Potential locations for new UK nuclear power stations

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

The above phase sums up this country perfectly!

Jim

That is the same path the liberals are leading us down here in the US.

[Rich_]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

The above phase sums up this country perfectly!

Jim

Well quoted , You're dead right.

[Jim Ford]

I tell a Greek friend that Britain has been going downhill for 50 years, but Greece has had a 1,950 year head-start on us!

Jim

[numeniusaqua]

Surely, it makes sense to put the plants nearest where the most demand is? After all, if they are so safe, then it makes sense to put them in the South East where demand is greatest. That way there is minimised transmission loss which makes perfect sense. Or could it be that the powers that be are not really so sure that they won't cut corners in the future (as they've been caught doing time and time again) with safety and would have the embarrassment of explaining on thier own doorstep in the S.E how the local beach etc is irradiated? Whereas no one in power seems to care if it's just a few more Northernerners, Scots or Cumbrians or irradiated fish and birds do they? (anyone else remember that programme where they sent the seagulls from around Sellafield (aka Windscale) off for testing , and it turned out the area around is so irradiated & the levels in the birds so high that they were classed as nuclear waste by the laboratory? - the cleanup required following the exposure by the programme is said to have cost £1million http://www.markthomasinfo.com/section_info/) But most scary is that it only came to light purely because of that programme - theres not a programme being made there right now or at any of the other stations, nor do ordinary local people have the resources to monitor - so how much more goes on is anyone's guess)

I think that a sensible policy is a mix of wind/wave and nukes, and I'd be all for it if I believed for one second that maximising shareholders profits and insufficient independent oversight and sanctions would not result in future leaks. If we made it so that the company directors definitely would do time in prison if there were leaks then you can be sure there'd be not be so much as one hundredth of a becquerel leak! Not a thing! Until then, let the fat cats and politicians prove it is safe by building it where they live! - There is plenty sea water for cooling anywhere on the British coast, so no reason at all not to do that. But they won't do that, and considering that makes no sense transmission-wise, that really does tell you everything you need to know!

[Doggle Avaddit]

Originally Posted by numeniusaqua

Surely, it makes sense to put the plants nearest where the most demand is? After all, if they are so safe, then it makes sense to put them in the South East where demand is greatest. That way there is minimised transmission loss which makes perfect sense. Or could it be that the powers that be are not really so sure that they won't cut corners in the future (as they've been caught doing time and time again) with safety and would have the embarrassment of explaining on thier own doorstep in the S.E how the local beach etc is irradiated? Whereas no one in power seems to care if it's just a few more Northernerners, Scots or Cumbrians or irradiated fish and birds do they? (anyone else remember that programme where they sent the seagulls from around Sellafield (aka Windscale) off for testing , and it turned out the area around is so irradiated & the levels in the birds so high that they were classed as nuclear waste by the laboratory? - the cleanup required following the exposure by the programme is said to have cost £1million Mark Thomas Info - Information) But most scary is that it only came to light purely because of that programme - theres not a programme being made there right now or at any of the other stations, nor do ordinary local people have the resources to monitor - so how much more goes on is anyone's guess)

I think that a sensible policy is a mix of wind/wave and nukes, and I'd be all for it if I believed for one second that maximising shareholders profits and insufficient independent oversight and sanctions would not result in future leaks. If we made it so that the company directors definitely would do time in prison if there were leaks then you can be sure there'd be not be so much as one hundredth of a becquerel leak! Not a thing! Until then, let the fat cats and politicians prove it is safe by building it where they live! - There is plenty sea water for cooling anywhere on the British coast, so no reason at all not to do that. But they won't do that, and considering that makes no sense transmission-wise, that really does tell you everything you need to know!

I think Nuclear Reactor design and operation has come a long way from how it was in the 70's and 80's. I don't think it would be possible to have "leaks" the way you are describing from a New Build reactor. Even if a passenger jet was crashed directly on it.

Current designs are very safe indeed.

Thousands of coal miners die every year producing coal for power stations, by the way.