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

[AnandaTimeIn]

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...

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

[DoctorTwo]

If you can't be bothered to use a search engine yourself why criticise those that can? Oh I forgot, neocons never try to prove anything, they assert their opinions even when wrong.

A question for you: if Ed Milibore promises to fix energy prices for 20 months is socialism how is David Camoron promising an extortionate rate, which will increase in line with inflation, capitalism?

[MrJudgeyPants]

I cautiously welcome this development. Needless to say, I'm against the government signing us up to a fixed price deal - that is sheer economic incompetence, who knows what the energy prices might be if/when we have a new generation of nuclear power stations providing us with plentiful electricity? However, something needed to be done following the balls up that was Labour's "head-in-the-sand" approach to keeping the lights on, and this appears to indeed be something.

Some points to note...

Fukishima was clobbered by a tsunami causing damage exceeding design limitations - to date, no one has died or been made ill. The likelihood of a tsunami hitting Britain is remote. Fukishima is not a good case study to choose if you want to shut down the nuclear industry.

Fukishima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island all have one failure in common. In each case it was a failure of a water cooled system which led to disaster. The early British reactors use the much safer (in theory) gas cooled systems. These don't tend to operate at as high a pressure as water/steam and can, therefore, be considered to be safer by design.

Radioactive waste and its storage is a major problem with the current types of nuclear reactors that we use. Without delving too deep into the physics, Uranium, which has long been the fissile material of choice, produces waste which requires additional and expensive processing and storage. However, in India, there is a new generation of Thorium reactor starting to come on line. As Thorium decays, it produces different waste to Uranium. Crucially, Thorium's waste can be reused to produce further fissile material and is therefore, more efficient and produces considerably less waste. Furthermore, the radioactive half life of Thorium waste is in the hundreds of years, rather than the tens of thousands of years range of Uranium.

Unfortunately for Britain, if we ordered one of these new Thorium reactors tomorrow it would be about twenty years before it is producing a single watt of energy. This is because the nuclear industry is so over regulated today. We are in the ironic position of having had the anti-nuclear lobby insist on so much red tape on any new design of reactor (incidentally, that is the main reason why each MW of electricity is having to be subsidised at such a high rate) that we are now stuck with using obsolete and more hazardous technology.

Finally it's a crying shame that our government has, over the last fifty years or so, squandered our preeminence in domestic nuclear energy production through blinkered ignorance and tit-for-tat politics. Nuclear power, like most forms of engineering it seems to me, has become a dirty word. Speaking as an engineer, I treat our politicians ignorance with contempt.

[WestieMamma]

Solar panels are not a greener or more sustainable source of energy. The production process is filthy and once they reach the end of their lives there is no way of safely disposing of them because they are full of toxic chemicals. Currently they are stored in great big solar panel mountains in the hope that someone will discover a way of dealing with them more permanently.

[wokeupwithasmile]

I am of two minds on this one. However, two points that make me really worried about nuclear.

1- lives are expendable when it is about money and power. If nuclear works, fantastic, but when it does not work it is a catastrophe. True, there are various reasons why Fukushima happened and so forth, but one of the major problems the Japanese have to deal with now is the lies their government and Tepco are prepared to sell to the public in order to keep people quiet and make them believe everything is under control. Are you prepared to trust your government and the nuclear companies with your lives (in case something goes wrong)? I personally do not.
Incidentally, Japan has shut down many (the majority?) of its nuclear reactors, and they are coping rather well. So will we just use more energy because we have nuclear power here, rather than consider ways to lower our energy consumption? I think we could do with a lot more lights off in public buildings at night, with less 'productivity' for productivity sake, with much more recycling (I am absolutely stunned by the number of people who do not give a shit about doing their bit), with less food, and so forth.

Fukishima was clobbered by a tsunami causing damage exceeding design limitations - to date, no one has died or been made ill.
I do not understand this. Plenty of people have died and made ill as a result of contact with contaminated areas/foods etc., and I bet there will be oh so many more cases in the future.

2- Germany is doing rather well on its renewable energy also because it bought/rented large areas in Southern Italy and used it to produce it. It creates energy and uses solar power where there is plenty. In fact, if I remember correctly, it is selling energy to Italy. Unfortunately I cannot find the article I read on this point.

[MrJudgeyPants]

wokeupwithasmile So far there have been no deaths attributed to radiation exposure caused by the Fukushima plants explosion. See here and here. If you can cite a source detailing radiation fatalities resulting from the Fukushima plant, I would be very keen to see it.

[flatpackhamster]

DoctorTwo

If you can't be bothered to use a search engine yourself why criticise those that can?

I wasn't criticising your ability to use Google, I was criticising your wilful misrepresentation of the facts of Germany's power generation.

Oh I forgot, neocons never try to prove anything, they assert their opinions even when wrong.

I'm not a neocon, and I'm not wrong. You are.

A question for you: if Ed Milibore promises to fix energy prices for 20 months is socialism how is David Camoron promising an extortionate rate, which will increase in line with inflation, capitalism?

It isn't. It's corporatism.

[wokeupwithasmile]

Mr you are right, it should have been 'been made ill' only. I was thinking of Masao Yoshida, the chief of the nuclear plant, but so far it does not seem like his death was caused by the work he did there.

[carlajean]

All I did was read the article that you posted DoctorTwo and refer the the obvious weakness in it.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

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.

[MrJudgeyPants]

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.

[MrJudgeyPants]

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

[cumfy]

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.

[specialsubject]

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.

[carlajean]

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

[BackOnlyBriefly]

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?

[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

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

[cumfy]

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.

[carlajean]

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?

[yeghoulsandlittledevils]

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

[yeghoulsandlittledevils]

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

[flatpackhamster]

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.

[DoctorTwo]

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.

[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.

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.

[flatpackhamster]

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.