The UK's next nuclear power plant could be built on the island of Anglesey by 2020.
Horizon Nuclear Power says it will apply for planning consent in 2012 to build a reactor on the island to produce up to 3,300Mw of electricity.
Wylfa, the existing nuclear plant, will be decommissioned in December.
Plaid Cymru leader and Anglesey AM Ieuan Wyn Jones said it was an economic boost, and Labour MP Albert Owen called it a vote of confidence in the area.
County council leader Clive McGregor said the move would have a "positive impact" on the community and deliver "high quality jobs".
He said: "We have suffered tremendous job losses over the last few years.
Alan Smith, Horizon's Wylfa project manager, said the plant "would make a vital contribution to meeting the country's energy needs and tackling the challenge of climate change"."
So, one assumes, the "Celtic Alliance" could be in for a bit of falling-out over, for example, whether to have any future minimum carbon price benefiting nuclear as well as renewables.
13 comments:
One produces nuclear waste to justify jobs typical unionist economics. Why should nuclear get carbon credis when its emissions are the same as gas and rising?
"One produces nuclear waste to justify jobs typical unionist economics."
Yes, well at least a nuclear plant DOES produce a large number of local jobs for several decades.
Whereas renewables cost just as much and employ, er, close to nobody.
Coal with carbon capture and storage would employ bods, but produces waste (in the form of CO2) which needs to be stored away forever. How do you guarantee that? Who bears the costs and risks?
"Why should nuclear get carbon credis when its emissions are the same as gas and rising?"
Utterly false.
I don't especially have a dog in this race; I think it's probably right for Scotland to opt out of a new nuclear plant for the next 10 years or so and give the renewables thing a go.
But I resent renewables being presented by the Nats as some sort of magic economic solution, even a replacement for oil. The numbers do not stack up, by a factor of 100.
And when Torness approaches retirement in the mid-2020s, I suspect it will need to be replaced by another nuke.
"Why should nuclear get carbon credis when its emissions are the same as gas and rising?"
Utterly false.
Why? What is your reasoning?
Where are you going to get all the energy from to dispose of that waste in a world that has finite resources of which the most accessible have already been exploited. Short termism is entrenched in the Unionist gene as it put money in big corporate business sucking from the poor.
Carbon capture will be proved to be totally uneconomic and too energy intensive.
Whole life CO2 emissions:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf100.html
"The UK Sustainable Development Commission report in March 2006 gave a figure of 16 g/kWh for nuclear, compared with 891 g/kWh for coal and 356 g/kWh for gas."
Uranium resources:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/position_statements/uranium.html
"The uranium resource is sustainable, with adequate known resources being continuously replenished at least as fast as they are being used. The essential dynamic is the strength of market forces when the market is constantly evolving through advances in human knowledge and the technologies of exploration, mining, and resource utilisation. Depletion of today's known uranium resources will be more than counterbalanced by replenishment from new discoveries, technical progress and possible substitution."
"....which needs to be stored away forever."
Wrong, actually, the Co2 could eventually seep back into the planet's ecosystem, the trick is doing it at a sustainable rate over tens / hundreds of years.
Nuclear waste on the other hand is lethal, effectively forever.
Not only that, you trick me into visiting this awful blog again with stories of Mobrary leaving 'Celtic nuclear fallout' and then offend my aesthetic sensibilities with what can only be described as a 'behemoth of ugliness' on some poor wee island.
My god man, can't you see the difference between nuclear and 'renewables', renewables have a superb USP, whereas if nuclear was attractive the Germans and everyone else would be planning inter-connectors into France, they aren't.
The sheer physical and environmental potential in Scotland is a massive economic resource that can support big industry and rural communities, it's impact therefore is incomparable to a hundred jobs ina dead end town where the parents complain their kids have got leukaemia.
"The numbers do not stack up, by a factor of 100."
You wouldn't expect them too if you compare apples with radiative rods.
"I don't especially have a dog in this race"
I'll be your dog.
"...compared with 891 g/kWh for coal and 356 g/kWh for gas."
Based on importing the majority of both and excluding all clean technologies and new super burn plants.
"apples and radioactive rods" remember.
"Wrong, actually, the Co2 could eventually seep back into the planet's ecosystem, the trick is doing it at a sustainable rate over tens / hundreds of years."
Guff.
"Nuclear waste on the other hand is lethal, effectively forever."
More guff.
We're talking about metal rods sitting in a box in a deep hole in the ground. If you don't go in there, there's nothing it can do to you.
"if nuclear was attractive the Germans and everyone else would be planning inter-connectors into France, they aren't."
They've had them for decades. France is a major net exporter of power to all its neighbours.
"The sheer physical and environmental potential in Scotland is a massive economic resource that can support big industry and rural communities"
ONLY if the kit is actually designed and built here.
So far it is not (and there was another failure to get a plant just the other day).
Otherwise, these things will employ and support virtually nobody.
I must think about getting some SSE shares though - then they can help support me.
"Based on importing the majority of both and excluding all clean technologies and new super burn plants."
More guff.
You do realise the SDC is anti-nuclear?
There is negligible difference in CO2 emissions between imported and domestic coal and gas - the transport emissions are offset by the lower emissions from easier production.
Is "super burn" some new imaginary technology you've invented?
There are engineering and thermodynamic limits on how efficient any coal or gas power plant can be - 60% ish for gas, 45% for coal. And you can knock quite a lot off those numbers if you're doing carbon storage - that uses energy too.
This is the first time I have read anything and it most certainly will be the last time I visit this dull unimaginative blog. What a terrible rag and vivid imagination you have.
Clearly one in need for a doctor's appointment!
"arrogant and hubristic announcement"
Sounds like a press release from the Scottish Office 1987-1997.
All your links are from the industry and are not independent and as such are mythological.
Oxford Research Group
Stormsmith
The figures for specific CO2 emissions are from the SDC, which is pro-renewable and anti-nuclear.
As for future uranium availability, YMMV. But whenever people go looking for stuff which has not been looked for for a while, they tend to find it.
You might also want to try "thorium fuel cycle". There's bags of that stuff.
Hello Smee you silly wee twat. I might have known that a fucked-up wee numpty arsehole like you would support nuclear power. Well seen you posted this shite prior to the FuckYouShima disaster, you arsehole! Fuck nuclear and FUCK YOU!
Post a Comment