French energy giant EDF will have some competition in the new British nuclear sector, according to reports. It appears that certain UK sites belonging to British Energy and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will see new plants built by EDF's rivals. The Times reports that BE's operations at Bradwell in Essex and Dungeness in …
I'm a bit worried...
...that John Hutton wants to 'press all the buttons' at the 'nuclear facilities'. Perhaps he should change his name to Strangelove?
non non non
"by well paid Brits"
I think you mean French. Except maybe a few old guys close to retirment.
Great choice of words
“This report illustrates why I am so determined to press all the buttons to get nuclear facilities built in this country at the earliest opportunity," Hutton told the Times, ahead of announcements at the Labour conference in Manchester.
When discussing Nuclear Power, never, ever use the phrase "I am so determined to press all the buttons."
I think someone at the Chernobyl site made a similar remark once.
This is a good thing I think, now before the greenies come on banging about environment, renewables etc, until the advent of fusion or viable, widespread geothermal we have to make a compromise or be sitting in the dark.
The way I see it is that we can either produce more to meet the demands of an ever growing population or consume the same or less by introducing strict, even draconian, birth control.
go go go
more reactors the better
the future energy of a country is decided by how much money HM Govt gets out of it? Renewable is no good because they don't get enough cash out of it? Sheesh the sooner some private, environmentally-minded investors get involved in the UK the better.....
Build them already!
Personally, I'm rather tired of passing money to Russia in exchange for gas.
These pebble bed reactors look pretty safe. Can we have some of them, please?
One of the problems with the original British programme was that costs were made much higher by our inability to roll out a programme of building identical reactors sharing common technology; rather we kept 'improving' them so each one was practically a bespoke piece of engineering.
Would it be too much to expect the government to order the companies building our new plants to insist on a common design?
Competition is a terrible idea, one of the major problems with existing UK reactors is that they are all different designs, that added to competition encoraging cost cutting (good normally, bad in a nuclear reactor installations!) should put a halt to this. There has to be a single, standard Neuclear Power station design.
It's good news.
Campbell is right. Renewables have no hope of quenching our insatiable demand for energy in their current forms. Until such time as super efficient windfarms, solar panels and tidal installations are developed, we need a stop-gap measure. I much prefer the idea of a half dozen or so quiet and clean nuclear stations dotted round the country, to several tens of thousands of wind turbines or a dozen crap-spewing coal/gas plants.
Also, as a retort to the anonymous coward, British Energy actually has quite an advanced apprenticeship scheme, training young British people to work in the nuclear industry. One could only assume that with the future of the industry secured for another 40-50 years that this scheme would be rapidly expanded and developed.
Of course, I would much rather have seen British Energy go on as an independent UK entity, or enter into a JV with another British energy firm such as Centrica, BG or BP, but if going to EDF is what it takes to keep the lights on, then so be it.
Paris.... because thats where EDF is headquartered (well Nanterre to be precise).
"Renewables have no hope of quenching our insatiable demand for energy in their current forms."
Didn't you know? Some people consider nuclear energy is a renewable energy. This is lifted from New York Times:
"Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the third-most-powerful Republican in the Senate [...] says he feels that wind should be given tax breaks no different from those for other forms of renewable energy, like nuclear power."
"Didn't you know? Some people consider nuclear energy is a renewable energy. This is lifted from New York Times:"
in a sence it is you can make the same bit of fule uable again and again and with new reactor techs again and a nuclear reactor is at least zero carbon running
While they keep investing and investing in the cheap and easy option; renewables will never receive investment and will take much longer to get both efficient and accepted. Instead we shall take the easy path and regret it later, seems our society has developed a great habit in doing this.....global warming, we won't cut back on the causes until it's too late, reliance of fossil fuels, we'll start panicking about alternative sources once the oil runs out; we'll lament our reliance on nuclear once the next big accident happens......no forward planning, no-one and no government ever thinks any further ahead than the next election or the next year or two....whatever happened to long term planning?? We don't think beyond our own lifetimes but plenty of us have children of our own...what about what they inherit?
It would be better if we did the whole thing
It would keep all the money and accountability in the UK, not just the waste material.
- Pic Forget the $2499 5K iMac – today we reveal Apple's most expensive computer to date
- RUMPY PUMPY: Bone says humans BONED Neanderthals 50,000 years B.C.
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Review Vulture trails claw across Lenovo's touchy N20p Chromebook