It's up to the British to decide what they want, not us. Shall we also express our opinions on how they shall run and operate their government? Take a good look at our current governance. A sad disgusting joke for the rest of the world to witness.
1
While the British government officials talk with Horizon, a.k.a. the Japanese conglomerate Hitachi, they might want to introduce the topic of Fukushima, and ask how that nuclear plant on a rugged coastline worked out for them.
1
The Japanese dont want them on their soil but elsewhere.....
2
This story reads like a propaganda piece for the nuclear industry, 40 years out of date. The issue is framed mostly as jobs versus scenery, with an offhand, condescending dismissal of the developing alternative energy potential embraced by other major nations. The future of safe energy is obviously with solar and wind. But in this article, the overwhelming long-term, proven disasters of nuclear energy are minimized as after-thoughts. The nuclear industry is all about money and financing and profit with no regard for the environment. But, hey, trot out the old pro and con arguments... "think of the (short term?) jobs!" Pathetic false equivalent reporting. Meanwhile, the British government is in meltdown crisis already over simple trade deals... who should be trusted to maintain and run this extraordinarily expensive and dangerous plant years and decades from now? How many "good jobs" are worth the potential to literally render that part of the world uninhabitable, let alone ruin the local culture and landscape?
7
Yes indeed ...... such a plant will also mean more radiation-heavy air, soil and water pollution, just as does every *other Nuclear Powered solution to the problem of "how to boil water into steam to spin electric turbines."
They denied all of the above regarding the abysmal safety of Nuke power plants in Fukushima, Japan too, until 32 Million people started coming down with "mysterious" illnesses known the rest of the world over as "radiation sickness".
Good Luck Wales.
2
No nuclear! It is not the answer. It leaves a trail of destruction for future generations. And why on a coast line? That is how Fukushima was allowed to pour tons of radioactive waste into the ocean. NO!!! Just say NO NO NO!
4
Can you say "Fukushima" ?
How can anyone in their right mind build a Nuclear Power Plant on the Coast? That facility could be destroyed with one Winter storm's Tsunami . Japan's Fukushima Reactor is still leaking raw, nuclear waste directly into the Pacific Ocean many, many years after that disaster.
Worse, there is NO way to safely contain Nuclear waste/Plutonium. It is lethally toxic for 250 to 500 THOUSAND years. Who is going to "be around" that long to safe-guard everything ? An earthquake, a terrorist attack, anything could break that waste wide open. A bag of Plutonium the size of a loaf of bread is enough to kill every man, woman and child in this Country. And, radiation is a terrible way to die.
"All" we are talking about here is the ability to generate Electricity. With the advances of Wind generation and Solar, there is zero need to go Nuclear. The Coast of Wales surely has an abundance of strong Wind.
Clean, non-polluting, renewable energy is the only good way to move forward, for ourselves, and this Planet. Otherwise - kiss your grandchildren's future goodbye.
8
and where, exactly, will the nuclear waste be stored?...and for how long, and at what cost?...
5
I am more terrified of the planets nuclear warheads than I am of nuclear power plants. An accidental launch at a nuclear missile launch facility or submarine could result in the end of civilization as we know it while an accident at a nuclear power plant will not result in the loss of hundreds of millions of lives.
I agree that wind and solar are preferable to nuclear power but as long as there are thousands of nuclear tipped missiles ready to launch, I am not afraid at all of nuclear power that is
well regulated and strictly enforced by government as in the USA, United Kingdom and France.
3
Where do you store spent fuel rods on an island?
2
@Dimitra Lavrakas
Right next to the plant, in spent fuel pools, just like any other facility.
3
Given the length of Wales' coastline and the power of its tides, its hard to believe that the potential of these have been maximized. The fact that renewables are not yet are a fully dependable source is surely a teething problem to be worked out, not to be passed over in favour of nuclear.
4
@Clare Brooklyn
It's a fundamental problem, not a mere "teething issue". 'Renewable' energy simply does not work.
The problem with tidal, is that the sea is extremely good at eroding things. Tidal projects have come and go over the past few decades, and those few that were built were abandoned or torn down just a few years later due to erosion & salt water damage.
2
@Gareth
Renewable energy is *ALREADY working all over the Planet. Typical instance of somebody yelling "it cannot be done" even as other people all over the globe are already *DOING IT.
6
Scarily close to Dublin, where trust in British competence is at a new low. We will have all of the risks and none of the benefits.
2
I'm sorry has the kind of big issue that after 35 years of operation, or so, the cooling pipes always turn brittle and crack been solved?
Why would anyone think these problems have been worked out?
3
In the North Sea, there are now windmill parks that are being built without subsidies. These windmills will generate power at a cost that is competitive with gas-fired, coal fired, and even new nuclear power plants. Only old, amortised nuclear power plants will be cheaper than these windmills.
On the other side of the Channel, France is trying to build a new power plant of the next generation: the EPR in Flammanville. The plant is years overdue, and will cost €12Billions instead of the 4 to 6 billions initially planned. Why is the UK still investing in nuclear power?
6
@SJP
Those wind turbines will be gone in a few years, torn down due to salt water damage. Wylfa will be there & operating for the next 40 years, if not more.
You also have huge problems getting the power from those turbines out at sea to the places it's needed. Even more problems arise when trying to turn said energy into something useful on the grid and yet more issues arise with regards to control & reliability of the wind power.
1
@Gareth
Hold on. If what you say about the futility of maritime windpower due to rust and salt water damage were true, the North Sea Oilfields could never have been developed. Instead, they've been around for 50 years, long enough to almost exhaust the oil fields themselves. Sound maintenance probably is key.
The massive developments being made in offshore windpower all over the world are surely made in the knowledge that maintenance will be necessary, and will not vitiate the projects'' value.
I don't know whether this nuclear project makes sense or not, but arguments that rest upon the supposed implausibility of renewable alternatives that are in reality burgeoning worldwide suggests to me that the case for nuclear in general does not bear comparison.
6
@Gareth
Yup, it is all a fantasy. That's why you still see the original tubines working even NOW. If Saltwater were that corrosive to all modern and treated metals, there would not be a Navy or any Commercial Sea Commerce left on the planet.
If we can maintain all that shipping, we can maintain all of those turbines.
Again, the bot argument that "it CAN'T be done", even AS the entire world is ALREADY doing it !
7
Besides the fear of nuclear accidents, one of the reasons nuclear power has failed to proliferate is the high cost of power plants. The financial tradeoffs are uncertain over the 40 years of the power plant’s life. If new, more efficient (less expense per kilowatt hour) technology is developed, nuclear power customers are still stuck paying the higher energy generation rate. The financial investment only makes sense if there is a long term contract in place.
Hitachi wants to sell nuclear power. The Welsh (and Great Britain in general) behind this installation also have a financial incentive to sell this nuclear plant to the public. They need an outside commission to study this, including investigating money flowing into the campaigns of politicians. It is easy to bribe and buy politicians with $25 billion dollars floating around.
3
One would think that a country surrounded by water could generate considerable energy from the tides. The latest propaganda on the topic--I am calling it that because I have not scrutinized the numbers or methodology--puts tidal power as being able to provide 20% of the UK's energy. In Scotland, it is claimed the tides could provide 50%(!!!) of the region's energy needs. In light of that, the potential of other renewables and energy convervation, I'd have to call anyone advocating nuclear absolutely insane, or in the pocket of the nuclear industry.
5
@Joe Schmoe
No. Salt water damage will take out those tidal & offshore wind facilities in no time.
Those claims you mentioned are hopelessly optimistic.
You really owe it to yourself and your children to look into nuclear energy with an open mind. Check out @atomicrod on twitter (and his blog, "atomic insights") as a good jumping off point :)
2
@Gareth
After checking that, be certain to "duck into" the home site for "The Flat Earth Society", which, like the fantasies of the Nuclear Industry is STILL alive and operating on this Planet.