« Most unpopular ever. | Main | Break-out of thinking »

September 13, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nursing pajamas

What?...Hutton has succeeded in cloning himself?..really?..I don't know...i don't have any idea about it.


You know that Hutton has succeeded in cloning himself, don't you?

anon e mouse

"Mr Hutton will be appointed to nuclear power company EDF’s Stakeholder Advisory Panel"

Is that the same EDF that G Brown's brother works for - as Head of Media relations?


The government seem to spend the vast majority of time wasting our taxes and beating down the population with the prohibition hammer. Whilst breaking communities and trust apart by advising the police to tell neighbours to spy on each other. Better known as grassing, and lets be honest, no-one likes a grass.

The guardian, yet again, comes up trumphs, thats around the 10th article in just under 2 weeks they have published alone the same lines. Yet every other paper ignores it.

As for our energy needs why not harvest the power of hemp and use that as a renewable clean resource for automobiles. Not to mention the other 50,000+ uses.

Just a quick mention Paul, hope you had chance to read "The future of cannabis use in Wales" which you hopefully recieved from Norris Nuvo, part written by myself. Its a good insite in to how things could be. Let me know if you didn't receive a copy, if not i will send one your way.



It's time for a U-turn on drugs

UK drug policy is a spectacular failure. Decriminalisation is the only way forward appeared in todays Guardian on similair lines to the one in the Oberver


Dave B

If I were a cynic I might believe that when Ministers make decisions these are based on their future career development plans rather than the good of the British people

Paul Flynn

It is the same contract that will cost eventually £93 bn or more when all the bills are paid. Here is a recent news report. I raise this many times in the past:

Taxpayers could be forced to provide commercial insurance cover to the nuclear industry to safeguard plans being considered by ministers to build a fleet of new reactors in Britain.
Private insurers are refusing to offer energy companies full coverage against the risk of a Chernobyl-style nuclear accident, forcing the Government to consider stepping in itself to act as an “insurer of last resort”.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change confirmed that PricewaterhouseCoopers, the audit firm, had been appointed to draw up recommendations setting out how the Government could do this.
Simon Hobday, a lawyer for Pinsent Masons specialising in the nuclear industry, said that the situation had arisen because of rules contained in an international agreement signed by the UK in 2004. These will force operators of nuclear power plants to broaden the type of insurance cover they have in place against the threat of a nuclear leak.
The new rules, which were originally due to take effect in 2006 but have been repeatedly delayed, have far-reaching implications for the industry and have led to fresh uncertainty over the cost of building and operating new reactors, Mr Hobday said.
The operators of Britain’s eight existing nuclear power stations are obliged by law to have insurance cover against the risk of a nuclear accident worth up to £140 million per site.
This must cover any claim for loss of life, personal injury and damage to or loss of property for up to ten years from the date an incident takes place.But under the new rules, the requirements will become far stricter — and more costly. Energy companies will have to increase the amount of cover they have in place, to €700 million (£620 million) per site, while the time frame for claims will be extended from ten to 30 years.
New types of cover will also be required, including protection against “economic losses” resulting from an accident, damage to the environment, and loss of use and enjoyment of the environment, as well as the cost of preventing contamination of new areas.
However, the insurance industry is balking at the new rules, which it says are poorly defined and run for too long a time frame.
Mark Tetley, managing director of Nuclear Risk Insurers, said that commercial insurers were reluctant to offer all of the new cover and that the industry was concerned that a vague definition of terms such as “nuclear damage” and “environmental impairment” left it exposed to the threat of costly future litigation.
The situation has forced the Government to consider providing billions of pounds worth of commercial insurance cover itself. In recent months, Whitehall officials have been in talks with the insurance industry and a full public consultation will be held next year, a spokeswoman said.
If approved, the plan would mean taxpayers would underwrite some of the insurance cover for Britain’s operational nuclear stations as well as any new reactors that are built. One industry source said the total cover could be worth several billion pounds.
Mr Hobday, of Pinsent Masons, said: “Anything like this that increases uncertainty makes it more difficult for nuclear developers to understand the cost of new plants.”
Simon Carroll, one of six members of the Nuclear Liabilities Financing Assurance Board, an organisation that provides independent advice to the Government on nuclear safety issues, said: “The insurance companies are not happy with all of the types of damage that are being discussed or the timescales


I guess it wasn't, as far as I can identify that was a £22bn contract with an American led company to clean up Sellafield with of course us taking on the risk of any accidents they might have. Sorry about that confusion.


Paul was this £13bn contract the one the government bypassed parliament on entering into?

The comments to this entry are closed.