The French have a far better record on nuclear power 'accidents' than the UK. We also release far greater amounts of nuclear waste to the environment under 'license' than they. But why let the facts get in the way of jingoism?
Originally posted by Deus ex machina: The French have a far better record on nuclear power 'accidents' than the UK. We also release far greater amounts of nuclear waste to the environment under 'license' than they. But why let the facts get in the way of jingoism?
Indeed. The French get about 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. I guess they don't have to worry about their electricity bills going up because of increased gas prices or be blackmailed by Russia over gas.
Originally posted by Deus ex machina: The French have a far better record on nuclear power 'accidents' than the UK. We also release far greater amounts of nuclear waste to the environment under 'license' than they. But why let the facts get in the way of jingoism?
Indeed. The French get about 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. I guess they don't have to worry about their electricity bills going up because of increased gas prices or be blackmailed by Russia over gas.
They also deal with and release far less dangerous radionucleides to the environment than the UK does.
Well they are still majorly worried about oil prices because of its impact on petrol prices and manufactring prices. They also do use a lot of gas even so, so the price of it does worry them. One of the areas in which the UK and france both worry is about a potential dependence on russia for gas.
The cost of cleaning up exisiting soon to be closed down nuke sites here in the UK has gone up to 83 billion!!!! Thats beofre new sites are built!
No doubt the tax poayer will end up paying for this, how can people be so keen for nuclear when clean up, new sites being built and their clean up will cost about 250 Billion at least?
Gotta go for every other form first and nuclear is only used to a limited percentage, no way above 40%.
The cost of cleaning up exisiting soon to be closed down nuke sites here in the UK has gone up to 83 billion!!!! Thats beofre new sites are built!
No doubt the tax poayer will end up paying for this, how can people be so keen for nuclear when clean up, new sites being built and their clean up will cost about 250 Billion at least?
The clue lies in the "tax payer" bit. In the US, private companies own nuclear power stations, and other private companies quote around $250m for demolishing them (about 6% of the cost of building them in the first place). There is, of course, no reason why a power station shouldn't just stay where it is after it stops generating electricity. If you leave a retired nuke for 80-100 years, the radioactivity will be down to background levels.
Originally posted by THE DECIDER: The cost of cleaning up exisiting soon to be closed down nuke sites here in the UK has gone up to 83 billion!!!! Thats beofre new sites are built!
No doubt the tax poayer will end up paying for this, how can people be so keen for nuclear when clean up, new sites being built and their clean up will cost about 250 Billion at least?
Gotta go for every other form first and nuclear is only used to a limited percentage, no way above 40%.
83 billion buys a lot of renewables. every house could have a heat pump and solar panels and a windmill for that linked to a two way grid.
but the multinationals wouldn't like that.
The cleanup bill is 83 billion spread over years. If it was easy and cheap to convert a house to use solar energy and windmills don't you think more people would have done it? In this NIMBY country even that would be blocked by people objecting to windmills and solar panels ruining the landscape and bringing down property values.
83 billion buys a lot of renewables. every house could have a heat pump and solar panels and a windmill for that linked to a two way grid.
but the multinationals wouldn't like that.
The cleanup bill is 83 billion spread over years. If it was easy and cheap to convert a house to use solar energy and windmills don't you think more people would have done it? In this NIMBY country even that would be blocked by people objecting to windmills and solar panels ruining the landscape and bringing down property values.
£1.4 billion a year I think I read somewhere. Solar panels are not unsightly, but windmills may be a bit of an eyesore. But no more of an eyesore than satalite dishes and they seem to have no problem in getting erected. But I suppose the satalite dishes bring profits, which in turn brings tax revenue whereas the solar panels and windmills will save the consumer and reduce the big energy firms profits!
Originally posted by THE DECIDER: You tell me? Yout think its worth it?
In a word yes. You keep talking up the virtues of coal but that's just about the dirtiest fuel source there is out there.
Coal doesn't run the risk of killing millions of people though does it like nuclear does if theirs any accidents.
Theirs clean coal technology, carbon capture and it would be cheaper than nuke power but everyone wants to go for the power dangerous radioactive and much more expensive nuke power which sounds crazy to me.
When I look around at the generation of idiots where breeding I wonder if we will have the people brainy enough to carry on running power systems and infrastructure projects, I really do.
As for eye sores in renewabals, the nimbys need shooting for their permanent bs'ing!!!!!!! How attractive are electricty pylons hey? But their not their for attractiveness, their their to give us electricty! I say the nimbys should lsoe electricity with them being so stupid all the time in their objections!
the key to a national roll out is a two way grid like in Germany where it employs 1/4 million people and generates 24 billion euros.
the govt, despite the evidence it is working, says the line there is no evidence it would work. They are terrified of freeing people from the multinationals and slashing the public's energy costs. they want to keep people carbon/nuclear one way grid energy slaves.
Looks like Gordon, with the help of his brother are doing a stella job, this news will help spike the price in British Energy, the government will be happy, the shareholders will be happy.
The Tories have written written to firms in the nuclear industry to reassure them there are no plans to reverse Labour’s commitment to new plants. Charles Hendry, shadow energy minister wrote in his letter “I am writing to you to give you an assurance that the essential elements required for building new nuclear power plants will remain unchanged should a Conservative government take control after the next election,”
How will they deal with the waste which give off small levels of radiation?, more targets for terrorists? accidents releasing large amounts of radiation into highly populated areas?
Arn't they clever still if they can think of ways to strenghthen their portfolios and be given a share of future profits Brown and his brother will be mighty happy and so will the Tories, I bet at this very moment they are srambling to buy more shares in British Energy.
Apparently this is also about reducing C02 levels, so Britain can meet its C02 targets does that mean aircrafts will have mini nuclear reactors powering them?
quote:
SHAREHOLDERS in British Energy, Britain’s nuclear power group, are to be offered a share of the company’s future profits in a plan that should clear the way for it to be taken over by the French. Advisers are now putting the finishing touches to a revised, slightly higher basic price, and the offer of future payouts — to private shareholders and to the government, which has a one-third stake in BE — if the company continues to do well.
Ministers are eager to see the EDF takeover proceed because it will help kick-start plans for a new fleet of nuclear power stations in Britain.
This is the state relinquishing control of major infastructures, ones that are important for society to operate fairly, handing the control over to Other countries to private companies, to Global shareholders!
They have privatised so much why have an extensive government? why do we pay taxes? these are the questions they want us to raise to prepare our psyche to vote for a European President? Fine then I just want a local tax because big governments are not necessary they have no remit, the control on major issues are with private companies and kajority shareholders. Everything has been sold off and the dipstick Mr Hutton wants us to believe that he wants Britain to be as energy-independent as possible are they allowed to come out with such lies? this is misrepresentation
Mr Hutton
quote:
He called for the creation of a £20bn industry with 100,000 new jobs - making the UK "the gateway to a new nuclear renaissance across Europe". It comes as the President of France - a world nuclear leader - visits the UK. French energy giant EDF is among the private firms poised to build a new generation of reactors in the UK "I think if we are really serious about our climate change responsibilities, if we want Britain to be as energy-independent as possible - then I think we should be talking about a significant expansion over and above the current contribution that nuclear power makes.
Surely for the UK to be energy independent Nuclear power, its future development, plants etc, need to be totally owned by the state, the British government on behalf of it citizens, not by a the French government that own 85% of EDF, which once they secure this deal I presume they will make a share issue to reap what they have sown. Britian will not be energy independent we will be at the mercy of the brokers and traders buying and selling the commodities for huge profits for their customers around the globe
