Nov 09 2009
Better late than never, the government announces today it is going to press on with new power stations, to avoid the lights going out. Anyone going to place a bet on a contract signed and earth cut before the next election?
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
Conservative Party News Headlines The Blue BlogContent Copyright © 2009 John Redwood MP. All Rights Reserved.
This website is paid for by John Redwood and administered privately in his capacity as an individual.
Powered by WordPress. Hosted by Rouse Media.
Pity the government didn’t commission new power stations before they sold the British nuclear industry to the French.
One is a little curious about the chain of events.
The British nuclear industry is sold to the French company, which coincidently employs the brother of the British Prime Minister.
Not long after, but after ten years of prevarication and delay, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – who’s brother works for the French nuclear power supply company – announces a massive expansion of the Nuclear power station building programme.
Yes, we have a shortfall in the power supply. But it’s been known about since the Labour party allied with the Greens fought the Tories in the media to stop the deep Nuclear storage facility being build in Cumbria. when would that be, oh about 1996?
Reply
As though I have any money left for gambling after paying all the new taxes….
Reply
Radio 4: ” … the firm EDF is set to apply for planning permission ..”
What are the odds that it will be approved by Gordon Brown … er! I mean the government?
Reply
Although we need them.
Its just talk.
They have been promising for best part of 12 years, with what result.
Reply
This is one of those politically unpopular things that we simply have to do. Now, they know they are doomed and so it would be selfless to pass all the planning consents now and let the companies break ground.
And yet, Labour putting the national interest first, I can’t quite believe it.
Reply
My money’s on the French company (personal allegation left out -ed) – HMRC gives me no choice.
Reply
After twelve years of dithering – NO!
Reply
Have you discussed this with Dave’s best mate Zac? What”ll be your reaction when Zac is leading his Eco-(warriors in protests against -ed) nuclear power stations, I wonder?
Reply
Have a little faith my fellow Redwoodians! The techs have been inventing new tick boxes behind the scenes for ages now. It’s called GDA.
Have a look at the following progress reports. Remember, two of the suppliers have already withdrawn, leaves two. Does anyone want to place a bet on which one will win?
http://www.hse.gov.uk/newreactors/reports/gda-q3-09.pdf
You will see that this is a joint HSE and Environment Agency process. Two of our major Quangos. Stop laughing!!!!!!!!
Yes, yes; you just know they are going to f*** it up.
The suppliers know that the purchaser will start getting a bit desperate, the longer the GDA / planning permission takes. So, no hurry to answer all the purchasers questions; no need to start offering discounts.
Reply
I suspect (a leading light of UK government -ed) has a nice little directorship waiting with EDF. Nuclear adviser on fallout sounds fairly apt!
Reply
It is now 3 1/2 years since Blair came out for nuclear, having previously destroyed the British nuclear industry by regulatory fiat, forced them to sell Westinghouse to Japan for a few hundred million & described nuclear as an “unatractive option”. It must be admitted that though the Conservatives have been more sensible they have not benn that much moreso.
Westinghouse say their AP1000 reactor can be built in 3 years & cost between £900m & £600m (excluding bureaucracy & regulatory time of course, which will probably at least quadruple it).
We are facing blackouts perhaps as early as 2012. That would be a racing certainty if we were not in recession – on the other hand much of the reason we are in recession is because our high electricity prices are chasing industry, most recently the steel industry, to China.
Reply
Didn’t we taxpayers bail out British Energy to the tune of nearly £4bn 5 years ago? Did we get that back before it was sold to the French?
Reply
On this and many other time bombs left by New Labour: Do the Tories really want to win the next election ?
If so …. why ???
Are you all mad ?
Reply
I read somewhere recently that EDF is demanding the British public will need to fork out a collossal sum in order for them to build these nuclear facilities. Is it true? – i wish I had made a note where I had seen this.
Reply
Labour have faffed and dithered for 10 years…. Now it’s all going to be done in a rush and public discussion on sitings overriden and mistakes made as they try to cover up their disgraceful lack of future planning. What an utterly despicable party they are.
Reply
Anybody going to place a bet on a contract being signed and earth cut before the next election? Are you kidding? The main thing I heard on the radio this morning was a government spokesman reassuring us there would be “consultation” with local people before any stations were built.
I can see the announcement in a few months: “I can now announce that the government is making a decision at this stage to go ahead with the investigation into these proposals. The next step is a feasibility study. The report of the feasibility study will of course be subject to consultation with stakeholders. Since we believe that Britain’s energy supplies should come from a diversified mix of sources, we are today announcing contracts for 12 new combined cycle gas fired power stations. These will be state-of-the-art energy-efficient sources of power, which will make a major contribution to Britain’s carbon reduction targets.”
Reply
Contract signed and earth cut before the election? You’ve got to be joking. Still, we do need nuclear to contribute substantially to the future energy mix, otherwise we will be too heavily dependent on imported energy. Safe long term deep storage of fission waste is feasible if the right site is found. Some remote northern parts of my country of birth, Scotland, have scarcely any population. Perhaps Scotland would offer a site as a quid pro quo for maintenance of the Barnett formula.
If we sold our nuclear industry to the French, why did we do so? This is a strategic industry and to sell it undermines our status as a seperate nation state. If we are serious about remaining a nation state, this is one of the items to be addressed in Mr Cameron’s renegotiation. Limiting it to Lisbon will not do.
Reply
David: “Have you discussed this with Dave’s best mate Zac?”
Yes, this was at the back of my mind too, but sometimes you need to recognise sensible behaviour. The Tories up until David Cameron have been reasonably sound on Nuclear energy.
It would be amusing in a perverse sort of way if after being sensible on this policy for years, the new Tory leader and his Eco (word left out) chum Zak fall out over this one.
Reply
Labour dithered for years, then, realising they could not face years of delay through the traditional planning route, they create a quango to decide if something is of such importance it should not face democratic scrutiny.
Personally, I suggest we do what they did with the railways – authorise them by way of a bill in parliament.
And get rid of this incompetent and dithering mess of a Government.
Reply
Lindsay McDougall: “…why did we do so?
This is a strategic industry and to sell it undermines our status as a seperate nation state.”
And there you have your answer.
Reply
It makes the heart sink – even further. How much worse can the governance of our country get? God only knows, but the rest of us can only stand and shiver.
Reply
Oh well, back to the late 70s and the three day week, cowering in the dark in front of a fire!
Hey- wait a minute – we don’t have a fire place! And no internet! And no coal fired boiler! thank heavens for our gas barbaqueue and sitting room fire and all those blankets.
Reply
Alan Scott: “How much worse can the governance of our country get?”
I don’t think we are at the bottom of the barrel yet!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6831562.ece
So lets take a tally.
Lists 3 possible commercial links for Labour figures – one has not yet been confirmed and one does not tally with Register of Members Interests – ed.
Reply
There seem to be signs of panic behind Miliband’s announcement – and rightly so too. This government’s record on energy is as appalling as on most other of its responsibilities; now Ministers can but look back at the vast mess left behind them, whilst still voicing shibboleths and vain exhortations to divert our attention, this just being the latest in an endless series.
Reply
Bearing in mind foremost that nuclear facilities are to big to fail. Much much bigger than any bank. Where do i invest my money in this government backed dead cert?
How much per megawatt/hour does nuclear power cost if you include build and decommissioning costs? The answer is that nobody is sure. The power station are always massively over budget and the decommissioning costs are not known. The green issues are also suspect with total carbon emissions much higher when you take into account the carbon chain.
It will be interesting to see how long support lasts when there is some sort of nuclear incident in the world, which unlike banking will effect rich and poor alike. The clean up costs would make banking look a bargain. Never happen because the management of the facilities will be so good? Yeah right! A private run state owned company. We all know where that one is going. Which shining example shall we use? Banking or Railways? Probably be run by a TV Boss or Lord something or other. Remember kids nuclear power is safe despite at one point the Irish sea being the most radioactive in the world.
The people who support nuclear would probably support an energy policy based on perpetual motion machines too.
Reply
I note from Mr Milliband in his TV interview last night, that 5 of the 10 sites suggested are in areas which could flood !!!!!!!
If there is even an outside chance of a site which could flood, then surely it should be an absolute no to any construction of any sort of power station, let alone nuclear.
On the other hand perhaps Mr Milliband does not really believe that global warming is real, and the suggested flood threats really negligable.
The true cost of nuclear power are as yet unclear, as not all of the costs ever seem to be included in any calculation.
Reply
Actually the bit about the Irish sea being the most radioactive in the world was simply an example of the very highest standard of honesty to which the eco——- movement aspires & thus in no way whatsoever true. If anybody cares the most radioactive sea in the Dead Sea because of its natural salt level.
Other claims about manufacturing cost,, decomissioning cost, accidents, radioactivity, CO2 produced, the time it takes radiation to decay, etc etc etc are equally untrue. Matthew hopkins was no more dishonest about witchcraft than most of our media is about nuclear & indeed about progressive technology generally.
Reply
Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, God knows how many Nuclear Subs and accidentally lost Nuclear weapons there are out there.
Nuclear for all its technological attractiveness should not be pursued, we are a small Island, a Chernobyl like event would destroy us.
Had we had sensible immigration rules, our farmers could be growing a balance of food and fuel.
Contrary to what the Petrochemical Lobby would have us believe, the CO2 released when burning Veg Oil is only that which was fixed from the atmoshphere during the previous growing season, so you are only putting back, what the plant took out, IE no net CO2 gain to the Atmosphere.
It is Perhaps more interesting to look at who owns most of the Worlds Uranium to find out why we are going Nuclear, Who benefits, certainly not the Farmer, the Taxpayer or the Customer.
What would be wrong with driving to your local farmer to fill up you car, I regularly used to fill up my diesel car on Veg Oil bought straight from Tescos shelf.
That was before Clarckson spilled the Beans on National TV and the Price of Veg oil went from 50p per litre to over £1 per litre where it remains today.
With a sensible population balance what would be wrong with planting tens of Billions of trees, I see nothing wrong with Log Fires but the Govt does, a log fire and a local farmer to buy or barter for food and fuel for your family makes you independent of Government, can you tax firewood, found in your local wood, well if they can Tax CO2 I suppose they would try of course.
And the CO2 released when burning wood, again, only that which was absorbed by the tree during its growing season.
If Gordon wants to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere using Carbon Capture technology, there can be no more beautiful carbon capture technology than Tens of Billions of trees.
Burning Petrochems dumps Extra CO2 into the atmosphere that was absorbed Millions of years ago.
This is all a Con, Nuclear is dangerous and will not benefit we the people, it will enslave us, which is the intention.
People are going to have learn to live off grid, because the Elites are intent on trapping us in large cities, Dependant on Globally controlled Energy, Food, Water and Fuel Suppliers.
The trouble is, every which way they try to get off Grid, the Govt will put up Barriers.
The trouble, by only espousing the Petrochemical Lobby view, they and the Govt can convince the mass public mind that they are correct, it does not matter if a few, or even if thousands know different, so long as most of the population can be hoodwinked by the Propaganda.
We are being farmed.
Reply
Would not bet on that happening, However as the Sun is a massive nuclear explosion the solution to our energy needs has been quietly reminding us of this on a daily basis.
I think we need to sort the energy issue out and start modernising the nuclear generation option. There are other options like more local energy solutions. My consipiracy theory is that power generation remains big to suit the big energy companies. Solar and wind power could be as local as your TV aeriel which should help Dave’s mate Zac. It will also mean the Conservatives avoid ripping up too many local beauty spots to build nuclear plants in Conservative held constituencies.
Reply
OK, so we’ve had an announcement about nuclear – far too late to prevent a crisis in power generation. The dog that didn’t bark was the announcement of the real measures that will prevent the lights from going out. I guess Labour are leaving that unpleasant task to the next government – assuming that they can work out what is necessary before it hits them in the form of a 3 day week.
Reply
We float on an island made of coal. Now we are rid of the NUM it is not sourced from a hostile power. Nuclear power produces a toxic waste which will be around long after we are all dust, and which we cannot safely dispose of. Nuclear power is not the solution to our power generation needs.
We need to reduce our demand. Get the lights off in the middle of the night, insulate all our houses, impose high building standards with respect to home insulation. There’s a few power stations saved. We should burn our coal – like the Americans, Chinese and Indians will all be doing – until such times as we have a safe way of producing power which does not depend on foreign supplies of raw material.
There are rivers we can stick turbines in. There are ideal geothermal sites from which heat can be extracted. There is a tidal bore up the Severn, and there are tidal waters around our shores. I suspect that if we spent some of the billions we are intending to give to Frenchmen and Japanese in exchange for their reactors we could well solve our problem of energy without recourse to any dangerous, foreign dependent means.
Canute couldn’t stop the tide any more than Britain not burning its coal is going to stop it.
Do you think Liebour in opposition will rediscover its opposition to Nuclear? Like I expect in opposition they would have opposed their illegal wars?
Reply
Adrian Peirson writes:
“Nuclear for all its technological attractiveness should not be pursued, we are a small Island, a Chernobyl like event would destroy us.”
France is littered with Nuclear Power-stations. If they had a serious Chernobyl type accident, there would still be the potential that the UK would be irradiated.
I know we are owned lock stock and barrel by the EU these days, thank you Mr Cameron, but that isn’t really a case for being energy dependent if we don’t have to be.
“Contrary to what the Petrochemical Lobby would have us believe, the CO2 released when burning Veg Oil is only that which was fixed from the atmoshphere during the previous growing season, so you are only putting back, what the plant took out, IE no net CO2 gain to the Atmosphere.”
Do these plants drip oil? Or does the plant biomass have to be processed in an energy intensive manner?
“This is all a Con, Nuclear is dangerous and will not benefit we the people, it will enslave us, which is the intention.”
Of course the people will benefit from Nuclear power. Without intending to be rude I think you are just a little paranoid.
Reply
Chernobyl, for all the hype, killed 50 people. The areas doomed to be “dead for 1,000 years” are teeming with life, even though, for political reasons, the people are kept out. At about the same time the Trans-Siberian express drove into a cloud of natural gas from a broken pipeline (both accidents were the result of the abysmal Soviet lack of concern for safety). 500 died in the train explosion. I doubt if 1 Brit in 1,000 remembers that & even I couldn’t name where it happened. This shows how much the hysteria about nuclear is because of publicity & how little it is related to the deaths of real people. By any opbjective standard nuclear is the safest form of power generation.
Reply