It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer on 13 July 2016.
There was, however, another twist to the contentious project in the run-up to the meeting, when an EDF director opposed to Hinkley Point C resigned.
Gérard Magnin said the project was “very risky” in his resignation letter to EDF’s chief executive.
originally posted by: crazyewok
Wind and solar are useless.
. . . untested technology . . .
. . . security risk . . .
. . . spiralling subsidy costs . . .
The National Audit Office recently estimated that over the lifetime of the project, the extra cost to consumers of Hinkley’s output had risen from an already punishing £6.1bn when the strike price was originally agreed three years ago, to a jaw-dropping £29.7bn today. Together with other policies designed to deliver a low carbon future, Hinkley’s costs will add approximately £230 a year to the average household electricity bill, according to Government estimates. Climate change risk may well justify these environmental goals, but whether Hinkley is the right way to deliver them has always seemed questionable and today looks positively reckless.
We have no choice
originally posted by: AmericanRealist
My drives through Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma I discovered very massive fields of wind turbines. They must be effective if they are being built on the scale I am seeing.
Transatomic is developing a next-generation Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) based on technology first demonstrated at [Oak Ridge National Laboratory] in the 1960s, and has been completing reactor core performance analyses as part of its technology development work.
The company released results that show promise for an economical power plant that can generate carbon-free baseload power and extract energy from the spent fuel of commercial nuclear reactors.
Spent fuel from a conventional commercial nuclear reactor is typically composed of about 95% U238, fission products, actinides, and plutonium isotopes. Some residual U235 remains as well.
According to Transatomic, the firm’s design, which uses a liquid uranium-salt mixture instead of conventional solid fuel assemblies, can extract twice as much energy from its fuel and use nuclear waste as a fuel source.
Plans to build the first new UK nuclear plant in 20 years have suffered an unexpected delay after the government postponed a final decision until the early autumn.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: AmericanRealist
Well actually, no, they are not any better, just differently bad.
We need to stop using non-renewable power eventually anyway, so why not make the investment now? The real issue is this:
Every rod that is spent in a nuclear reactor has to end up somewhere. They get buried in huge containers and have to be left there for n thousand years, where n is the number of times a humming bird flaps its wings before it dies, and in the meantime, any damage to the chamber, any flaws in the storage medium, any attack on the storage medium, any natural catastrophe, or deliberate assault could have TERRIFYING consequences, not just in the short term, but in the long, long, long term.
Now, in a nation with an awful lot of landmass and a greatly complicated topography besides, that risk is mitigated somewhat. Not entirely of course, but somewhat, because you can stick your reactor out in the sticks where nothing matters, nothing grows, and everything that does grow there is either poisonous, man eating, or both.
But in Britain, a plume of radioactive gas could literally sweep the nation entirely, covering all and sundry in the most unutterably toxic mess you can imagine. There are storage facilities here in the UK, which are so old, that their contents remain left over from the development of nuclear weapons back in the day. Some of the stuff that is in those containers, those very old, not at all trust worthy containers, is so dangerous, and so classified, that no one other than the folks who signed it away to the bottom of a big tank somewhere, know what it is, or how radioactive it might be.
And that is before we even broach the subject of things like reactor failures, disposal law violations, improper disposal of coolant fluids, and so on and so forth.
Nuclear power comes with risks. Solar does not. Hydro does not. Wind does not, nor do any of the other renewable energy systems available, and the thing is that science is moving on a pace these days. Ten to fifteen years from now, we could be powering our communications devices by plugging them into our clothes, our every movement reclaiming energy to plough into our gadgets. Imagine roads and pavements doing the same thing. Imagine every window and glass door in the country being a solar energy factory, photovoltaic coatings on all surfaces facing the sky, buildings being designed to funnel air through turbines, and every move you make throughout your house powering its internal functions.
The future is thundering toward us like a bullet train full of bull elephant hormones and Gila monster genes, and yet here we are discussing a way in which we can for some reason continue the most stupid game this species ever started, with the exception of the "who is better at whacking people over the head with their engorged phallus game", or as we refer to it now, war!
We must be daft.
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: 3danimator2014
We have no choice
You always have. I have 0% nuclear BS, depends on your energy supplier. Use the force!
But yes, we could also rest our head in the sand and go full Fukushima to grow another pair of balls. Sure...