Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Interesting after the great give away of the Royal Mail that Dave has announced a single new nuclear power station.


After we gave away British Gas and before we gave away CEGB, we had the vestiges of a national energy policy where profits (bearing in mind cheap coal) were kept by the State.


Thatch (RIP) was very pro nuke power (in part because she hated the miners and the nukes had helped keep the lights on during the miners' strike) and announced a new power station, based on Sizewell B, every year. Approval was given to an earlier Hinkley Point C in Sept 1990. By that time Thatch had done an about turn and decided that we would burn all of our gas instead, prior to this natural gas was not a fuel of choice for power genenertation. And boy are we paying for it now (it is not a free market you plonkers, it is driven by OPEC, Russian gangsters, and cold US winters).



Over 23 years later permission was given for a new HPC. In those 23 years a whole generation of UK nuclear engineers has not been replaced, together with the capability to build new plant. 23 years ago the UK still had one of the most advanced nuclear R&D capabilities, fuel fabrication and fuel processing. And earned zillions of yen. How ironic that the far East is now building the new power station for a French state electricity generator.


OK so post Thatch governments didn't help, the world turned away from nuclear energy etc etc. And that dick Andrew Neal (joined in by his side kicks) slagged off the nuke industry with no real knowledge of the subject. Yep loads of mistakes were made with a UK nuclear power programme that was linked to production of weapons, and couldn't decide on a unified reactor design. But we were ahead of the world in so many respects (similarly telecomms). Not just rose tinted specs.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/37660-nuclear-power-nein-danke/
Share on other sites

malumbu - you're right in that politicians took an anti-nuclear stance but this is because nuclear usually = no votes. So you're not going to go for the unpopular option in politics if you want to get elected.


I don't think Thatcher was pro-nuclear simply because she 'hated the miners' though, she was a scientist and there were plenty of influential scientists in government with a great understanding the technology, e.g. for one, Sir David King, former Govt Chief Scientist was/is pro-nuclear.

The problem with people who do this on idealism is that they seem to think that buy just wishing it so it will be true. Renewables are absolutely, absolutely Miles away from creating enough energy for a 21st century economy. The left largely seems to want to take us back to the Stone Age, interestingly at the same time they keep banging on how we need a manufacturing renaissance (try doing that with an energy supply that.s breaking down) nuclear expensive and Fracking (potentially, note SJ) cheaper and less damaging than other carbon sources are the most realistic options, but no, not allowed them so we get idiots who think we can run our economy on wind farms and some tidal barriers: meanwhile carbon offsets give governments revenues (used on green technology development? Behave) are hedged by companies and poor old mug punter consumers get extortionate energy bills, how the US et all must be laughing at us as we burden our industries and people with additional expense for bogus token green efforts. Hampering companies with no control on their prices is really going to help future investment, are going broke states going to step in with tax payers money? All politics no sense because people don,t bother thinking about it just, what's the 'right' position here, fooking idiocy.

I used to transport a small nuclear reactor around with me that was capable of generating quote "enough power to support a small town". As a full nuclear submarine costs, roughly, ?1bn the reactor costs about ?500m. The expertise resides in UK - mostly at Rolls Royce Associates in Derby. The units would take little more room than a decent sized detached house.


The ?16bn Hinckly Point spend could fund 32 smaller units that could be churned out by RRA on an industrial scale pretty quickly. Would also create a second career for a bunch of my mates from the submarine world.


PS: Not sure why there was any need to reference Mrs Thatcher in this discussion - she's dead.

  • 6 years later...

Salsaboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nuclear power - only way to go in my view.



Windpower's alright though, isn't it? I know Dogger Bank's a sitting duck for offshore but given we're surrounded by sea may as well make the best of all of it that we can. Not a big fan of nuke even if the waste is apparently very low risk if properly stored (for a very long time - even when humans might not be around anymore). Those sites better be properly signposted for a million years. I don't much like nuclear plants anyway, windmills are much nicer!

Clearly Johnson speech is a load of drivel. Not because wind power isn?t doable (I?m a wind power supporter) - it?s just he and his government havent got the attention or actual interest in doing it


And I didn?t revive this thread to discuss nuclear. It was just the one I remembered arguing about wind power in. And how weird it is that it was all warnings about miliband and labour that would lead us down a bad path

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
    • Exactly - a snap election will make things even worse. Jazzer - say you get a 'new' administration tomorrow, you're still left with the same treasury, the same civil servants, the same OBR, the same think-tanks and advisors (many labour advisors are cross-party, Gauke for eg). The options are the same, no matter who's in power. Labour hasn't even changed the Tories' fiscal rules - the parties are virtually economically aligned these days.  But Reeves made a mistake in trying too hard, too early to make some seismic changes in her first budget as a big 'we're here and we're going to fix this mess, Labour to the rescue' kind of thing . They shone such a big light on the black hole that their only option was to try to fix it overnight. It was a comms clusterfuck.  They'd perhaps have done better sticking to Sunak's quiet, cautious approach, but they knew the gullible public was expecting an 24-hour turnaround miracle.  The NIC hikes are a disaster, I think they'll be reversed soon and enough and they'll keep trying till they find something that sticks.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...