UK nuclear power gets green light

[FBaggins]

Britain is to push on with its nuclear plant building plans and let existing reactors run as normal, the government said on Wednesday after its nuclear watchdog dismissed fears of a Fukushima-like disaster in the UK.

...snip...

"We want to see new nuclear as part of a low carbon energy mix going forward, provided there is no public subsidy," Energy Minister Chris Huhne said. "The Chief Nuclear Inspector's interim report reassures me that it can."

Huhne.... Huhne... now why does that name ring a bell? Sounds awfully similar to someone who was going to end nuclear power in England because he was such a clean energy advocate.

Nah... must be a different guy.

Edited for link - http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/18/us-britain-nuclear-safety-idUSTRE74H34Y20110518

[kristopher]

1. Huhne's stance as part of the deal is "no subsidies"

But of course, the wingers he is working with are doing everything they can to undermine that because no nuclear subsidies equals no fission plants.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x294624
(UK) MPs attack government's covert subsidies for nuclear industry

The government is planning to award covert subsidies of hundreds of millions of pounds to nuclear power, betraying the coalition promise that the taxpayer would not foot the bill for a new generation of reactors, according to an influential committee of MPs.

The MPs criticised attempts to hide the subsidies as "deeply irresponsible" and said they put the government's green credentials in jeopardy.

...Nuclear power is a potential flashpoint for the coalition, because the Liberal Democrats oppose new reactors but the Conservatives want to encourage them. The coalition compromised on allowing new reactors but without public subsidies. According to the report, hidden subsidies will be awarded through government-supported long-term contracts to supply energy, and a minimum price for carbon emissions.

...Simon Bullock, campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "This report shows the government's plans are stacked in favour of nuclear power over renewables and so vague they risk locking the UK into a new generation of polluting fossil fuels. We don't need to gamble on new nuclear power - by boosting green energy alternatives and slashing energy waste we can tackle climate change and create new jobs."...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/16/nuclear-energy-industry-select-committee

[FBaggins]

2. So nuclear power is ok with you as long as there are no subsidies?

And we both know that there ARE subsidies for those plants AND that he knows it...

... so let's not pretend otherwise, eh?

[kristopher]

3. So you've finally decided we don't need nuclear. Good.

Since you've decided we're playing "who-can-most-mischaracterize-what-the-other-person-said", I submit the header as my entry.

[FBaggins]

4. Dodging the point?

You've seemed to defend Huhne in the past (because of his prior anti-nuke position?)...

...but he's clearly taken a very different position than you have.

I'm just asking you to admit it.

Unlike your original prediction from a year or two ago (or projection, or illustration, or whatever). England WILL build new reactors and (though you can't believe it), Fukushima didn't make a difference.

[SpoonFed]

5. The decent of the nuke industry talking points...

England WILL build new reactors

I guess things are so bad, worldwide and on all fronts, that explains why you've degenerated into "If I keep saying it, maybe that will make it so".

Nuke industry talking point #57; the little engine that could.

[FBaggins]

6. Did you miss the OP?

That's England saying they're going to continue with their plans for new reactors. Not me wishing it.

Just like it was China making clear that Fukushima would not impact their plan to hit 70-80 GW of nuclear by 2020. You thought they were halting their plans... and you were wrong.

No doubt a month or so from now you'll misrember this some other way and claim it as more evidence for my errors.

Do you achieve that without chemical assistance?

[SpoonFed]

9. Keep repeating it...

You thought they were halting their plans... and you were wrong.

It will make it true.

The nuke industry is not dead.
The nuke industry is not dead.
The nuke industry is not dead.

Hahaha.

[FBaggins]

10. Need to take a little of that medicine yourself kiddo.

You're the one who is hoping that all the reporting is wrong.

[kristopher]

7. My post above explicitly addresses the coalition issue.

I'm presuming Huhne is aligned with his party since he is representing them. And since the article makes clear that the subsidy-for-nukes issue could fracture the coalition, it would appear that your optimism is premature.

Since you've descended into absurdity with your attempts to get attention, there will be no more bumps from me on the topic.

[FBaggins]

8. So you're accusing him of lying?

When he said "We want to see new nuclear as part of a low carbon energy mix going forward" - he wasn't telling the truth? No wait! He's a secret undercover agent just biding his time, right?

Since you've descended into absurdity with your attempts to get attention, there will be no more bumps from me on the topic.

What a shocker.

Yeah... we'll all pretend that we don't know why the thread makes you uncomfortable and you need an excuse to avoid it. How on earth could Fukushima not be the end of new nuclear construction? Didn't they read your posts???!?!!

Must be heartbreaking. Like China. You were so SURE that they had seen the light and were moving away from nuclear on toward renewables. When really they were moving away from coal and toward ALL types of cleaner generation - with nuclear right at the top of the list.

[Nihil]

11. FYI (though getting slightly off-topic) ...

> the subsidy-for-nukes issue could fracture the coalition

The "coalition" is already more fractured than any of the Fukushima reactor
buildings and this is merely one of a long list of betrayals that is to blame.

The problem is that if the Lib-Dems pull out of their (theoretical) involvement
then the government is handed on a plate to the Conservatives as Labour are
still not strong enough (not to mention still being polluted by Blairites)
and the Lib-Dems are destined for the oblivion that they deserve (after making
such a gross screw-up of their opportunity to behave in a Liberal & Democratic
manner).

As the Conservatives (and Blairite Labour) are the main supporters of nuclear
power in the UK, this still doesn't translate to any significant change on
the subject of the thread.

:shrug: