Obelix Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Your argument only makes sense if the Govt would be happy to build a large fossil plant in those locations. It's not, for reasons that I thought would have been obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 But that happened in a very rural area in a country that had major control over its citizens at the time. Transfer the disaster to the UK and you'd have a major disaster and the cost would be staggering. I can't recall the link now but there was a great Google Maps overlay that put the Chernobyl reactor over any UK power station of choice. It then showed the size of the exclusion zone and gave stats on how many people would need to be relocated. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big believer in the nuclear "gift" like the OP suggested. I just think humans are currently the wrong people to manage it, when lowest bidder seems to win contracts. The lowest bidder may win the contracts, but no plant in the entire world right now is anywhere near as unsafe as Chernobyl, and no matter how cheap they go the safety standards in this country would never even come near to being as bad as they were in Soviet controlled Ukraine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 I would like any Nuclear power stations to be British owned, but from what I've heard we can neither make them (thanks to the government not funding the infrastructure needed at Sheffield's Forgemasters?) nor afford to build them, so China has offered to build and run any Nuclear facility. Is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Why should the Govt fund a press at Forgemasters just in case someone wants to build a plant? There are several facilities that can build these required pressings and as long as they are willing to do so at a cheaper cost than tooling up Forgemasters there really is no need. If they were to say "non" then we have the ability and expertise to actually do so, but there is no point throwing money at a problem that doens't yet exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I would like any Nuclear power stations to be British owned, but from what I've heard we can neither make them (thanks to the government not funding the infrastructure needed at Sheffield's Forgemasters?) nor afford to build them, so China has offered to build and run any Nuclear facility. Is that correct?Enough of that story already Forgemasters could have got the investment anytime it wanted, it just wanted it from the Gvt because it would have been significantly cheaper and with significantly less oversight and strings attached than from private financiers. Last I checked it's still not the Gvt's job to bankroll the private sector...as you often remind us in your own posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 The lowest bidder may win the contracts, but no plant in the entire world right now is anywhere near as unsafe as Chernobyl, and no matter how cheap they go the safety standards in this country would never even come near to being as bad as they were in Soviet controlled Ukraine. RBMK reactors had safety standards? :-) I seem to recall that they had control rods that were tipped with graphite that initially increased reactivity on insertion, which to me seemed utterly insane.... I think that the chicago pile had better safety systems than that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 Why should the Govt fund a press at Forgemasters just in case someone wants to build a plant? There are several facilities that can build these required pressings and as long as they are willing to do so at a cheaper cost than tooling up Forgemasters there really is no need. If they were to say "non" then we have the ability and expertise to actually do so, but there is no point throwing money at a problem that doens't yet exist. As I understood it, Forgemasters was the only place in Europe able to produce the engineering required. Personally I think Nuclear power is about to make a comeback, so it would have been a serious investment in jobs. I also think that power should be renationalised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 As I understood it, Forgemasters was the only place in Europe able to produce the engineering required. Personally I think Nuclear power is about to make a comeback, so it would have been a serious investment in jobs. All of which is true yet irrelevant. If it's likley to make the company that much money then it doesnt need a Govt loan to do it - it can go to the market for such a loan like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 All of which is true yet irrelevant. If it's likley to make the company that much money then it doesnt need a Govt loan to do it - it can go to the market for such a loan like everyone else. A government loan at the tax payer's expense would probably charge less interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Independent Scientist, James Lovelock, proponent of the Gaia principle; that the Earth is a living, self regulating organism, has proposed that Nuclear Power is a gift to the human race; a clean, cheap, reliable source of power which we have given a bad name, but are mad to ignore. He says that to continue to slavishly pursue 'green energy' is a flawed policy which will not meet our needs, will bankrupt us, and could eventually force us almost back to the stone age. He also says that many of the policies (such as converting Drax power station to wood pellets imported from Brazil,) results in a bigger carbon footprint and more toxicity than before. Money would be better spent building safer, more reliable nuclear power stations. Therefore, nuclear energy is the way to go. What do you think? I'd say that his opinion seems quite reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.