookie118 said:

Professor cashmore the head of the UKAEA has said that 'by 2025 “you could be doing your writing by candlelight on a typewriter”.

"It is also a more direct problem for nuclear power stations, Cashmore said, because without new treaties Britain would not be able to get new fuel once its stockpile of uranium runs out."

Ok it's a buzz feed article but professor cashmore is the chair of the UKAEA

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/these-scientis...

i am afraid buzz feed is not on the ajd list of approved links for this thread cookie .

[FiF]

cookie118 said:

jsf said:

cookie118 said:

Wait what? No-one is saying the uranium deposits are running out-just that the Uk has a finite amount and replenishing it is dependant on EURATOM or its replacement.

Do you honestly think the UK is incapable of organising this?

Again-missing the point. I'm not saying that the UK can't organise this, just that we don't hold all the cards in the negotiation. We can't just name a price to the EU on storing their waste (which was TBB's original point).

In terms of b2's questions-I don't have all the answers. But the chair of the UKAEA and numerous other figures in the nuclear industry are saying that they are very concerned over this.

Edited by cookie118 on Thursday 20th July 06:57

Mind you speaking of non approved news sources, the loopy Mail reckons we'll just load a ship up with the EU's plutonium that we're storing and park it up in Antwerp. Presumably complete with DPD bod wandering around for someone to give him an illegible proof of delivery scrawl on his delivery thingumybob, technical term for it there.

[turbobloke]

wc98 said:

cookie118 said:

Professor cashmore the head of the UKAEA has said that 'by 2025 “you could be doing your writing by candlelight on a typewriter”.

"It is also a more direct problem for nuclear power stations, Cashmore said, because without new treaties Britain would not be able to get new fuel once its stockpile of uranium runs out."

Ok it's a buzz feed article but professor cashmore is the chair of the UKAEA

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/these-scientis...

i am afraid buzz feed is not on the ajd list of approved links for this thread cookie .

Must remember that this thread has a significant element of Project Fear (II) and can be a "without treaties" zone.

FiF said:

Mind you speaking of non approved news sources, the loopy Mail reckons we'll just load a ship up with the EU's plutonium that we're storing and park it up in Antwerp. Presumably complete with DPD bod wandering around for someone to give him an illegible proof of delivery scrawl on his delivery thingumybob, technical term for it there.

Easily spotted wearing NBC kit.

[Camoradi]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Problem solved then. I'd get my invoice off first thing if I were you. No time to waste. I mean the Euratom decision is universally condemned but you've sorted it in one sentence.

You're some kind of freaking genius.

My partner until recently worked as a procurement manager in the nuclear industry. She travelled to nuclear plants in many parts of Europe, both within and outside of the EU.

I just pointed her to your comments and she laughed out loud. Sorry

[Eddie Strohacker]

Camoradi said:

My partner until recently worked as a procurement manager in the nuclear industry. She travelled to nuclear plants in many parts of Europe, both within and outside of the EU.

I just pointed her to your comments and she laughed out loud. Sorry

Finally, recognition of my genius amongst the sea of long faces in here.

Sarcasm aside, what is your view of the Euratom departure as one who presumably is closer to the issue than the rest of the armchair generals?