Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 263 billion, and rising.

[Embattle]

Sounds vaguely familiar.

 

[Scouse]

I know you love a disagree @Embattle, but I'm struggling with that one to find out what you're disagreeing with?

Is it that the Tories are potentially going to scrap Sizewell C because it's too expensive?
Is it that the Tories are likely going to scrap the rail link / northern powerhouse thing?

I mean, what the fuck is it you're disagreeing with?

 

[Embattle]

Actually more to do with the notion that nuclear shouldn't be started because it'll take a long while, as has often be used in the past which has helped land us in the current situation.

You can never have enough power.

 

[Scouse]

Actually more to do with the notion that nuclear shouldn't be started because it'll take a long while, as has often be used in the past which has helped land us in the current situation.

You can never have enough power.

I didn't say it shouldn't be started. I'm just saying we shouldn't be reliant on it to help us with climate issues - because it's going to take too fucking long to help.

 

[Scouse]

@Jupitus, can we change the thread title again?

£67.5 billion... nope... 117.4 billion, erm, £260 billion and rising.

In 2005, the cost for decommissioning and disposing of the radioactive waste from nuclear power stations built in the 1950s, 70s and 90s was put at £51bn.

Last year the NDA estimates rose to £131bn, and its latest annual report said £149bn was needed to pay for the clear up. But Thomas said rising costs meant the total bill was on track to reach £260bn.

And quite scarily:

Deterioration of one of the Magnox stations, Trawsfynydd, which shut down in 1991, is such that substantial work is needed to make it safe, according to the NDA. “Work that would then need to be undone to complete reactor dismantling"

So we've an unsafe nuclear reactor, which we were just going to leave for 85 years (current policy) that we need to spend billions on to make safe, then reverse when we figure out how to decomission. And in the meantime - we've a fuckton of other nuclear reactors that are just sat there, like big white elephants, deteriorating - becoming less and less safe. Quite rapidly (it's hardly generational timescales is it?).

Should we really be building more of these?

 

[Scouse]

Just measured it on google maps. Trawsfynydd is exactly 20k in a straight line from my house

And the prevailing winds blow from it to me

Look on the bright side. Maybe I'll end up growing two dicks?!

 

[Embattle]

Yes we should still build them, ideally with a proper repository.

 

[Embattle]

Why high UK energy bills were decades in the making

Former energy ministers and experts highlight mistakes they say are partly to blame for steep bills.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Scouse]

Yes we should still build them, ideally with a proper repository.

We don't know how to build a "proper repository".

 

[Embattle]

We don't know how to build a "proper repository".

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYpiK3W-g_0

 

[Scouse]

You're not telling me anything new there @Embattle. It's been well-documented already - is inadequate to meet their current needs and has serious questions over it's long-term viability and is hella expensive too.

At what point does cost (£260 billion and rising) become too expensive for you?

This £260 billion - that's storage costs for current without any disposal in it - and it's permanently rising. And it doesn't get us any NEW electricity either. Add disposal costs (for which we've no proven solution) is ££££???? on top.

And that £260 billion - that'd fund a fuckload of our TWH requirements for all UK electricity (we've pretty much sorted domestic already with the last round of CfD's) - so why spend more on ever increasing costs when we've already got the soltion?

 

[Embattle]

You're not telling me anything new there @Embattle. It's been well-documented already - is inadequate to meet their current needs and has serious questions over it's long-term viability and is hella expensive too.

Well nor are you.

 

[Scouse]

Well nor are you.

?? I've made a point about cost, you've not said a thing about it. You've just reposted the same problem that was posted last time cost was brought up.

260 billion is more than 10% of all UK government debt .

Let that just sit there a bit. More than 10% of all UK government debt. To do nothing but maintain the status quo. Not fix the problem. Not dispose of the problem. Just to maintain the problem - a problem that is growing.

And you want to add more!

That is madness.

So I ask you again: How expensive does it have to get before you go "fucking hell that's way too expensive"?

 

[Embattle]

?? I've made a point about cost, you've not said a thing about it. You've just reposted the same problem that was posted last time cost was brought up.

260 billion is more than 10% of all UK government debt .

Let that just sit there a bit. More than 10% of all UK government debt. To do nothing but maintain the status quo. Not fix the problem. Not dispose of the problem. Just to maintain the problem - a problem that is growing.

And you want to add more!

That is madness.

So I ask you again: How expensive does it have to get before you go "fucking hell that's way too expensive"?

No you've just repeated the same crap you've stated many times before but with an increased cost, I don't really need to repeat the same opinion I've said before just because you like to do it.

 

[Scouse]

No you've just repeated the same crap you've stated many times before but with an increased cost, I don't really need to repeat the same opinion I've said before just because you like to do it.

"Just" increased cost?

So the question: How expensive does it have to get before you go "fucking hell that's way too expensive"?

 

[Scouse]

No. That's not a statement to disagree or agree with @Embattle. It's a question. How expensive is "too expensive"? Or is it something you want at any cost?

 

[Gwadien]

@Scouse I think it'd be useful to find information about the costs of current nuclear waste Vs how much it's costing us to decommission stuff from the pioneering days because as I'm aware it's that which continues to increase?

 

[Scouse]

@Scouse I think it'd be useful to find information about the costs of current nuclear waste Vs how much it's costing us to decommission stuff from the pioneering days because as I'm aware it's that which continues to increase?

Nuclear waste is nuclear waste Gwad. The nature of it hasn't changed. Physics hasn't changed and isn't going to change. Same shit. Different decade.

Like I said - this isn't decomissioning costs either. This is just "keeping our current shit from killing us". For the princely sum of £260 billion.

So - the question (which we all know Embattle will never answer, he doesn't have a thought process - just beliefs and they're unshakable even if it was going to cost us a Trillion he'd go "more nuclear") - stands for all.

 

[Embattle]

@Scouse I think it'd be useful to find information about the costs of current nuclear waste Vs how much it's costing us to decommission stuff from the pioneering days because as I'm aware it's that which continues to increase?

Which I'm fairly sure was already stated in this thread somewhere, but as we all know even if Scouse was in a downed submarine with limited oxygen he would still want to repeat an argument from the day before.

Scouse doesn't what nuclear, besides trying to muddy the waters with his earlier comment regarding starting the sizewell c plant, and all the other information in this thread regarding safety, costs of not doing it, etc.

I've made my case before and nothing you've posted has changed my core opinion, no matter how big a hissy you have.

 

[Gwadien]

Yeah, I'm fairly sure it was @Wij that mentioned it.

I also brought it up because I saw a documentary about pioneering nuclear power stations and how dangerous they were compared to the ones we have today.

 

[Scouse]

Yeah, I'm fairly sure it was @Wij that mentioned it.

I also brought it up because I saw a documentary about pioneering nuclear power stations and how dangerous they were compared to the ones we have today.

What has safety got to do with this @Gwadien? This is about disposal of nuclear waste. Reactors can be as safe as you like - but they still produce nuclear waste - which we have to dispose of.

You're not talking about the actual argument. In this thread I've gone from not wanting nuclear on cost and disposal grounds, to grudgingly accepting we should be doing it for the environment. But when costs go to 10% of our deficit, 260 billion pounds - to not achieve anything, not build new reactors, not producing more power -just 260 billion pounds spunked on nothing - then the rational action is to pause and ask "is this too much?".

So, I ask again: How much is too much @Gwadien? Considering this is money that is desparately needed and should be spent elsewhere. (NHS? Education? Welfare?)

I know I'm not changing your opinion @Embattle - but is there an associated cost that is "too much" for you?

All I want is an answer to that question. How much is too much?

 

[Scouse]

It's a simple question @Embattle. Why don't you want to answer it?

 

[Embattle]

You do realise those costs have utterly nothing to do with modern planned plants but the majority is related to the early days of nuclear and a lack of foresight in dealing with the waste, plus you are going to pay them even if you didn't do any more nuclear plants.

I personally see no limit unless the government gets a grip on the issue, although the article was interesting that a large part of the cost increase was due to the GDF.

 

[Raven]

It's my birthday tomorrow, as a rule I don't entertain the idea of a wearing a coat until my birthday (there is truth behind not wearing a coat too early, you really won't feel the benefit of it) It's still warm, not even touched the heating yet, £300 in credit with the suppler. This may well be a blip, warm winter, but so far it's just weird.

 

[dysfunction]

I'm supposed to be going skiing in France in December. Not sure if there will be snow!

 

[Raven]

Onshore wind rules to be relaxed after Tory revolt

The government says it will rewrite a planning rule restricting new turbines in England.

www.bbc.co.uk

Another U-Turn.

They shouldn't have been so Tory about it.

 

[Embattle]

Onshore wind rules to be relaxed after Tory revolt

The government says it will rewrite a planning rule restricting new turbines in England.

www.bbc.co.uk

Another U-Turn.

They shouldn't have been so Tory about it.

Good, it was very annoying for government to keep implying local councils had the ability to decide when they really didn't.

 

[Scouse]

Fuck marches and gluing yourselves to gantries. It's time to start bombing as far as I'm concerned.

First UK coal mine in decades approved despite climate concerns

Climate experts and Tory MPs argued the Cumbria mine would scupper UK efforts to lower emissions.

www.bbc.co.uk

I'm happy to see a few MPs die. If Gove or his family was put six feet under? It's not "sad times" any more - it's fine by me.

 

[Gwadien]

Fuck marches and gluing yourselves to gantries. It's time to start bombing as far as I'm concerned.

First UK coal mine in decades approved despite climate concerns

Climate experts and Tory MPs argued the Cumbria mine would scupper UK efforts to lower emissions.

www.bbc.co.uk

I'm happy to see a few MPs die. If Gove or his family was put six feet under? It's not "sad times" any more - it's fine by me.

Isn't it for making steel?? Makes more sense than importing it, no?

 

[Scouse]

Isn't it for making steel?? Makes more sense than importing it, no?

Jeesus. 85% of it is going to be exported.

It's just the world carrying on as usual. And people are going to die - already are in fact. The only choice is - are we going to ensure that some of the people responsible are going to die too?