Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[truman]

Unbeliever explained that one to me. I was being utterly dense and forgetting GCSE physics.

 

Sorry..I saw your post and just replied...

[sgtkate]

Sorry..I saw your post and just replied...

 

And I managed to miss the pun in my reply! I am clearly denser than the ice we were discussing

[Flexo]

My position has always been that there should be a dash for nuclear, on the basis of precaution. Nuclear is a good solid reliable energy source, only about 50-100% more expensive than fossil

 

Maybe nuclear would be beneficial, but the government's papers on Brexit say that we will be leaving the European Atomic Energy Community. This will raise costs and add delays.

 

No longer will be collaborating with those Europeans on the flow of nuclear materials and expertise!

 

“Leaving Euratom is a lose-lose for everyone. For nuclear proponents, the industry becomes less competitive – and for nuclear critics, safety regulation diminishes,” said Dr Paul Dorfman of the Energy Institute at University College London.

 

Referring to Hinkley and other nuclear projects in the pipeline, he said: “The UK nuclear industry is critically dependent on European goods and services in the nuclear supply chain and their specialist nuclear skills. Leaving Euratom will inevitably increas nuclear costs and will mean further delays."

 

“At the moment, the UK standing on the world nuclear stage is predicated on a series of cooperation agreements, and those we have the benefit of from being a member of Euratom, and the few bilateral agreements are based on Euratom, too. Take that away and you have no basis for international nuclear cooperation.”

 

 

Like everything else that Brexit touches, it will take an awful lot of time and effort to get back to somewhere near where we are at the moment.

[unbeliever]

Maybe nuclear would be beneficial, but the government's papers on Brexit say that we will be leaving the European Atomic Energy Community. This will raise costs and add delays.

 

No longer will be collaborating with those Europeans on the flow of nuclear materials and expertise!

 

“Leaving Euratom is a lose-lose for everyone. For nuclear proponents, the industry becomes less competitive – and for nuclear critics, safety regulation diminishes,” said Dr Paul Dorfman of the Energy Institute at University College London.

 

Referring to Hinkley and other nuclear projects in the pipeline, he said: “The UK nuclear industry is critically dependent on European goods and services in the nuclear supply chain and their specialist nuclear skills. Leaving Euratom will inevitably increas nuclear costs and will mean further delays."

 

“At the moment, the UK standing on the world nuclear stage is predicated on a series of cooperation agreements, and those we have the benefit of from being a member of Euratom, and the few bilateral agreements are based on Euratom, too. Take that away and you have no basis for international nuclear cooperation.”

 

 

Like everything else that Brexit touches, it will take an awful lot of time and effort to get back to somewhere near where we are at the moment.

 

 

The damage in terms of the UK's nuclear expertise has already been done over decades. The organisations you refer to are irrelevant and demonstrated by the Hinckley reactor builds.

People will link anything to Brexit.

[Flexo]

LOL, leaving Euratom is in the government's own paper about Brexit....

 

So you tell us that the UK is lacking in nuclear expertise.

 

And the government are shutting the door on expertise coming from abroad.

 

And removing international cooperation for supply of materials.

[unbeliever]

LOL, leaving Euratom is in the government's own paper about Brexit....

 

So you tell us that the UK is lacking in nuclear expertise.

 

And the government are shutting the door on expertise coming from abroad.

 

And removing international cooperation for supply of materials.

 

 

We weren't building nuclear power stations anyway.

There's an EU directive requiring us to use renewables which diverts us wastefully and pointlessly away from nuclear.

To suggest that leaving the EU makes us less likely to pursue the nuclear they all but forbade us pursuing whilst inside is lunacy.

[Jacktari]

The damage in terms of the UK's nuclear expertise has already been done over decades. The organisations you refer to are irrelevant and demonstrated by the Hinckley reactor builds.

People will link anything to Brexit.

 

That's because most of our future problems will be linked to brexit.

[unbeliever]

That's because most of our future problems will be linked to brexit.

 

That's an opinion you're entitled to. If a rather ridiculous one.

But here you're trying to link a very well established problem (going back decades) to an event from last year. How?

[Jacktari]

That's an opinion you're entitled to. If a rather ridiculous one.

But here you're trying to link a very well established problem (going back decades) to an event from last year. How?

 

I wasn't following, I just saw the comment.

If you are speaking of nuclear power, I have been led to believe that the power plants exist only to create the material to manufacture nuclear bombs, (plutonium is it ?).

As we now have enough of it to destroy all life on the planet several times over, the expense is not worth the product.

[unbeliever]

I wasn't following, I just saw the comment.

If you are speaking of nuclear power, I have been led to believe that the power plants exist only to create the material to manufacture nuclear bombs, (plutonium is it ?).

As we now have enough of it to destroy all life on the planet several times over, the expense is not worth the product.

 

You have not been led well.

There is a class of reactor, called a Breeder, designed to generate power and produce Plutonium. But that is only part of the industry. We can easily build reactors incapable of being used for Plutonium production and indeed many have been built.

Edited February 9, 2017 by unbeliever