Britain goes nuclear

[Denny Crane!]

BRITAIN will start building new civil nuclear power stations under plans backed by Tony Blair, The Times has learnt.
Less than two years after a government paper called nuclear power an unattractive option, the Prime Minister has become convinced that building nuclear power stations is the only way to secure energy needs and meet obligations to reduce carbon emissions.



In a controversial move, he wants planning procedures to be quickened so that the first stations could be under construction within ten years, far earlier than expected, advisers have told The Times.

After first promising a decision on new stations by the end of this Parliament, then by the end of next year, Mr Blair will face down critics and set up a government review within the next two weeks, asking it to reach conclusions by the early summer.

The stations would be built on existing sites in the hope of reducing public opposition and swifter planning and building procedures. They would involve the latest technology expected to be adopted soon in France and the US.

Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary and the Cabinet’s leading opponent of nuclear power, hinted yesterday that even she would back the move.

In an interview with the BBC’s Politics Show, she said that, although there were many problems with nuclear power, “I’ve always accepted we can’t afford to close the door on nuclear.”

But Mr Blair, who has been given private preliminary studies, believes that all the arguments point to nuclear power and has effectively made up his mind, according to authoritative sources. His decision is a remarkable U-turn.

The review, though headed by a senior figure from the Trade and Industry Department, will report to the Prime Minister and Alan Johnson, the Industry Secretary, and contain members from other departments and, crucially, from the Downing Street strategy unit.

Critics will suspect that membership will be chosen to ensure a different conclusion to the last energy White Paper in 2003.

Britain’s 12 nuclear power stations provide 22 per cent of the electricity. Unless they are replaced there will only be three stations left by 2020.

Studies prepared for Mr Blair by Sir David King, his chief scientific adviser, and other advisers have convinced him that renewable forms of energy, such as wind and wave power, cannot fill the gap.

As coal-fired and nuclear stations close they will have to be replaced by gas-fired electricity stations and Britain will soon become a net gas importer.

Mr Blair’s advisers maintain that the debate should not be seen as a competition between nuclear power and “renewables”, which the Government is committed to boosting.

The nuclear option is unlikely to be opposed by the Conservatives. David Willetts, the Shadow Industry Secretary, said at the party conference: “We must make the case for civil nuclear power to tackle the energy crisis with least damage to the environment.”

A remarkable U Turn for Blair, no surprises from this report though. Before he had commisioned it Blair had stated he was in favour and surprise surprise it found in favour.

Will this solve the energy crisis? No these will only replace reactors being decommisioned so it still leaves a lot of the energy market to be covered to stop us becoming a net importer of gas.

Peter

[Zenith Darksea]

It's also interesting that he's made this decision without waiting for the results of the review of energy sources that he himself asked to be published in the first place. Apparently the review wasn't looking too good for nuclear power...

Well, it's not surprising. Once again Blair shows a total disregard for the long term future. Just as the privatisation of practically everything will land the public purse in huge debt in the future (in fact, we're already feeling the effects of it), so nuclear power will leave us with big clean-up problems and financial troubles. Reactors only have a life span of about forty years, cost vast amounts of money, and are actually not effective in reducing carbon emissions. While the plants themselves use non-fossil fuels, to actually build the plant and mine the uranium uses up so much oil, diesel and so forth that it takes approximately twenty years for the nuclear power plant to actually produce the equivalent amount of energy. Not only that, but consider the long term implications of storing nuclear waste - it lasts for thousands and thousands of years, whereas political institutions rarely last more than a few hundred.

[Denny Crane!]

Very good points we can't even cope with the waste we have and we are talking about creating more in the future plus the waste we will get from decommisioning.

Peter

[hunter260859]

true were is the waste acutally going to go also isnt he contradicting his orginal plan or something i cant really remember

[orange slice]

well the only danger to those is that if one breaks or manfunctions, the people right next to it are screwed

[Hjalmar]

Do any of you have any idea exactly how much energy A Nuclear Reactor can produce for the costs and amount of necessary inputs? Similarly, the output of nuclear waste is extremely low despite this. For the costs as well as the output there is nothing more efficient in the world today. Do you realize the magnitude of construction it would take for renewable resource systems to produce the same amount of power?

Not to mention nuclear power reduces a nation's dependence upon gas, coal, and oil and the like. For some time the French have employed a startling volume of Nuclear power plants with no great catastrophe occuring so far.

[Denny Crane!]

Do any of you have any idea exactly how much energy A Nuclear Reactor can produce for the costs and amount of necessary inputs? Similarly, the output of nuclear waste is extremely low despite this. For the costs as well as the output there is nothing more efficient in the world today. Do you realize the magnitude of construction it would take for renewable resource systems to produce the same amount of power?

Not to mention nuclear power reduces a nation's dependence upon gas, coal, and oil and the like. For some time the French have employed a startling volume of Nuclear power plants with no great catastrophe occuring so far.

Happens to be a subject I am pretty knowledgable about and I would happily contest that in terms of construction, maintenance and decommisioning and waste disposal nuclear reactors are an aging dinosaur and this is one of the worst moves I have come across by Labour so far.

Peter

[RusskiSoldat]

Good to see this turn of events.
Nuclear reactors are very safe and the only major accidents have been in the USSR (and possibly China).

[Sétanta]

Oh well. If it works, great. If not you can shoot him. Or whatever you do over there

[Tom Paine]

Good to see this turn of events.
Nuclear reactors are very safe and the only major accidents have been in the USSR (and possibly China).

Define major... I mean Sellafield (or whatever they're now calling it) is on at least its third name after two very public and pretty serious problems...
But overall its needed. Best source of clean power, unless we can perfect fusion.

[John Wayne]

So long as nobody makes the kind of miscalculation, that will result in the unvoluntary participation in intercourse for millions of individuals-Garb., then you lot shouldn't have to worry about any reactor malfunctions.

[GeneralLee]

It's a better long term solution than reliance on coal, oil, or gas.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's probably the lesser of many evils.

[Zenith Darksea]

And don't forget Three Mile Island in America, which was very nearly a complete catastrophe (and it wasn't exactly fantastic as it was). The safety precautions were fine, but human error nearly made a complete hash of it. But safety implications aside, it is not an efficient source of power. Like I already said, the amount of fossil fuels used up in building the plants and mining the uranium is phenomenal. Nuclear reactors also have to be replaced every forty years, making them even less economical. And if something were to go wrong... However good your safety precautions, there's always the possibility of human error, and we all saw how bad Chernobyl turned out - and in terms of what could go wrong, that wasn't actually as serious as it might have been. Not only that, but there's also the implications for the materials produced by the plants - were terrorists to get their hands on some of the by-products, then they could land us in a pretty difficult situation.

[Brian Boru]

I think its funny how Britain now want to go nuclear but are allied with the US who want to go to war with Iran for doing exactly the same thing?!?!

Before people start saying "but Iran supports terrorism". So have Britain in the past (Loyalist terrorist in N.Ireland).

[removeduser_487563287433]

I think its funny how Britain now want to go nuclear but are allied with the US who want to go to war with Iran for doing exactly the same thing?!?!

Before people start saying "but Iran supports terrorism". So have Britain in the past (Loyalist terrorist in N.Ireland).

Yes! I was waiting for this post, hahahahahahhahahahahahahahaahaha.

Britain has enjoyed nuclear power and weaponry for nearly half a century. And I don't believe that "loyalist terrorism" has much of a leg to stand on.

[Brian Boru]

Yes! I was waiting for this post, hahahahahahhahahahahahahahaahaha.

Britain has enjoyed nuclear power and weaponry for nearly half a century. And I don't believe that "loyalist terrorism" has much of a leg to stand on.

and? So your saying that they are even more hypocritical?

[removeduser_487563287433]

and? So your saying that they are even more hypocritical?

No? I am illustrating the different between preventing Iran from acquiring or developing nuclear technology and the fact that Britain is merely stepping up power generation via nuclear power plants. Simple, really.

[Brian Boru]

OK. I just cant see the difference between "Britain going nuclear" and Iran having nuclear power??

[removeduser_487563287433]

Oh, it's very simple. Britain is already nuclear, and Iran isn't.