PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

HSE Iterim Report: no concerns for UK nuclear industry
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 4:17 pm    Post subject: HSE Iterim Report: no concerns for UK nuclear industry Reply with quote

The UK’s current nuclear safety measures are adequate, concludes the interim report from the country’s chief nuclear inspector in the wake of the Japanese nuclear crisis at Fukushima.

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne presented inspector Mike Weightman’s initial findings to Parliament yesterday, pending a full report in September.

Weightman’s report concludes that the UK has a strong safety culture and immediate safety improvements to the country’s operating reactors are not necessary.

The UK does not use the same reactor types as Japan – and does not plan to in future – and nor is the country expecting any natural events as extreme as those that beset Japan.

Despite the proposed siting of new nuclear facilities in coastal regions, Weightman’s report says that flooding risks do not need to change this strategy.

“Safety is and will continue to be the number one priority. I am pleased that [this] report confirms that the UK’s current safety arrangements are working,” said Huhne.

The Energy Secretary went on to say that the interim report provides the Government with the basis to move ahead with new nuclear build in the UK.

“We want to see new nuclear as part of a low carbon energy mix going forward, provided there is no public subsidy. The Chief Nuclear Inspector’s interim report reassures me that it can,” he said.

http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/policy/i/4107/

http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/fukushima/interim-report.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 4:35 pm    Post subject: Re: HSE Iterim Report: no concerns for UK nuclear industry Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
The UK’s current nuclear safety measures are adequate, concludes the interim report from the country’s chief nuclear inspector in the wake of the Japanese nuclear crisis at Fukushima.

That's good to know, but however good the technology and the people running it are, nothing humans create is infallible. However remote the risk, if something goes wrong it could cost huge amounts of money, and disrupt the lives of thousands (or even millions) of people. There are few, if any, other technologies that, apart from in war, have the potential to cause such major disruption.
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
provided there is no public subsidy

Well we're in the clear in that case, because there is:
Top-up of insurance
Carbon price floor
Free security in times of need (a.k.a. HM Forces)
...and some nicely opaque finances at BNFL, which we shall probably never get to the bottom of.

A man from the HSE tells me that, although they do a lot of (expensive) work for the nuclear industry, they get 97% of the costs reimbursed. I didn't have to have the decency to tell you that.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
BLOG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I entirely agree Candie. No public subsidy should be available. And the same should apply to renewables. Take them all off. I'm 100 % with you on this.

But this is great news, isn't it!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I take the long view. If subsidies make my electricity a bit more expensive, that's a small price to pay for the prospect of having ANY affordable electricity in the future.

At least the extent of today's subsidies for renewables are easily known. Those for nuclear, on the other hand, are incalculable. Partly due to the culture of secrecy within the industry, but mainly because they're costs incurred in the future...that strange land where James Lovelock et al will never have to go.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
BLOG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
At least the extent of today's subsidies for renewables are easily known.


Do you really think so?

    Grants to windmill fabrication factories,
    grants for build of new windfarms,
    overt subsidies for production (ROCs, LECs),
    subsidized free transmission from the remotest parts of Scotland (even the offshore islands),
    free provision of backup capacity to cover intermittancy,
    free coverage for lack of provision of response and reserve, and
    on and on and on.

It's difficult to estimate what some of these subsidies come to in terms of 'what does UK PLC pay' for something like wind. But for offshore wind, the final bill (inc. capital costs which are obviously recovered from the public) we're looking at something like >£200/MWh. As the market value for non-despatchable generation is about £50/MWh, just how much 'easily known' subsidy are you prepared to tolerate?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:
At least the extent of today's subsidies for renewables are easily known.


Do you really think so?

    Grants to windmill fabrication factories,
    grants for build of new windfarms,
    overt subsidies for production (ROCs, LECs),
    subsidized free transmission from the remotest parts of Scotland (even the offshore islands),
    free provision of backup capacity to cover intermittancy,
    free coverage for lack of provision of response and reserve, and
    on and on and on.

It's difficult to estimate what some of these subsidies come to in terms of 'what does UK PLC pay' for something like wind. But for offshore wind, the final bill (inc. capital costs which are obviously recovered from the public) we're looking at something like >£200/MWh. As the market value for non-despatchable generation is about £50/MWh, just how much 'easily known' subsidy are you prepared to tolerate?

Well, you obviously know them, so I rest my case.
There are of course equivalents of all these for nuclear, plus the unknowable costs of future security, and disposal.
But to be fair bog-standard ff-based power has its own subsidies too.
And, erm, windmills grind grain.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
BLOG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
And, erm, windmills grind grain.

Wind pump:


Wind turbine:


Windmill:

_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7636

PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
And, erm, windmills grind grain.

When someone says 'windmills' when they are talking about turbines, it just identifies an ignorant argument or an ideological one. In my opinion, AIC has demonstrated an ideological opposition to renewables.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Windmills can be dangerous though. Has anyone seen what happened to Will Hay and his friends in the film Oh Mister Porter? Laughing
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:
And, erm, windmills grind grain.

When someone says 'windmills' when they are talking about turbines, it just identifies an ignorant argument or an ideological one. In my opinion, AIC has demonstrated an ideological opposition to renewables.


No, that's a false argument; I've done nothing of the kind.

I do, for example, support large hydro. Apparently, for ideological reasons, many of you on this forum don't.

I have expressed support for the Severn Barrage scheme, and even a Thames Barrage.

I support heat pumps - again not supported on this forum.

What I have demonstrated is a rational, economic opposition to renewables where they are clearly uneconomic and heavily subsidized, silly windmills and solar PV included.

E.g.: Uneconomic Palm Spring Windmill
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/North_America/United_States/West/California/Palm_Springs/photo494793.htm

Uneconomic PV panels:


More uneconomic PV panels
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
silly windmills
presumably they're the sort that grind silly grain.

Solar PV is being subsidised at the moment with a view to bringing the price down for the future (remember "the future"?), and from what I've seen locally, this is beginning to happen. The subsidies (from next year) are beginning to tail off accordingly.

Jury's still out about Hydro chez Renewable: it's a matter of whether or not too much methane is produced when flooded vegetation rots. Apparently it's better at higher latitudes than lower...so I'm not always anti-large-hydro.

And heat pumps, whatever their other benefits or drawbacks, are not, strictly speaking, a form of renewable energy. I've got nowt against them either, but I do have doubts about their performance irl similar to those of aic's about wind turbines...with the very-obvious difference that the performance of WTs has been comprehensively documented.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
BLOG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
In my opinion, AIC has demonstrated an ideological opposition to ...
pretty much anything that's sensible or true, but that is the role of the troll. By the way, my 'uneconomic' solar panel looks set to easily exceed it's projected 9% return on capital in the first year of operation, thanks of course to the government decreed transfer payment from other electricity consumers to me via the FiT. But that's to take the narrow view of economics and not include the externalised cost of a wrecked planet owing to fossil fuel burning, an externality unacknowledged by AGW deniers.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
clv101 wrote:
In my opinion, AIC has demonstrated an ideological opposition to ...
pretty much anything that's sensible or true, but that is the role of the troll.
Why do they do it?? Apart from LATOC (where I bailed out when it became just too ridiculous) I've not had any other experience of internet forums, so not really enough samples from which to see a pattern emerging.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
BLOG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
Solar PV is being subsidised at the moment with a view to bringing the price down for the future (remember "the future"?), and from what I've seen locally, this is beginning to happen. The subsidies (from next year) are beginning to tail off accordingly.
Oh really? To the tune of 10 times the current market price? Well, for that let's have one of your local examples.


RenewableCandy wrote:
Jury's still out about Hydro chez Renewable: it's a matter of whether or not too much methane is produced when flooded vegetation rots. Apparently it's better at higher latitudes than lower...so I'm not always anti-large-hydro.

Oh really? Now you're considered a bit of a smartie about this forum. Astrophysics, and nuclear physics and all. Now, I know it's not strictly your field, but you must be familiar with the basics of molecular science, so: would you care to make an estimate of the trapped methane from submerged vegetation under the area of reservoir, spread over, say, 100 years of reservoir use, as an estimate of the 'pollution' potential of large hydro? It's a simple calculation: acreage, tonnage per acre, carbon content. di dah, . . . Bearing in mind, also, that the decay time of methane in the atmosphere is a few years. Then, of course, you'd have to subtract the methane removed from the reservoir acreage because it has been flooded and has displaced all those nasty sheep and cow thingies shitting, chewing the grass and shitting everywhere during the years while the land's under water.


RenewableCandy wrote:

And heat pumps, whatever their other benefits or drawbacks, are not, strictly speaking, a form of renewable energy.

Oh really? Now where do you think they get the extra energy they deliver to my house from?

The tooth fairy?

No, it's simply solar energy (you know about solar energy?) absorbed into the ground. Last time I looked, that was renewable. Seems to be where I am 'cos last year I had 18 MWh of the stuff and I sure as hell didn't pay for it.





RenewableCandy wrote:
with the very-obvious difference that the performance of windmills have been comprehensively documented.
as crap.

Last edited by An Inspector Calls on Sun May 22, 2011 9:06 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group