Posted By: Ed DaviesIs that acceptable?

I think it is, but I also think in reality that it is a lot lower for a UK based reactor (we have had a couple of mad despots running our country according to some in the last 35 years). We are not building in an earthquake zone (no matter how much fracking goes on). Our designs are newer and safer (unlike Chernobyl). Every year that passes another 437 years worth of operating knowledge is added.
And then if we look at the environmental and human damage that nuclear accidents have caused, have they really been 'disasters' when compared to other sources of energy production?

My biggest worry is the price escalation that I think will happen. Seems that popping a couple of billion onto a price tag is nothing in the nuclear industry. Time will tell on that one, in the mean time we are not adding generation capacity. Hinkley and Sizewell are really only replacements not new capacity. New capacity will have to include new infrastructure, and I think National Grid said that will be £110bn, which is an unimaginable amount of money.

I don't know the answer, other than reduction, but we need to electrify if we are to decarbonise. Maybe we need a 'mad despot' to push energy generation and infrastructure through planning, as I suspect that a lot of the cash is spent on appeals and consultants rather that hardware.

Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes or landslides, though I agree that they do not have to be local.
We had a small one down here a couple of years back, mentioned to my friend that 'the see looked odd'
More details here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunamis_affecting_the_British_Isles

The 21m high one that hit Scotland in 6100BC would probably give us bigger worries, and when that mountainside in Tenerife lets go, well that will be a global game changer.

There are good reasons to build on the coast, there is a plentiful supply of cold water, most population centres are coastal.
I used to live a few miles from a reactor, drove past it many times not knowing what it was, no one mentioned it at all. It was the second most infamous one in the world at the time. Once I found out about it I did not loose any sleep.
Is it really worth basing decisions on the very worse case scenario, do we stop burning timber because our houses may burn down, do we stop using hospitals because we may bet MRSA, send kids to schools because a gunman may kill them? No we don't, and these are greater risks to human life.

And as I said earlier, every year that passes our knowledge base and understanding gets greater. Newer and safer designs come along. Maybe there is a case to decommission the older type reactors faster, and make sure they are up to a higher standard with more redundancy, and the waste issue just has to be dealt with (no room for nimbyism on this one).
There is also the issue of getting new uranium, plenty at the moment, but if the world greatly increases the number of reactors (say 10 fold) then there is a problem. This was documented a few years back in 'Nuclear's dirty little secret'.

Though I still think that £16b can be better spent.

Fracking would, already has in the USA, and then some.

What we need to do is find a method of attracting investment in reducing usage, the easy way to do that is to load energy prices until a renewable source comes out on top.

If you agree with some people that energy prices have really risen 30% in the last 3 or 4 years, and listen to all the political commentators, and believed that fuel poverty is a serious, life threatening reality, should we not be in crisis now?
Or is it really not as bad as some like to think?

And then there is Gordon Browns brother.... no coincidence at at all surely.


Gordon brown’s brother is Head of Corporate Communications at EDF Energy.

Friday, January 11, 2008
http://inquiringminds.cc/gordon-browns-brother-is-head-of-corporate-communications-at-edf-energy

The silence on Andrew Brown explained?

at 1/11/2008 11:21:00 am
It’s been making me wonder over the past few days why there has been absolutely no comment from anyone in the Conservative Party about the fact that Gordon brown’s brother is Head of Corporate Communications at EDF Energy. According to an internal memo sent around EDF his primary role is to “lead the communications agenda in the nuclear project” as well.

The potential for raising the possibility of sleaze, however tenuous it might be is there. This is especially the case when you add in the nuclear and energy lobbying link of Labour donors like Sovereign Strategy and Weber Shadwick. On top of which you have a former Labour Chairman (Iain McCartney) being a paid advisor to a nuclear specialist.

Then this morning I think I discovered why there is so much silence about the pontentially smelly EDF links to Downing Street. Between 2003 and 2005 EDF Energy, 70% owned by the French state, donated a total of £43,000 to the Conservatives and Labour. £31,000 and £12,000 respectively. Hardly going to big up connections if the quick answer is “you’re connected too aren’t you!”

What would £16 billion buy - Answer Two Twitters.

Or enough insulation that we would not need any more power stations, or Twitter for that matter!!

Posted By: Ed DaviesReally, £640/household would buy enough insulation that we wouldn't any need more power stations? Remarkable.

So I was being flippant, but I could do a lot with £640 of insulation!!

Lets hope the 57 people who got the Green Deal grant are felling warmer this winter.

So a new nuclear power station and Twitter are worth £37 billion. So how many homes could we insulate with that?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/02/nuclear-energy-crunch-uranium-peak-blackouts

The study, based on an analysis of global deposit depletion profiles from past and present uranium mining, forecasts a global uranium mining peak of approximately 58 kilotonnes (kton) by 2015, declining gradually to 54 ktons by 2025, after which production would drop more steeply to at most 41 ktons around 2030. The peer-reviewed study, published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, concludes:

"This amount will not be sufficient to fuel the existing and planned nuclear power plants during the next 10–20 years. In fact, we find that it will be difficult to avoid supply shortages even under a slow 1%/ year worldwide nuclear energy phase-out scenario up to 2025. We thus suggest that a worldwide nuclear energy phase-out is in order."

But just last week, in response to dire warnings of power blackouts within two years - the same time uranium production will peak according to this study - the UK government announced £10 billion in financial guarantees to the nuclear power industry. Now Energy Secretary Ed Davey promises, "Prices aren't going to spike: the lights are going to stay on because we've got a very well thought-through plan."

The decision reinforces the government's focus on nuclear power as central to its national energy strategy. According to the government's high-nuclear scenario, nuclear power could provide 86% of the UK's electricity at 75GW of capacity by 2050.