QuoteA High Court judge has ordered a rethink of the governments nuclear power plans, after a legal challenge by environmental campaigners Greenpeace.
A judge ruled that the consultation process before making the decision last year had been "misleading", "seriously flawed" and "procedurally unfair".
Greenpeace said the ministers should "go back to the drawing board".
Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said the government would re-consult, but still favoured nuclear power.
He told the BBC they could appeal but accepted the judges ruling and would consult again, although there was "a race against time" with climate change.
There was also the need to ensure the UK was not overly-reliant on imports of oil and gas, he said.
Mr Darling said "counter views" would be taken into consideration, but "on a matter so important as climate change it just isnt possible to stand back and say: We dont have any views".
The government also stressed that the judges ruling was on the "process of consultation, not the principle of nuclear power".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6364281.stm
Same thing on yahoo.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/15022007/325/greenpeace-wins-nuclear-challenge.html
err we need to fire up the nuclear power plants NOW or well be screwed later when we cant use fossil fuels
just crack on and build them tony
yep - french have got the right idea with this one - why do we place so much reliance on fuel that isnt stable in price nor is from particularly stable parts of the world.
Less gas power stations more nuclear ones tbh... + some more investment in hydrogen fuel cells in cars and alternative energy sources. - Were surrounded by water and weve got a fair few open bits of wind swept countryside in wales and scotland - lets make use of it tbh...
Beats the conversation over here, which is one of whether climate change is a left wing made up conspiracy or not. Its truly sad.
Britain has a good amount of resources already. Wouldnt a push for energy efficiency do just as much good as opening another nuke plant?
There are so many other technologies that are cleaner and worth exploring, that could work in tandem to ensure energy independence. That said, if a really sound method for disposing of nuke waste is found--its a pretty impressive way to make some kilowatts.
Id support the construction of new Nuclear power stations obviously partnered with other types of energy sources and not solely relying on Nuclear energy.
Quote from: Binary Shadowerr we need to fire up the nuclear power plants NOW or well be screwed later when we cant use fossil fuels
just crack on and build them tony
QuoteIt takes 10 years to build a nuclear power station so they certainly wont help in the short term either. it costs at least Ã,£1.7 billion to build one so they arent cheap either. Hard nosed businessmen wont invest unless they get a *guaranteed* return on that. There is only one being constructed ATM and that is massively over its original construction costs.
They are expected to process and store the waste responsibly, in order to do this they have to put a lot of money away which means less profits for the investors.
Basically unless the government seriously changes its tune nobody will invest the money needed so you wont get any nuclear power plants built at all.
Renewables are already being constructed and putting energy into the system, they may not make enough difference, and they have their own problems, but they may be the only option for at least the short term.
Really it all just shows that TB and friends havent been doing their maths work. For nuclear power, read another channel tunnel white elephant. The only one being built in Europe ATM is over budget and the timetable is shot to hell...
Even if it could be done on time and on budget its a medium term solution that will produce real problems in waste storage.
lets face it we have tried wind farms and solar and its just not good enough we need some nukes till we find something else, no CO2 with nukes
as for the waste read recently that a bunch of scientists have shown its safe to bury it underground in certain places
you can hardly say we have tried wind farms and solar when the investment in those fields has been near nothing in comparison to that of the rest of our supplies.
Whilst we do need a quick short term solution the need for more long term investment into more practical efficiency techniques and renewable energy is equally important if not more so
break out the nuclear fusion cant be too long to go for that to kick off
will be a while off, as they are still building the first practical one to test with ;)
yeah but surely a few fission reactors can tie us over
Actually we can already build fusion reactors. The current problem is that they can either run at full power, producing loads of energy for maybe a couple of seconds at a time, or they can tick over, producing just enough energy to keep going for as long as we can be bothered to run it. The challenge is getting it to run indefinitely at a higher power output.
Oh, and Britain a pretty much the world leaders in nuclear fusion :)
fission reactors will take ten years to construct and last 50-60 beyond that. The reserves of fuel needed will be drained more quickly, we just dont know how much is left. The waste will be around for thousands of years.
Dont think that nuclear is carbon neutral either, you have to build the plant, mine the ore, extract the fuel, transport it around the world and then put it somewhere safe for posterity.
Nuclear fusion, if everything goes to plan, may be an option in sixty years, or it may fail completely.
Im sure that if we spent fifty billion on renewable fuel sources we might have a suitable alternative option by now.
every single person in the country moans and campaigns against having turbines anywhere near where they live so i cant see that well ever get renewable energy off the ground, not really enough sun for solar panels either
Nuclear power is, at the moment, the only sensible option. Either we continue to be massively reliant upon our neighbours for our energy, or we built the plants and become self-sufficient like any sane country would. Greenpeace shoot themselves in the foot; putting off nuclear power just means burning more coal.
i think there is definatly a place for nuclear power, but i think a good percentage should be renewable, aim for 25% or somthing.
there is 1000s of square miles in scotland, wales and ireland of very windswept sparsly populated areas.
I also think building developers should be forced to invest more in the homes they build. For example if every new house built was forced to have solar roof tiles(electricity) and/or ground source heat pumps(hot water/radiators) then that will make a massive difference.
The above would cost less than Ã,£15k which compared to the price of a house is very low.
Quote from: DEViANCEThe above would cost less than Ã,£15k which compared to the price of a house is very low at the moment.
Corrected ;)
Quote from: maximusotterWouldnt a push for energy efficiency do just as much good as opening another nuke plant?
Yes; councils are given money to spend on energy schemes but seem loath to spend it (the company I work for spend a lot of time trying to get them to spend it on us!). If government legislated that people must improve the insulation of their homes and provided the funds to do so this would make a big difference. Theyre doing it now for recycling so why not fling millions of tons of glass fibre into peoples lofts? Building regs require that new houses have 300mm of loft insulation but why not double/triple this and pay for it, for old and new houses? This seems to be working in Scandinavia. Its a bit like the car industry, if you leave it up to the manufacturers they wont lift a finger to produce greener vehicles (everyday or performance). Id rather see a big brother government that says, you must improve the energy performance of your home, than one that says, thatll be Ã,£5 to drive out of your street.
Quote from: Binary ShadowQuote from: DEViANCEThe above would cost less than Ã,£15k which compared to the price of a house is very low at the moment.
Corrected ;)
i dont understand?
the price of houses is going up, the price of these renewable techs is going down, so why only at the moment?
QuoteIt takes 10 years to build a nuclear power station so they certainly wont help in the short term either. it costs at least Ã,£1.7 billion to build one so they arent cheap either. Hard nosed businessmen wont invest unless they get a *guaranteed* return on that. There is only one being constructed ATM and that is massively over its original construction costs.
small price to pay for energy security/stability - Im all for govt funding of nuke stations in the short/medium term + initiatives for renewable resources in the long term
factor in the cost of securing our oil and gas reserves and the nuke option is actually pretty good value
no need for venture capital - though Im normally fairly liberal about the economy I see no harm in the state funding some of this - after all the state also foots the bill for Iraq etc..
Quote from: DEViANCEQuote from: Binary ShadowQuote from: DEViANCEThe above would cost less than Ã,£15k which compared to the price of a house is very low at the moment.
Corrected ;)
i dont understand?
the price of houses is going up, the price of these renewable techs is going down, so why only at the moment?
because lets face it house prices cannot continue to rise forever they will come crashing back down at some point and when that happens Ã,£15 will seem expensive let alone Ã,£15k
id certainly rather see my taxes sunk into a nuclear reactor than thrown at illegals and work dodgers
Quote from: funkychicken9000Nuclear power is, at the moment, the only sensible option. Either we continue to be massively reliant upon our neighbours for our energy, or we built the plants and become self-sufficient like any sane country would. Greenpeace shoot themselves in the foot; putting off nuclear power just means burning more coal.
Can you prove that? Should be easy enough to put a load of underwater turbines in the gulf stream and generate loads of power. Greenpeace are taking two alternatives and trying to work out which is worse. Long term its nuclear power. There is no such thing as a quick fix for this problem, no matter how much we would like it.
Quote from: Binary ShadowQuote from: DEViANCEQuote from: Binary ShadowQuote from: DEViANCEThe above would cost less than Ã,£15k which compared to the price of a house is very low at the moment.
Corrected ;)
i dont understand?
the price of houses is going up, the price of these renewable techs is going down, so why only at the moment?
because lets face it house prices cannot continue to rise forever they will come crashing back down at some point and when that happens Ã,£15 will seem expensive let alone Ã,£15k
You mean when the tories get back in? :twisted:
TBH I would like to see all gas central heating systems to have to generate electricity as well as providing heat. That might be a few hundred quid more expensive initially but worth it in the longer term. There are millions of cubic feet of gas going up just to provide heat when they could be generating electricity too. A steam engine for peeps who use wood would be nice too. Heats the home and generates free light.
We already have a fusion reactor - its that giant fireball in the sky otherwise known as The Sun... :P
id hardly say we have it, we just happen to be flying round it :P
hmm looks like this guy has an issue with serious lol
Quote from: SeriousDont think that nuclear is carbon neutral either, you have to build the plant, mine the ore, extract the fuel, transport it around the world and then put it somewhere safe for posterity.
true but then you do a lot of that with coal fired stations.. then burn the stuff as well!
Quote from: Binary Shadowhmm looks like this guy has an issue with serious lol
Ive warned DeltaZero twice in the past that if he started trying to irritate me, or anyone else, his posts would somehow vanish.
*sweenster runs before serious can gag him*
Quote from: SeriousQuote from: Binary Shadowhmm looks like this guy has an issue with serious lol
Ive warned DeltaZero twice in the past that if he started trying to irritate me, or anyone else, his posts would somehow vanish.
Nice to see a totalitarian stance on things around here.
I keep forgetting that Tek allows you to say whatever you want unless you disagree with a mod.
Rookie mistake on my part, sorry.
Have 5 anti-establishment stars 8)
Quote from: ChaostimeQuote from: SeriousQuote from: Binary Shadowhmm looks like this guy has an issue with serious lol
Ive warned DeltaZero twice in the past that if he started trying to irritate me, or anyone else, his posts would somehow vanish.
Nice to see a totalitarian stance on things around here.
I keep forgetting that Tek allows you to say whatever you want unless you disagree with a mod.
Rookie mistake on my part, sorry.
Actually, he put inflammatory comments in his sig that I have removed and as such is on final warning.
If you dont like something speak up and it gets sorted, very few people bother to complain about something except for the mods who are doing their job. But yeah, keep fighting the machine.
Didnt he just quote other people? I cant remember really
The context of the quotes was clearly geared to pisstaking, for which this isnt the first time hes been pulled on it. This is all very much OT anyway...
Quote from: Binary Shadowbecause lets face it house prices cannot continue to rise forever they will come crashing back down at some point and when that happens Ã,£15 will seem expensive let alone Ã,£15k
doubt they will come crashing down tbh...
might get a small dip/correction in the next few years or more likely they will just stay at the same price or rise slower than inflation for a bit
population growth + demand for housing should prevent any serious crash - at least I couldnt see any major crash in the London property market for a while unless something drastic changes.
Quote from: SeriousCan you prove that? Should be easy enough to put a load of underwater turbines in the gulf stream and generate loads of power.
eh?
you cant be serious :lol:
seriously though serious - it isnt going to be easy by any definition to do that + the costs and potential returns in exchange for those costs would most likely be a bit crap - tbh... I can see the rational behind wave power but, for the moment at least, gian underwater turbines in the gulf stream seems a bit whacky
Green Peace should shut up and go home.
I thought they were gonna be built in France anyhow :?:
Cocks and Fannies
Quote from: DaveQuote from: SeriousCan you prove that? Should be easy enough to put a load of underwater turbines in the gulf stream and generate loads of power.
eh?
you cant be serious :lol:
seriously though serious - it isnt going to be easy by any definition to do that + the costs and potential returns in exchange for those costs would most likely be a bit crap - tbh... I can see the rational behind wave power but, for the moment at least, gian underwater turbines in the gulf stream seems a bit whacky
Youre wrong, I was being serious about the gulf stream, several companies are planning to do it. There are areas where that sort of thing would be more useful in the short term though, the channel and between some of the islands on the west coast of Scotland. Trials are already being conducted with low power water turbines.
One off the Devon coast thats working now
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/2987005.stmAnother off the Anglesey coast
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/5209698.stmThey will be fastened to the bottom by cables according to the blurb I read.
An American version for the gulf stream there
http://wdstudio.net/gulfstreamturbine/index.htmQuote from: sdpGreen Peace should shut up and go home.
I thought they were gonna be built in France anyhow :?:
Next fusion test plant will be built in France, they hope to get it to the point where they could generate enough power to keep it going, but it wont generate any actual electric AFAIK. They think it will take thirty years to sort out that, then they need another test plant which will actually generate power, that will take another thirty years. Once thats done there will be a major construction effort.
TBH if they were into building something like a skylift to get the radioactive waste to orbit and then ditch it on venus then the idea of building fission plants might have some benefit medium term. Doubtless there would be some people complaining about polluting another planet though! :lol: