Too little, too late

RAENORTH · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:16 pm

The purchase by EDF – 85 percent owned by the French state – of the assets of British Energy for the sum of £12.5 billion is, on the face of it, both worrying and reassuring.

On the one hand, it puts a sizeable proportion of the British nuclear industry in the hands of a foreign – and some would say hostile – power. On the other, it is the only sure means of kick-starting our nuclear programme and replacing some of our ageing nuclear reactors.

View full article here

HarryR · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:14 pm

So I guess Prime Minister Cameron will have a deadline of a year or so to tell the EU that we are not implementing this directive.

RAENORTH · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:26 pm

HarryR wrote:

So I guess Prime Minister Cameron will have a deadline of a year or so to tell the EU that we are not implementing this directive.

Prof Ian Fell thinks he will have to do that ... but the chances of it happening are slender, to say the least. If they do not, and push for carbon capture as well, we are in dire trouble.

HarryR · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:35 pm

How can any PM just sit there while the lights are going out ? It's not as if he's going to have a whole load of spare cash to pour into paying the generators' fines for them.

Solving public perception of CO2 ... I don't know anyone who really strongly believes in Global Warming, but then I try to avoid the company of morons. I keep wondering if all it would take to kill the warmers off entirely would be a change of editorial policy at the BBC. (It will take a year or two to abolish it entirely, so might as well get some use out of it.)

Perhaps a couple of "Great Global Warming Swindle" style documentaries starring McIntyre, Watts, Lindzen & co ... perhaps a televisual fisking of that Ian Stewart garbage ... BBC News not reporting press releases from Friends of the Earth until any source data has been released, and properly examined by someone with at least a science degree ... guess the BBC will need to do some recruiting ...

JO · **Joined:** Mon Aug 01, 2005 7:39 pm **Posts:** 864

I'd juat like to know why:

(a) The handing over of something as important as our Nuclear industry to a foreign government hasn't been debated in Parliament? ..a nd (b) Why it had to be sold in the first place. Is Britain so bereft of the cash and expertise that we're incapable of building those reactors ourselves?
JO

ELF · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:50 pm

Is there any public information on this deal ? Specifically :

What is the ownership position ref. the fuel ? Do EdF own it and take it back to France, or does it get sent to BNFL ?

The timescales that you quote – how much is for public enquiries/approval, how much actual build ? What does “commissioning” mean in this context ?

JO wrote:

Is Britain so bereft of the cash and expertise that we're incapable of building those reactors ourselves?

'Fraid so. The AGR design was abandonded. The last civilian reactor ( Sizewell ) was US technology - Westinghouse PWR. We do have naval nuclear propulsion capablility. What we should be doing ? See my comments on the "and the good news is " thread.

vince62 · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:15 pm

Not wishing to rain on the parade, little has been done by way of safely disposing of the resultant High Level Radioactive Wastes over extremely long periods of time.This issue will be raised by the greenies and they do have a point to do so.We will have to monitor and safeguard these materials for many 1000s of years into the future.

Can we be sure that in our desire to keep the lights on now we are not leaving future generations to pick up the cost of disposal, or even worse having to deal with leakage of these materials back into the environment. Truth is, we cant really answer those questions honestly and it does raise a "moral dimension" to the problem.

FU (Fed Up) · **Joined:** Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:47 pm **Posts:** 4434

The EU will have to eat humble pie, though naturally in a 5 star trough and allow us to keep both the coal and nuke plants working, until the new plants are up and running, Germany will do the same, as will any others in this mess, the harsh reality of simply not being able to afford to do anything else, will trump all that Mellon inspired garbage. This might in fact be the Tories assumption, because the Green Tosser hitched himself so strongly to the Mellon bandwagon, the only out he has now, is to say and do nothing, because the Al-Beeb would shred him and wait till he sees the books etc.

The kind of recession comming our way, is going to flatten dangerous fools like Moonbat and Loonies for Gaia, as we will be fighting a very serious economic mess. Yes they may still prattle on in the Grauniad, assumeing it will still be allowed to live off public sector job Ad's, but fewer and fewer will be listening, as the vast majority will be too busy makeing ends meet. When they do pay attention, they will be acutely aware, that temperatures have not risen and probably fallen, plus none of the dire predictions have come about either and haveing been ripped off and lied to by the bankers, the last thing they will want to be reminded off, is another bunch of very expensive charlatans.

Moonbat may well be so discredited, that he is reduced to wandering up and down Oxford st, with a sandwitch board, proclaiming the End is Nigh......for the rest of his days.

RAENORTH · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:50 pm

vince62 wrote:

Not wishing to rain on the parade, little has been done by way of safely disposing of the resultant High Level Radioactive Wastes over extremely long periods of time.This issue will be raised by the greenies and they do have a point to do so.We will have to monitor and safeguard these materials for many 1000s of years into the future.

Can we be sure that in our desire to keep the lights on now we are not leaving future generations to pick up the cost of disposal, or even worse having to deal with leakage of these materials back into the environment. Truth is, we cant really answer those questions honestly and it does raise a "moral dimension" to the problem.

One way or another, we've managed to look after the Tower of London (or, at least, the White Tower) since it was built in 1078. It is still standing and in remarkably good condition.

In principle, there is no great problem, therefore, in safeguarding nuclear waste properly stored deep repositories for considerable periods of time. The problem that exists is lergely because of the lack of political will in selecting a site and getting on with it.

That notwithstanding, the progressive introduction of high-burn reactors and the use of reprocessing minimises the amount of waste which, in volume terms, is actually very small. It is said that the total amount of high level waste produced from the French nuclear programme occupies an area the size of a basketball court.

FU (Fed Up) · **Joined:** Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:47 pm **Posts:** 4434

Quote:

Not wishing to rain on the parade, little has been done by way of safely disposing of the resultant High Level Radioactive Wastes over extremely long periods of time

There is a perfect site in Brussels, where it all could go, preferably dropped from 30.000 ft, while their in session. The only problem is, is 1000 yrs too short.

vince62 · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:42 pm

Quote:

Re: Too little, too late
by RAENORTH on Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:50 pm

vince62 wrote:
Not wishing to rain on the parade, little has been done by way of safely disposing of the resultant High Level Radioactive Wastes over extremely long periods of time.This issue will be raised by the greenies and they do have a point to do so.We will have to monitor and safeguard these materials for many 1000s of years into the future.

Can we be sure that in our desire to keep the lights on now we are not leaving future generations to pick up the cost of disposal, or even worse having to deal with leakage of these materials back into the environment. Truth is, we cant really answer those questions honestly and it does raise a "moral dimension" to the problem.

One way or another, we've managed to look after the Tower of London (or, at least, the White Tower) since it was built in 1078. It is still standing and in remarkably good condition.

In principle, there is no great problem, therefore, in safeguarding nuclear waste properly stored deep repositories for considerable periods of time. The problem that exists is lergely because of the lack of political will in selecting a site and getting on with it.

That notwithstanding, the progressive introduction of high-burn reactors and the use of reprocessing minimises the amount of waste which, in volume terms, is actually very small. It is said that the total amount of high level waste produced from the French nuclear programme occupies an area the size of a basketball court.

Richard
I doubt future generations will be queuing up to visit the remains of 21st century nuclear waste PDT_Armataz_01_22

Future technology will improve to deal with these materials but it is rather relying on our descendents to cope with a problem for which they wont have a direct benefit.

I cant help feeling that they will not look too generously on us for leaving them our waste,it is hardly a proud face of British Heritage to passdown over many a millenium.Nor would it be ideal if some miscreant gets hold of nuclear weapon material in a ready made mine.

ELF · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:57 pm

vince62 wrote:

little has been done by way of safely disposing of the resultant High Level Radioactive Wastes over extremely long periods of time

Vast amounts of work have been done on this. Extensive modelling of the coupled chemical/thermal and hydrodynamic processes backed up by laboratory measurements using material which by definition is highly active. In other counties, there are demonstration rock laboratories. E.g. Aspo in Sweden, using simulated disposal canisters.

The UK programme seems forever stalled. One reading of the reason is that the choice of the Sellafield location was poor geologically. There was logic in terms of the cost of transport to alternative locations and a nominal additional risk, but all of this would have been commensurate with the transport of fuel to Sellafield. Possibly, it was simply that, in terms of lobbying to government, BNFL was the biggest beast in the nuclear jungle.

Forget terrorists mining the material – this is a very unfeasible route for them to acquire it.

SandyRham · **Joined:** Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am **Posts:** 6700

Quote:

little has been done by way of safely disposing of the resultant High Level Radioactive Wastes over extremely long periods of time

This is because the obvious answer is to drop it down plate subduction zones where one geological plate dives under another. Sadly it is too cheap a method of disposal for any of the gravy-trainers to consider.

rosie · **Joined:** Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:21 am **Posts:** 2193

vince62 wrote:

Richard
I doubt future generations will be queuing up to visit the remains of 21st century nuclear waste PDT_Armataz_01_22

Future technology will improve to deal with these materials but it is rather relying on our descendents to cope with a problem for which they wont have a direct benefit.

I cant help feeling that they will not look too generously on us for leaving them our waste,it is hardly a proud face of British Heritage to passdown over many a millenium.Nor would it be ideal if some miscreant gets hold of nuclear weapon material in a ready made mine.

It'll probably be a toss up whether future generations think nuclear waste is a better option than the corrupt EU :lol:

Grey · **Joined:** Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:36 am **Posts:** 513

SandyRham wrote:

Quote:

little has been done by way of safely disposing of the resultant High Level Radioactive Wastes over extremely long periods of time

This is because the obvious answer is to drop it down plate subduction zones where one geological plate dives under another. Sadly it is too cheap a method of disposal for any of the gravy-trainers to consider.

Would you really want high level nuclear waste being boiled into a gas in the mantle and returning to the surface either to contaminate water or directly released into the air and coming down as fall out? Me Neither, what we really need to do is pick an area with a reactor on site and dig down deep into the bedrock and stick it in a secure bunker at the bottom of a very deep hole, a long term storage structure for all the waste we could ever create would cost about the same amount the government just got from the british energy sale.

Too little, too late

Who is online