Fast-Track Plans For Nuclear Power Stations
Discussion
At last, mind you if they'd tackled this 10 years ago there wouldn't be any need to fast track them
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Nuclear-...
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Nuclear-...
tegwin said:
Hmmm... thats right... lets rush the projects through.... get them started without proper planing... and then wonder why we have to spend 15x more to get them working ...
Erm, they're not talking about rushing the designs for the power stations or the plans to build them. Just the planning permission processes!As others have said, that's only necessary because they've been putting off the decision for a decade.
Forget climate change.
Read:- http://www.nyswda.org/LegPosition/HirschReport.htm
The biggun is a beast to read through.
You can't really whack up nuke stations just like that! If only! At least it's seeing sense finally.
It would be nice to see the UK have a hand in the EU nuke industry, but I gather we sold out of that a while ago.
Read:- http://www.nyswda.org/LegPosition/HirschReport.htm
The biggun is a beast to read through.
You can't really whack up nuke stations just like that! If only! At least it's seeing sense finally.
It would be nice to see the UK have a hand in the EU nuke industry, but I gather we sold out of that a while ago.
Robin Oakley from Greenpeace said: "Nuclear is a dangerous and expensive irrelevance to tackling climate change and providing real energy security.
"We don't need coal or nuclear, because proven green technologies such as wind and combined heat and power stations can secure Britain's energy needs, create green jobs and slash our emissions."
I say;
f
k off you bunch of useless hippies. You wouldn't know a realistic power generation strategy if it bit you on the arse.
"We don't need coal or nuclear, because proven green technologies such as wind and combined heat and power stations can secure Britain's energy needs, create green jobs and slash our emissions."
I say;
f
k off you bunch of useless hippies. You wouldn't know a realistic power generation strategy if it bit you on the arse.hairykrishna said:
Robin Oakley from Greenpeace said: "Nuclear is a dangerous and expensive irrelevance to tackling climate change and providing real energy security.
"We don't need coal or nuclear, because proven green technologies such as wind and combined heat and power stations can secure Britain's energy needs, create green jobs and slash our emissions."
I say;
fk off you bunch of useless hippies. You wouldn't know a realistic power generation strategy if it bit you on the arse.
CHP is ok but needs lots of land to provide the fuel, something we don't have in the UK so fine in small amounts. Wind is just impractical unless we can load share with other countries. Nuclear has evolved since the days of Chernobyl as has the ratio of waste"We don't need coal or nuclear, because proven green technologies such as wind and combined heat and power stations can secure Britain's energy needs, create green jobs and slash our emissions."
I say;
f
k off you bunch of useless hippies. You wouldn't know a realistic power generation strategy if it bit you on the arse.B Oeuf said:
CHP is ok but needs lots of land to provide the fuel, something we don't have in the UK so fine in small amounts. Wind is just impractical unless we can load share with other countries. Nuclear has evolved since the days of Chernobyl as has the ratio of waste
It's was 'evolved' way before Chernobyl. We would never have built a reactor like that; it was constructed at about the same time we were building AGRs. hairykrishna said:
B Oeuf said:
CHP is ok but needs lots of land to provide the fuel, something we don't have in the UK so fine in small amounts. Wind is just impractical unless we can load share with other countries. Nuclear has evolved since the days of Chernobyl as has the ratio of waste
It's was 'evolved' way before Chernobyl. We would never have built a reactor like that; it was constructed at about the same time we were building AGRs. hairykrishna said:
B Oeuf said:
CHP is ok but needs lots of land to provide the fuel, something we don't have in the UK so fine in small amounts. Wind is just impractical unless we can load share with other countries. Nuclear has evolved since the days of Chernobyl as has the ratio of waste
It's was 'evolved' way before Chernobyl. We would never have built a reactor like that; it was constructed at about the same time we were building AGRs. s2art said:
Quite. BTW Hairy, I keep reading that they are building a waste depository (for approx 18 billion!). Various commentators talk about the waste being lethal for 10,000 years, or even 100,000 years. This makes no sense to me. The highly radioactive stuff must burn out wayyy faster than that. What is the situation?
You are pretty much spot on. The ridiculously long timescales (100,000's of years) are generally talking about it decaying down to an indistinguishable from background level, I think. There is some nasty stuff that's going to hang around for ~hundreds of years at fairly dangerous levels though. Cesium-137 springs immediately to mind; there's a fair amount of it, it has a strong gamma and a ~30 year half life.
B Oeuf said:
At last, mind you if they'd tackled this 10 years ago there wouldn't be any need to fast track them
Should I mention that one manufacturer of equipment vital to the design to be used has full order books until 2020 and beyond? China has got it's orders in before the UK. UK Govt were warned what might happen.
Labour has completely screwed this one up due to phaffing and pharting about pandering to renewable lobby, anti fossil fuel lobby, anti coal lobby, anti nuclear lobby and general hand wringing, obfuscation and delay.
Expect peak load shedding on a much more frequent basis than has been the case in the past.
I could mention the word brownout but that might be misconstrued as a reference to the future of the current PM. History will show just what a shambles this current dreadful Government has been, and things will come out of the closet for decades to come I'm afraid.
Ah yes the IPC....
To be in action at some point next year - however both the Lib Dems and Cons have suggested they will banish this unelected "quango" and good fking riddance i say... this goes far further in terms of power than speeding up Nuclear Power Stations
These are the same people who will have say over wether an inter-modal freight terminal will be built in our village (Partly on green-belt land, partly on an area of Oustanding National Beauty and totally against the pre-exsiting conditions which say that once mineral extraction (silica sand on a very small scale) has ceased at the local quarry it will be returned to a nature conversation area.)
I have nothing but contempt for the powers given to the IPC (i do however agree with the need for nuclear power which is a totally different issue) - in comparison to the way the current planning system works, these people are unelected, and un-accountable to the people of the areas in which they intend ruin... a very typical Labour idea.....
I can only hope that Labour get a complete thrashing at the next GE and the Con/Libs stand by their word to give planning powers back to the relevant local authorities!
http://www.boroughgreen-news.com/ - for those interested in a little further reading
To be in action at some point next year - however both the Lib Dems and Cons have suggested they will banish this unelected "quango" and good f
king riddance i say... this goes far further in terms of power than speeding up Nuclear Power StationsThese are the same people who will have say over wether an inter-modal freight terminal will be built in our village (Partly on green-belt land, partly on an area of Oustanding National Beauty and totally against the pre-exsiting conditions which say that once mineral extraction (silica sand on a very small scale) has ceased at the local quarry it will be returned to a nature conversation area.)
I have nothing but contempt for the powers given to the IPC (i do however agree with the need for nuclear power which is a totally different issue) - in comparison to the way the current planning system works, these people are unelected, and un-accountable to the people of the areas in which they intend ruin... a very typical Labour idea.....
I can only hope that Labour get a complete thrashing at the next GE and the Con/Libs stand by their word to give planning powers back to the relevant local authorities!
http://www.boroughgreen-news.com/ - for those interested in a little further reading
Tangent Police said:
It would be nice to see the UK have a hand in the EU nuke industry, but I gather we sold out of that a while ago.
Isn't Winky planning for a private French company to build and run these things..?I'm all for this...
When Sarkozy nationalises it to screw us, we have a legitimate reason to invade France...
mybrainhurts said:
Tangent Police said:
It would be nice to see the UK have a hand in the EU nuke industry, but I gather we sold out of that a while ago.
Isn't Winky planning for a private French company to build and run these things..?I'm all for this...
When Sarkozy nationalises it to screw us, we have a legitimate reason to invade France...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff