« Government IT Rip-off | Main | Quick fix »

July 28, 2011

Comments

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

robert

Wind, water, gas, Pembroke Power station was built in the 1960's and never ever really got to work due to the price of Oil, now we are building a New Pembroke Power station which will use gas, if that goes up in price then what moth balled again.

Wind turbines which New labour or Browns labour ended up being built by a German company and put up by a Dutch company because Brown felt we in the UK could not do anymore, will benefit just a few.

We really do have to look, we are told wave technology would be great if we knew it would work the 25 billion for the one in Wales on the severn was way to risky without knowing the full risk, yes it may have worked and the whole severn be changed

Paul Flynn

The futility and waste of MOX was clearly forecast by Greenpeace and many others, rwendland. I remember the parliamentary debates and the questions that were never answered,

rwendland

The Guardian is reporting that the Sellafield MOX plant will close. Official announcement today at 2:30. Japan was the major customer, and post-Fukushima shutdowns seems to have been the final killer blow. The plant basically never worked anyway - we had to sub-contract orders to France.

Time to break out some fake-Champagne tonight! (aka the rather nice Lidl Perry)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/03/sellafield-mox-plant-close

THORP next.

D.G.

"Wind is useless - unless we all agree to only use electricity when the wind is blowing, it will never be a major contributor to our energy needs"

There must be a hundred engineering solutions to this "problem". For example, we could use surplus windpower in off-peak times to feed into a pumped-storage hydro-electric system that could be used when the wind stops blowing.

"There are obvious dangers with nuclear power generation"

Not obvious enough, apparently. Nuclear power has only been going for ~50 years and produces a tiny percentage of power globally, yet it's already rendered two areas of the planet uninhabitable for who-knows-how-long. The consequences when it goes wrong, as we have seen, are unpredictable in scale and completely unmanageable. If there were no alternatives, then it *might* be a risk worth taking, like crossing the road every day. But since there are alternatives, it seems illogical to mess around with it.

Paul Flynn

Our increase is largely due to the planned expensive new nukes that will be built, unless we stop it, by the French company EDF.

K D

Windmills may generate for 80% of the time but a recent survey indicated that for half of that time the recovery rate was less than 20% of installed capacity and as low as 10% of installed capacity for about a third of the time that would certainly not be the case for a nuclear power station.
I also understand that electricity cost to the consumer in France is one of the lowest in Europe.They have increased cost to consumer by 3% this year while our increase is in excess of !0%.
There are obvious dangers with nuclear power generation but the tidal wave in Japan resulted in an estimated 25,000 deaths by drowning while I do not think any deaths have yet been reported directly by radiation.These statistics would indicate the Japanese should consider an exclusion zone for properties being built close to the coast a great priority than worrying about their power stations.

Paul Flynn

Typos are no problem. Swallowing a whole barrow-full of propaganda is worse.

No mention of the near infinite supply of tidal and wave power - especially in Wales. Government statistics = Windmills generate for 80% of the time ; nukes generate for 80% of the time. Only 19 of Japanese 54 reactors are now working. By 2012 it is likely to be none in the words of a Japanese expert at a Conference in the Commons in June.

New nukes are in Finland : 3 years late and £2 billion over budget and in France 2 years late and half a £billion over budget.

Who has been feeding you this nonsense?

Siôn Jones

Erratum - for 'breakdown' above, read 'meltdown'.

Sorry for the other typos as well - I thought I clicked 'preview', but never mind.

Siôn Jones

I can't see any alternative to Nuclear. Coal produces far more radioactive waste, and results in far more deaths in a year than Nuclear ever would, and that is before we count the effects of the carbon emissions on global warming.

Gas is a little better, but is still environmentally damaging.

Wind is useless - unless we all agree to only use electricity when the wind is blowing, it will never be a major contributor to our energy needs. And it too is highly subsidised by the Renewable Obligation Certificates that cost every consumer a lot of money. Solar is even worse.

Most of the resistance to Nuclear Energy is based on the mistakes that were made in early days, and to a massive program of misinformation promulgated by fanatical lobbies.

Even the Fukushima disaster hasn't killed anybody, yet Germany is closing down its nuclear industry, replacing it with goals which will kill thousands every year.

And what you don't hear is that there were two nuclear gererating plants at fukuchima - fukushima Dai-ichi which casued the problems. It exploded and went into partial breakdown. And Fukushima Dai-Ni, which was hit by the same tsunami, and earthquake, closed down safely, and is now back in production (as were oand did 5 other japanese nuclear installations). The difference? Dai-ichi was deployed in the early 70s, and the rest in the 80s, to vastly improved designs.

Modern designs are even better - and the great news is that LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) not only burn Thorium, safely (failsafe) but they can also burn nuclear existing nuclear waste, ridding us of another problem.

We have thorium reserves in south Wales.

China and India are putting big money into developing this technology - and we should be as well, in my opinion. Better than spending it on Trident.

PS Thorium reactors does not produce bi products that can be used to produce nuclear weapons, which is why western Governments have preferred the far less efficient Uranium technology, and stopped funding Thorium research in the 50s.

Paul Flynn

The reason why prices are going up is because of the ludicrously expensive costs of nuclear. Like all other nuclear plans these costs will double as they have in France and Finland and they will be years late. By 2012 in Japan probably none of their 54 nukes will be generating. It's down to 19 now. Another nuclear disaster anywhere in the world could leave Britain with half built reactors and a shortage of electricity.

tracey

i think your constituents are more interested in politicians correcting the calamity of privatising the electricity,water and gas services.

these companies are making billions fleecing their customers and putting more and more people into fuel poverty.

the watch dogs and politicians are either helpless or couldnt care of our dilema.

shareholders and bonuses are all these companies are interested in.

bring back nationalisation.

where are the cheaper prices,choice and better services we were promised.

you know when it comes to big decisions like "the future supply of our energy"
it will always be the short sited,cheap option.
rather than whats best for the country,safer,greener and sustainable.

just like the wind turbines.
did they dig under the ground and hide the cables or just erect large pylons that were a cheaper option.

there excuse it would cost the customer more.[rubbish]
it always costs us more even though their profits rise year on year.

The comments to this entry are closed.