My feed
Premium
Please
or
to access all these features

News

Hinkley Nuclear Power Plant - how do you feel about it?

58 replies

AnandaTimeIn · 21/10/2013 18:52

I don't live in UK - not far though, and visit a lot - but I am quite worried about this....

After Fukushima, and the report that radiation from it is leaking into the sea...Shock

Do "they" really think this is going to be cheaper/better?! What about our health?!

How did this get through without a murmur from the public.
Seems a done deal with Chinese investment...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24604218

OP posts:
Report
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
AchyFox · 08/11/2013 17:59

The other thing is that oil is not so easily substitutable.

Report
AchyFox · 08/11/2013 17:58

Even if it only lasts 50 years, that'll be time for us to come up with something new.

Trouble is we aren't though are we FPH ?

Like all the billions we're not investing in thorium power that was highly successfully demonstrated in the 50s and 60s.

Report
hench · 08/11/2013 02:02

According to NASA, coal and gas are way more harmful than nuclear energy - article here

"despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 1). This amounts to at least hundreds and more likely thousands of times more deaths than it caused. An average of 76,000 deaths per year were avoided annually between 2000-2009"

I think I'll go with the nuclear option and keep the lights on.

Report
flatpackhamster · 29/10/2013 06:14

yeghoulsandlittledevils

Quite. Gas is a fossil fuel, after all, and the first one we'll run out of. It is just sold cheap. For now.

Even if it only lasts 50 years, that'll be time for us to come up with something new.

Report
stephrick · 28/10/2013 20:47

I agree with nuclear power, lets face it we would have to cover half the country with wind turbines for an effect, though the foreign investment leaves me cold.

Report
carlajean · 28/10/2013 20:36

If you're going to peddle propoganda at least make it at least partly factual.
Given that the link you put up earlier in the thread DoctorTwo actually disproved your argument, perhaps you should be more careful about what propaganda you use as well.

Report
yeghoulsandlittledevils · 28/10/2013 20:35

How silly of them.

Quite. Gas is a fossil fuel, after all, and the first one we'll run out of. It is just sold cheap. For now.

Report
flatpackhamster · 28/10/2013 20:14

yeghoulsandlittledevils

hamster I am not saying it's a good idea, just stating facts. Russian gas, at present, is be far the cheapest option and some (German) public pressure pushes for this over France's nuclear energy or fossil fuel burning.

How silly of them.

Unfortunately, building defences to withstand a tsunami on British nuclear power stations to appease public opinion puts the price up and makes the carbon footprint of building the things a good deal less attractive. But nuclear is still the best option, unless we want to go without heat and light and have it rationed by the government.

The price has quadrupled in ten years, thanks to green-backed regulatory red tape. And if the green movement wasn't so keen to lie through its teeth to people about the evils of nuclear (and if the British people looked at an actual map to work out how unlikely it is they'd be hit by a fricking tsunami), then people like me wouldn't have to spend their lives beating people with a Bat of Clue.

Report
flatpackhamster · 28/10/2013 20:11

DoctorTwo

As fracking releases methane and other gases into the atmosphere that have been long trapped in the earth it's just a tiny bit ridiculous to claim it reduces our carbon footprint.

But it does reduce CO2 output, which is what needs to be done to fulfil the various global/european CO2 quotas. So it does reduce the carbon footprint.

It's the second dirtiest fuel after tar sand. Plus, each well needs anything between 3 & 8 million gallons of water, all of which is rendered undrinkable by the process.

Not permanently undrinkable, which is what you're trying to imply. Because it's much easier to just tell everyone BOO HISS IT'S SCARY than try to offer a balanced view.

Report
yeghoulsandlittledevils · 28/10/2013 19:51

hamster I am not saying it's a good idea, just stating facts. Russian gas, at present, is be far the cheapest option and some (German) public pressure pushes for this over France's nuclear energy or fossil fuel burning.

Unfortunately, building defences to withstand a tsunami on British nuclear power stations to appease public opinion puts the price up and makes the carbon footprint of building the things a good deal less attractive. But nuclear is still the best option, unless we want to go without heat and light and have it rationed by the government.

Report
DoctorTwo · 28/10/2013 18:43

Second, nuclear power reduces carbon footprint - as does fracking

As fracking releases methane and other gases into the atmosphere that have been long trapped in the earth it's just a tiny bit ridiculous to claim it reduces our carbon footprint. It's the second dirtiest fuel after tar sand. Plus, each well needs anything between 3 & 8 million gallons of water, all of which is rendered undrinkable by the process.

If you're going to peddle propoganda at least make it at least partly factual.

Report
flatpackhamster · 28/10/2013 13:35

UniversalInclusion
i wonder if we were to ask every mother if we would rather reduce our carbon footprint or risk our child being exposed to the after effects of a nuclear accident

What a silly statement.

First, it isn't a binary choice.

Second, nuclear power reduces carbon footprint - as does fracking.

Third, there are degrees of risk and life is about assessing them. What is the likelihood of a nuclear accident in the UK? What is the likelihood of becoming ill through a lack of heating, hot water or hot food?

yeghoulsandlittledevils

Germany buy their elictricity from France. The plan at the moment would be to buy more from them, and Russian gas.

Dependency on the Russians? What a great plan. Truly brilliant.

Report
yeghoulsandlittledevils · 27/10/2013 09:16

Germany doesn't have enough coal to be building coal fired plants.

Report
yeghoulsandlittledevils · 27/10/2013 09:08

Germany buy their elictricity from France. The plan at the moment would be to buy more from them, and Russian gas.

Report
carlajean · 27/10/2013 08:57

i wonder if we were to ask every mother if we would rather reduce our carbon footprint or risk our child being exposed to the after effects of a nuclear accident
OK, I'm sure every mother (and father) would yes to that, but what does it mean? As a country we have been attempting to do this for years and the small amount of success we've had is only down to the fact that our manufacturing has decreased.
Unless the government brings in draconian measures, we, as a society, won't reduce our consumption. Have you any concrete ideas of how we will accomplish this?

Report
cumfy · 27/10/2013 00:09

But the Western world makes this choice every day and continues and will continue to use oodles of energy, and emit loads of CO2.

So you may prefer to emit less CO2, but the rest of humankind is voting with its dirty feet.

Report
UniversalInclusion · 26/10/2013 23:36

i wonder if we were to ask every mother if we would rather reduce our carbon footprint or risk our child being exposed to the after effects of a nuclear accident

I know which I would rather do

There is no amount of reassurance in the face of and devastation brought about by the accidents we have seen so far that will make me see this as an acceptable risk

Report
BackOnlyBriefly · 23/10/2013 23:43

Germany seem to be changing to coal power plants which seems an odd choice and makes me wonder why they are held up as an example of the right way to do it. Getting rid of nuclear plants and burning coal?

Report
amicissimma · 23/10/2013 23:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

carlajean · 23/10/2013 23:11

Also, Germany will be buying (nuclear sourced) energy from France in future

Report
specialsubject · 23/10/2013 21:54

Germany is closer to the equator than the UK, which means stronger light levels. So solar panels work better/

in a world where people think UV strength is related to air temperature, not much chance of too many realising this.

nuclear power - yes please.

Report
cumfy · 22/10/2013 22:03

And why are the Chinese funding this and the French building it ?

Because we (well BNFL) so astutely sold Westinghouse to Toshiba in 2006

Wonderful.

Report
MrJudgeyPants · 22/10/2013 18:48

BackOnlyBriefly I don't think they'll be badly designed but, other than that point, I totally agree with everything you've written.

Report
MrJudgeyPants · 22/10/2013 18:45

There have only been two people hospitalised as a result of the radiation leak at Fukushima - both were discharged a few days later, both made full recoveries and both still work at the plant.

There has been a lot of disinformation about Fukushima but when the myths are stripped away from what has actually happened, there are no grounds, in my opinion, to abandon nuclear.

Report
BackOnlyBriefly · 22/10/2013 18:31

We have to have nuclear power stations. I expect the government have messed up the way it is paid for and I expect it will be designed badly, take far too long and need extra money from the taxpayers to patch up.

Still, we have to have nuclear power stations. I like all those alternative energy ideas. They are useful for making electricity on a small scale - perhaps to power something non-essential, but if you need serious energy output 24/7 and not just when it's windy then you have to use nuclear or go back to fossil fuels.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.