CATEGORY - NUCLEAR

It's getting 'hotter' as a topic (sorry)

ARTICLE

BBC - UK push for big nuclear expansion - I guess you could say the whole thing is mushrooming:)

Guardian - Gordon's nuclear con trick - Take this as 'non-pro' at a wild guess. As always, the value of blogs is what the counter-posters may bring to the party, but equally have that pinch of salt handy.

Guardian - Fuel for scandal - Loved this comment, which shows hwo cautious oen needs be with the who is writing as much as the what: '"Rob Edwards has been a freelance journalist specialising in environmental issues" Does that mean 'environmental' as in 'idealogical, nuclear-over-my-dead-body greenie' or does it mean 'concerned about environmental degradation and willing to think objectively about solutions and trade-offs'? I mean, I really don't think it is doing anything for the present environmental crisis to begin your argument from the standpoint that nuclear is always going to be the wrong solution.

Wikipedia - With all due caveats

A letter - ***NOTE**** Please refer to the comment below made by a poster that would suggest that this letter would not seem to have been sent by the person I had imagined, for reasons unknown. So this all makes sense I have left all in place as was to put the comments in context.

A copy of one sent to a major news media, copied to me. Worth reading and pondering 'in the mix', assuming the author to be worth his salt - I can get a bit swayed by titles. Why such issues cannot be made clearer so the public can grasp and decide is beyond me.

Dear Editor,
Today's front page story is yet another chapter in a 50 year fantasy
that nuclear power will bring untold riches. The THORP plant at
Sellafield, which has never worked properly, is to be demolished at
£600m. In the 1950's nuclear electricity was going to be too cheap
to meter. All of these false starts miss one vital point. Uranium is
a fossil fuel. There are no Uranium reserves in Britain. Mining,
refining and transporting Uranium generates significant environmental
impacts and greenhouse gas emissions, which need 10 years of nuclear
generation to balance. As a scarce commodity, Uranium prices will
rise to follow oil. No one knows what to do with the waste, except
make weapons of mass destruction. For 10% of the tax money spent
without results on nuclear power, we could have retrofitted 100% of
our housing stock to a zero carbon standard, and saved 40% of our
energy consumption. Even if we have 100% nuclear electricity, that
would only be 10% of our energy consumption saved. Perhaps Emperor
Nero could might advise ?

Professor Lewis Lesley
Liverpool

Telegraph - Safety fears over French nuclear technology - Link courtesy of Dave, who offers this commentary: 'As soon as the start button is about to be pressed, the antis come out of the woodwork and play on the safety aspect.'

Guardian - Funding for clean-up of nuclear sites is unsustainable, say MPs - I don't know what is more worrying; the piece or the fact that it just seems to be so much more 'noise' we allow to wash over ourselves. 'Unsustainable' is a pretty big word, is it not, even from that oh-so-persuasive and trusted cabal we call our MPs?

BBC - Nuclear clean-up costs 'to soar' - I merely note that this coincides with the attempt to get planning decisions removed from accountability.

I was/am playing with colour coding for easy reference. See if you get the drift. Also I think I need to work on orders. I tend to use alphabetical, but maybe newest first/last might be better?

BBC - Newsnight - On the topic of plugging the pulling of plugs...

I have been intrigued to find in my in-box a plea from FoE at the same time as browsing across such as this from the BBC that suggests there may well be questions still worth asking.

Seems there is much going on in the name of energy supply and, at the same time, even more in 'complement' in the name of green.

Now, I am first to admit much of it is very difficult to get one's head around, but at the very least I'd like to retain the option of finding out... and having the opportunity to have my say if it looks like it matters.

Guardian - MPs fear taxpayer could end up paying nuclear clean-up bill - Is 'fear' the same as 'don't think they should, or more 'well, they I won't be around for them to vote me out then'? Seems odd that they don't 'know' yet.

Guardian - All aboard the nuclear power superjet. Just don't ask about the landing strip -

Guardain - Nuclear power failure - There are a lot of red flags here. It should be noted that this is possibly because of what I read and how often the topic is raised there. I also believe (in the absence of a bio) that often what you think is editorial is often more a party political broadcast, and hence things need to be viewed in this light. At least the thread comments tend to help with balance.

Telegraph - The perils of nuclear power

Times - The debate goes nuclear

Indy - The Big Question: Does nuclear power now provide the answer to Britain’s energy needs?

I know what we are facing, and it's all looking pretty 'lose lose', but...

'Nuclear reactors are the best way to produce lots of electricity, reliably, with no carbon emissions'

I guess, but that does rather depend on what falls under *produce*. Does it exclude building 'em, running 'em and decomissioning them? These factors apply to wind farms too, and any comparisons of enviROI should compare apples with apples, surely.

Also, though addressed in part above...

'Despite technical advances, digging a hole is still the only way to get rid of spent fuel rods'

And.... the powers that has been (that's deliberate), are and will be have shown themselves sooooo competent in overseeing stuff like this right? At least, as long as the lobbyist's cheque clears, the targets are met or the bonus lasts through retirement nowhere near where one of these things is.

I still recall Space 1999.

I can see that we're in a lesser of evils situation as 'we' are not about to stop needing/wanting energy, but let's not gild the lily too much.

Telegraph - Can we all stop whingeing about nuclear waste now? - Well the original sets out its stall. Sadly, the comments didn't really light the debate. More a gentle glow, if I can put it that way.

BBC - New nuclear site options unveiled - There goes the neighbourhood. How far is S. Gloucs from Ross on Wye? am I NIMBY if I object? Wonder how many in Doncaster North?

Times - NEW - Briefing: Nuclear energy

INFORMATION

Nuclear Decommissioning Agency -

*There are several archived posts just flagged 'Nuclear', so check them out, too until I consolidate

Mini Nuclear Plants...

..... look to be just around the corner; they are even taking advance orders already! No bigger than a large hot tub, and creating enough power to support up to 20,000 homes, the full story is from PhysOrg.

Perhaps in a few years time there will be a matchbox box sized version suitable for generating the power just for one property? The mind boggles!

Eight new nuclear plants to be built

That's the story as told by the Telegraph over the weekend.

I can remember Ol' Golden's pronouncement on the move to use an enhanced nuclear capability as part of the overall plan to reduce the UK's carbon emissions. However, I can also remember the promise that there would be a large public consultation before any plans were agreed and before any building program might commence. Hmmmm, it all rather smacks of a 'done deal' now.

Oh well, at least the cabinet seem to have something practical to do now - "Ministers are to build eight new nuclear power stations across England"

I hope I'm not in the vicinity when the new plants get commissioned!

Numbers games

I am on various forums. One threw up this link on nuclear: Warning over nuclear power sites

Before I knew it I was mouthing off...

'Could'. 'Significantly'?

I started life as a Civil Engineer. The unofficial motto was 'Civ. Eng's do for a shilling what any other idiot can do for a pound'.

I then went into advertising, mostly in Asia. The rule there was 'He who goes over approved estimate may dream fondly of getting any more out of client'.

Two different careers. One common theme. Budgeting ... and, without wishing to end up like the JLF in 'Life of Brian', time management (still boiled down to money).

Now, I never went near money in either. I made... make things. But at every stage of my career I have understood the need, and value of accurate estimates. Working with those who drew 'em up.

There were unforeseeables, inevitably. And that's why we had smart cookies figuring out the contingencies to negotiate the contracts, based on accurate parameters.

What the heck has happened?

From Wembley to the 2012 Olympics, it seems you pluck a number out the sky, halve it to win the contract, and then quadruple it so the lawyer fees look only slightly less in comparison.

When it comes to energy, especially nuclear and renewables, I am at a complete loss. With politics and subsidies and targets and agendas muddying and already murky mix.

Black is white. Green is red. Up is down.

As a consumer I just want things quick, cheap, fast and reliable. If I am so minded, I might now throw some ethics in the mix. Those factors are all a juggle. A unit of 'leccy is not very sexy, so I could care less how it arrives or from whom.

Hence, in opting for my supply, I need to know how much, for how long, how often and how well. With some sense on carbon consequences if I feel in the mood to trade some gr££n for some green. Weighing all the options.

It would be nice to have clear, simple charts showing what is front loaded or back loaded, what is more secure because of investment, or what goes into payback and when for the same reason. So I can asses £/kW over a defined set of periods. And if there is a dirty great big plummet (in supply) or soar (in cost) about when my kids are plugging in my blanket because the systems are going off line (decommissioning or exploding gearboxes), I want that in there too. Because it's not fair on them and dumb for me not to be aware.

Now, why is getting that so hard? Or are the massed voices of lobbyists and activists just drowning out any sane long term information (which just must be out there), at least as far as any media I read seems capable of sharing.

It has come to something that I consider our government at best incompetent (what Minister on 6-month rotation could understand the issues) if not corrupt (what MP is going to do what's right today but get 'em bounced tomorrow?), and our media incapable (are there any qualified science reporters any more?) if not venal (ratings trump all), and hence not to be trusted in helping the public understand what it is facing and arrive at a consensus that it will support to drive through what is best for now... and the future.

Would the gent glowing at the back like to speak

(DEFRA) Government invites communities for 'no commitment' discussions on hosting geological disposal facility* for radioactive waste

I'd love to be a 6' fly sitting cross-legged on a chair, taking notes and multi-tasking on his non-mutated Blackberry at that one!

If only to see who lobs up.

*dump

NEWS/GO3 PR - The trouble with mushrooms.

You know: 'kept in the dark and fed on manure'. Plus another, entirely deliberate allusion.

Via a blog post, but from the FoE.

Now, despite being a bit more involved and trying to stay abreast of 'issues' than some, I don't still know enough about nuclear to have a clear view one way or t'other.

However, I do know when I sense a potentially fast one going down, and that I don't like.

Such as this is too important to let pass, at least not without the whole thing being properly discussed. In fact by my reading much is about getting rid of discussion and/or accountability in the future, which can't be right.

And all they are doing is ask that you write to your MP if you agree (or adjust the template if not fully), which is as free will/democratic process in action as I feel life needs be.

As received, E&EO:

Please write to your MP for a more democratic Planning Bill! [inc: link 2 'theyworkfor you']

Deadline Monday 02.06.2008!

Currently being whisked through Parliament, almost unnoticed by the press,
is one of the most anti-democratic pieces of legislation ever to be
attempted in this country.

If the Planning Bill becomes law, in its current state, opposition to large
projects such as nuclear power stations or new motorways will become far
more difficult. We will effectively lose our right to be heard at hearings.
Opposition will take the form of written evidence only and apart from an
"open floor" session, where the developers need not be present, there will
be no other means to oppose. It seems that we will be very much distanced
from any source of information or any voice loud enough to be heard!

Once a large project has been finalized and executed by an
"Infrastructure Planning Commission", an un-elected body with hitherto
unknown powers, the IPC will be above Acts of Parliament. The IPC is not
even answerable to the relevant ministers!

Friends of the Earth demands that the Bill should:

a.. Take climate change into account
b.. Ensure that the General Public have a right to be heard at enquiries
c.. That Ministers remain accountable for decisions

There is very little time left, as this Bill is at the report stage, and is
to be debated in the Commons on the 2nd June 2008.

Please spare a few minutes and go to this link below:

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/local/planning/news/planning_bill.html

If you are in agreement with the contents of the template letter, then
please send it to your MP. We would also be very grateful if you could
forward this email on to friends and colleagues.

Quote of the day - The real issue is jobs, boys... Fore!

I hope he won't mind. From a poster called Bob on an eco-forum I frequent, when sharing a link:

Speech made by John Hutton, Unite Conference, BAFTA, London, 26 March 2008

'Shows how the government is selling new nuclear power - not as a necessary addition to our energy supply, but as a b***dy great gravy train for the engineering industry and selected parts of academia. If they are not subsidising the industry, where is all the money for new Chairs, National Skills Academy coming from? '

It's also inspired a new label/acronym/category: JOBS4BOYS

Nuclear power!

That's the only realistic way forward according to this most surprising of sources, The Guardian.

The piece is quite well argued and I find it difficult to disagree with the author. But, I'm staggered to see that it's in The Guardian, a bastion of the anti-nuclear lobby! It's a good job that it is not on CIF, there would be the most horrendous set of ranting posts building up already!

Perhaps, in Bob Dylan's words, 'the times, they are a-changing'?

Brown lighting

It's what I think you get when you mix red and green. it's the colour of fudge. Nuclear plan puts Brown's green image in spotlight

And again I find myself with some small sympathy for the dilemma he faces. Well, as far as being between a rock and a hard place, but that's why he is in the job he coveted. Frankly I'd have more respect if he just turned round and said 'Look, you can't have it all, I'm going this way' rather than trying to be all things to all people but ending up a nothing to no one.

And yes, I heard him 'Speaking on the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, where he said: "This is a year of very big choices for the British society and for Britain as a whole. It's about equipping ourselves for the future; a year of big long-term decisions. I will be judged by whether I get these right."' And nowt there says anything of substance.

I leave the conclusion to one of his own MPs: "The tragedy of Gordon Brown is the only big decisions he appears capable of taking are the wrong ones."

'No nuclear power station has ever been built without substantial subsidies'

What would I give for a simp.. well at least clear chart outlining the ROI and enviROI of the various energy options we are being presented with.

Be it ring-fencing us with windmills, sticking a nuke in the back-garden or firing up a coal-fired without a CO2 scrubber I'd just like to see where the money is coming from, who it is going to, for what and for how long to deliver what to my socket.

And then I'd like to see what the consequences to my kids' futures are of these from the minute a spade goes into the ground (or, more like, more gets blown on pre-consultancy than the project) to the moment they are decommissioned, including all maintenance consequences.

It surely should not be that hard?

Guardian - Which would you rather subsidise? - in the world of some media I rather have a sense of wishing something to be, rather than reporting on what is.

And another - Don't make us nuke - some media are now rather devalued by being a tad exclusive in their discussions, I fear. I'd say they were preaching to a converted flock, but having read some thread replies maybe not.

What is obvious is that the Guardian quoting BBC links and vice versa is not making for a great debate, or very credible these days as any kind of objective justification.

Saints preserve us

Geldof: 'help the planet ... go nuclear'

Plus some other fun stuff. You gotta love him... sometimes.

Times - British cities shun London’s wasteful car tax

Bless. A scheme designed more to pour money into civil service pockets and pensions than any actual benefit to person or planet. Whodathunk?

I rather enjoyed St. Bob Geldof's views on it all recently. Un-PC to the last, this multi-millionaire only bought a hybrid to drive all day and dodge the charge.

Nice one Ken, and all those well paid munchkins in the TFL.

Don't mention mushrooms

I would repeat the joke, but it involves where one is kept and what you are fed. So,here's a chance to not just find out, but take part: Have your say in the future of nuclear power.

So there's no excuse. Well, if you can fit it in during your free time, unpaid, wading through etc. But that's democracy, civic pride, etc. I won't be, as there's only so much I can handle, and waste is my bag, but I thought I'd share as this blog does have a watching brief on the whole nuclear thing and more than a few are interested.

At least I have now found yet another entity I'd never heard of before: The Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Which is, I presume, well stocked with those who are on salaries and have pots of time to sift all they are handed. Shame there cannot be more incentive to those who could offer much to be rewarded for their contributions. As opposed to getting the same old form the lobbyists and activists who usually get to dominate.

A copy of the report is available in all sorts of options, but none that I can see which glow in the dark.

Nuclear will produce as much CO2 as fossil fuel plants

This argument, as we have pointed out many times already on this very blog, will run and run.

In an admittedly fairly lengthy video clip from E&ENews On-Point show, Nuclear Policy Research Institute founder Helen Caldicott discusses her new book, and makes a claim that as uranium ore gets scarcer then the equivalent CO2 output of a nuclear plant will increase and eventually equate to the CO2 output of a fossil fuel plant.

At one point she claims that "the nuclear industry lies"! She also claims that terrorists could very easily cause a nuclear plant meltdown!

So what many of us viewed as a stop-gap technology is perhaps as nasty at CO2 emission as fossil fuel power plants?

Now I'm confused even more!

No We Don't Need Nuclear Power!

Oh yes we do! Oh no we don't!

Remember our much discussed post on nuclear power generation development and the problems of disposing of nuclear waste?

Well, a response from emeritus professor Keith Barnham appears in today's Guardian. He argues that we just don't need nuclear power at all, and proposes that solar, especially, and wind technology, will rapidly make the suggested expansion of nuclear power generation facilities a non-starter.

The usual clutch of comment posters have already been busy, most falling in to diametrically opposing camps, as usual, but there are some very interesting comments, facts (well, some, maybe, and some a bit questionable....ish) and figures quoted.

Interestingly, there are a few posters who, (maybe with some justification?), question the veracity of an author who is a founder of a solar panel development business.

Me? Well, I'm still confused. I still harbor doubts that 'renewables' technology can develop fast enough to fill the gap that carbon based power generation will surely hit in the future. And I still believe that storing nasty nuclear waste for when future generations can dispose of it safely and securely with a workable industrial scale transmutation technology is not really the correct thing to do.

As ever, there seem to be more questions than answers; and more 'facts'(?) flying about than you can shake a stick at. I'm open to persuasion either for or against nuclear, especially as it does seem to offer the most obvious stop-gap solution. But I think I'll stay sitting on the fence for now.

Anybody want to persuade me to drop down one side or the other?

Addendum:
Well, interestingly, despite Italy banning nuclear power station construction years ago, some at The Vatican do seem to be in favour of nuclear power! Plus they intend to become the planet's first carbon neutral sovereign state! See article from USA Today. Pity that it appears that most of this is to be achieved via offsetting.
____________________

Have your say on the future of nuclear power.

The government has launched a public consultation on the future use of nuclear power generation in a 'low carbon UK economy'.

Anyone in the UK can contribute, all you have to do is register. See Nuclear Consultation for full details.

They claim that "Your views will contribute to the shaping of the policy on the future of civil nuclear power".

Well, as they say, time will tell; this government's track record on listening isn't exactly one to be proud of.

Nuclear waste not a problem?

I always find this sort of article fascinating. From The Guardian Comment, the writer suggests that the development of additional nuclear power capability is crucial in the fight against global warming. OK ........ I think I can follow the basic logic of that argument.

But, and its a BIG but, we get the same old argument about how to dispose of, store, throw away the inevitable nasty stuff that's left over.

"When we need to deal with the leftovers, we'll have the technology."

Errrrm, go on, prove it to me then. And while you're at it, just what is the EnviROI of storing stuff for decades while scientists play around with ideas on how to dispose of it properly, pray?

Although I still believe that nuclear will inevitably have to be part of the mix in terms of future power generation, I'm sorry, but that sort of argument about disposal of the horrendous waste that spent nuclear fuel represents is just not acceptable.

The article suggests several disposal methods that are in the research stage including some that actually make the waste safe (or, at least, a lot safer), but most of these ideas have been around for some 40+ years now, and yet there is still no safe way of dealing with the spent fuel.

The article is entitled: -

"Nuclear waste is hardly a worry when the climate change threat is so urgent"

Sorry, but even measured against the worry that climate change induces in many of us, it IS a major worry to anyone concerned about the environment of this little lump of planetary rock.

ADDENDUM - Junkk Male to CiF site

I must share the compliment offered to what has mostly been a civilised and highly informative series of exchanges.

Just one thing.

If we are to squirt the stuff elsewhere rather than doing without or dealing with it (a human trait), can we wait until the tehcnological solutions that have so far resulted in our current extra-orbital attempts scrape to a slighly more reassuring succcess rate.

Oh, and please make it over someone else's head, not in a jet-stream, etc.

Ta very much.

The convenient solution?

A clever title for an interesting short film (10mins) from Greenpeace promoting investment in renewables and CHP schemes above the development of any further nuclear power generation capabilites.

Some quite interesting facts & figures appear, not least of which is the scale of government funding in renewables R&D compared to the funding going into existing nuclear waste clean up! A bit of a gobsmacker!

So is it the convenient solution? Well, watch the video and make up your own mind.

My major concern is more, how shall I put it .... the 'inconvenient unkown'; as in, do we actually have the time to develop and deploy large scale new renewable schemes based on things like wave and tidal power, technologies which, as yet, are still very much in their infancy?

Think tank says nuclear is not viable option

There are many of us who have always assumed that the nuclear power generation option was the reliable, if not necessarily the most pleasant or desirable, backstop; perhaps giving mankind a few more decades leeway in order to develop more efficient and cost effective renewable energy power generation options.

It looks as if we will have to think again. This report via Reuters suggests that the planet cannot afford it, in terms of cost, logistics, or of security.

" ... if it [nuclear] was to play a significant part in curbing carbon emissions, nuclear power would have to provide one-third of electricity by 2075. That .... meant building four new nuclear plants a month, every month, globally for the next 70 years."

One of the report's conclusions is:- "Unless it can be demonstrated with certainty that nuclear power can make a major contribution to global CO2 mitigation, nuclear power should be taken out of the mix"

Back to the "Arks 'R Us" drawing board then .......

Now is the nuclear winter of my discontent

Just when you though you had had enough of all the Lovelocks, another comes along.

Go nuclear, save the planet... buy the book (that last bit was mine)

I have been erring on agreeing with Mr. Lovelock's analysis of late,
whilst wishing that such contentious, though sincerely meant as
thought-provoking, opinion pieces did not seem to always end with
"The book/TV series/movie is out now, priced £/$x, and the author
is on a tour of the planet to promote it now... but probably not on his
bike"

However, the value of blog post from those who care and know stuff
is clearly evidenced here.