Dungeness and nuke power
pirate | 07.03.2006 13:16 | Ecology | Technology | South Coast
Letters in a Kent freepaper March 5th. The first one-against N power- was 'letter of the week'.
The other pro N power but doesn't seem to know what he's on about as reagrds the fuel. (printed at end of letters section.)
The other pro N power but doesn't seem to know what he's on about as reagrds the fuel. (printed at end of letters section.)
Note on first letter:
Nuclear new build & Dungeness, Kent. It was in response to an article 2 weeks ago which reported that Ashford's MP Damien Green (Con) was not bothered either way whether a Dungeness C was built and Folkestone's Michael Howard was 'fence sitting' on it (as ever). Dr Steve Ladyman (Lab-Thanet South) has been talking up the idea of a C station.
----------------------------
Dear Sir.
Whether or not the Kent MP's in your report give support, equivocal or fully, to any new round of Nuclear Stations, the facts remain both environmentally and economically against the idea.
Locally, despite the speculation about the building of a Dungeness C station, it is very likely that the whole of Romney Marsh will begin to flood within the next 50 years or so and thus it would be very dangerous to consider any such construction. It would take upwards of 10 years to build anyway and copious amounts of CO2 would be released during this phase from the construction process. There is also the fact that the cheaply available sources of uranium around the world are likely to run out over the next 50 years, sooner if the UK and elsewhere indulge in a new series of stations.
As regards the current Dungeness A and B stations, these will take over 100 years to fully decommission and likely cost well over £2-3 billion to do so. (Currently £1.2 billion for the A station alone as from the end of 2006). Further, as the Marsh floods, it is highly likely that a huge coffer dam would need to be built around them with a long causeway contructed to link it to dry land for maintanance costing further millions.
There are further problems in that after the second rail crash on the Marsh of a train carrying spent fuel two years ago, there were promises of track renewal and road crossing barriers along the Lydd spur rail line to prevent any further such accidents. So far, apart from some track renewal, the barriers have not been put in place and neither has an extra set of points at Ashford International been considered to allow the flasks to be taken through there avoiding the platforms which they do not at present. All of this further adds to the costs of decommissioning and to the whole industry. It is also largely the UK taxpayer who has had to and will pick up the bills for all of this and the on-going processing and storage of the current and any future highly dangerous nuclear waste.
It is thus still far more likely that investing in the various renewable energy sources, along with greater energy efficiency, will provide a much cheaper way of providing for our future energy needs than any new round of nuclear power.
Yours sincerely.
RD, Folkestone.
---------------------------------
2) second N power letter.
'A question of power.'
I would be interested to know if Friends of the Earth and the environmental groups are aware that new generation power stations will not be using uranium as a source of fuel.
In future, helium-3 will be used, as there is virtually no pollution or radioactivity from this compared with uranium-derived power.
I am not convinced wind-generated power is sustainable, due to recent climate changes, nor do i see it as economically viable.
Sources such as these or tidal generated power are unlikely to do little more than supplement new-style nuclear generated energy.
RP, Sandhurst, Kent.
Ends...............................................................................
Nuclear new build & Dungeness, Kent. It was in response to an article 2 weeks ago which reported that Ashford's MP Damien Green (Con) was not bothered either way whether a Dungeness C was built and Folkestone's Michael Howard was 'fence sitting' on it (as ever). Dr Steve Ladyman (Lab-Thanet South) has been talking up the idea of a C station.
----------------------------
Dear Sir.
Whether or not the Kent MP's in your report give support, equivocal or fully, to any new round of Nuclear Stations, the facts remain both environmentally and economically against the idea.
Locally, despite the speculation about the building of a Dungeness C station, it is very likely that the whole of Romney Marsh will begin to flood within the next 50 years or so and thus it would be very dangerous to consider any such construction. It would take upwards of 10 years to build anyway and copious amounts of CO2 would be released during this phase from the construction process. There is also the fact that the cheaply available sources of uranium around the world are likely to run out over the next 50 years, sooner if the UK and elsewhere indulge in a new series of stations.
As regards the current Dungeness A and B stations, these will take over 100 years to fully decommission and likely cost well over £2-3 billion to do so. (Currently £1.2 billion for the A station alone as from the end of 2006). Further, as the Marsh floods, it is highly likely that a huge coffer dam would need to be built around them with a long causeway contructed to link it to dry land for maintanance costing further millions.
There are further problems in that after the second rail crash on the Marsh of a train carrying spent fuel two years ago, there were promises of track renewal and road crossing barriers along the Lydd spur rail line to prevent any further such accidents. So far, apart from some track renewal, the barriers have not been put in place and neither has an extra set of points at Ashford International been considered to allow the flasks to be taken through there avoiding the platforms which they do not at present. All of this further adds to the costs of decommissioning and to the whole industry. It is also largely the UK taxpayer who has had to and will pick up the bills for all of this and the on-going processing and storage of the current and any future highly dangerous nuclear waste.
It is thus still far more likely that investing in the various renewable energy sources, along with greater energy efficiency, will provide a much cheaper way of providing for our future energy needs than any new round of nuclear power.
Yours sincerely.
RD, Folkestone.
---------------------------------
2) second N power letter.
'A question of power.'
I would be interested to know if Friends of the Earth and the environmental groups are aware that new generation power stations will not be using uranium as a source of fuel.
In future, helium-3 will be used, as there is virtually no pollution or radioactivity from this compared with uranium-derived power.
I am not convinced wind-generated power is sustainable, due to recent climate changes, nor do i see it as economically viable.
Sources such as these or tidal generated power are unlikely to do little more than supplement new-style nuclear generated energy.
RP, Sandhurst, Kent.
Ends...............................................................................
pirate
Additions
More sci-fi lies from the nuclear lobbyists
07.03.2006 15:33
"I would be interested to know if Friends of the Earth and the environmental groups are aware that new generation power stations will not be using uranium as a source of fuel. In future, helium-3 will be used, as there is virtually no pollution or radioactivity from this compared with uranium-derived power."
Helium-3 would produce waste 100 times less radioactive than the existing 100,000 tonnes of nuclear waste carelessly stored around the world. Which is admittedly preferable to uranium/plutonium plants but still an unnecessary and dangerous risk.
The important lie though is the in implying the proposed next generation of UK powerstations will run on helium-3 - they will not. One tonne of helium 3 could supply the energy needs of a city of 10 million people, but there are only a few pounds of helium-3 on the entire planet, a by-product of the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
If nuclear power is such an attractive option why do it's advocates feel the need to tell such blatant lies ?
There is a new letter writing campaign been started aimed at opposing the governments plans for new nuclear plants and waste dumps.
http://www.newnuclearpowernothanks.org
Helium-3 would produce waste 100 times less radioactive than the existing 100,000 tonnes of nuclear waste carelessly stored around the world. Which is admittedly preferable to uranium/plutonium plants but still an unnecessary and dangerous risk.
The important lie though is the in implying the proposed next generation of UK powerstations will run on helium-3 - they will not. One tonne of helium 3 could supply the energy needs of a city of 10 million people, but there are only a few pounds of helium-3 on the entire planet, a by-product of the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
If nuclear power is such an attractive option why do it's advocates feel the need to tell such blatant lies ?
There is a new letter writing campaign been started aimed at opposing the governments plans for new nuclear plants and waste dumps.
http://www.newnuclearpowernothanks.org
AtomKraftNeinDanke
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Fission / fusion
08.03.2006 09:39
Helium 3 is an isotope of helium that can produce enrgy through fusion into heavier nuclei.
All nuclear powerstations use the fission of heavy stuff (uranium, plutonium. experimentally thorium) to produce enregy.
Energy from fusion is a very long way off indeed. It wont produce heaps of high level waste but the technology involved is horribly complex and expensive.
Zaskar
Homepage:
http://www.zaskarfilms.com
Last hope
10.03.2006 11:36
Either to get you to buy a product or to encourage you to join them in the bad investment. No one likes looking silly alone.
The coalition of the willing doesn’t look stupid, because their supporters own the media.
Coalition partners also support nuke power, so you can see why lies are the common denominator.
Nuclear power offers the hope that current energy demands can be met. Iraq offers a simular hope, if we can just secure the oil and privatize the asset, then the war will be won.
The Iraqis will be too busy with civil war.
This is the hope we are all looking for, if it works civilisation can eat cake get fat and afford the Liposuction, more than that, consumerism can be made to suck harder than it does already.
Nuclear power is marvellous war is great, can I have another piece of that delicious cocolate cake?.
Unfortunatelynuke is only good for making bombs, and America will burn more oil getting the oil than fuel can be made from the oil. But atleast they can afford to do it and it stops china from getting it.
Recently Kyoto and a few greeny groups have given support for a Nuke future. Maybe it’s enough to make the terrible idea sell to those who want to secure 20th century lifestyles.
I see the environmental movement as passengers on a train all walking back towards the station they left 12 hours ago. They say they are going in the right direction, they think they are taking the steps , they say something is better than nothing, they say they are doing something, while the train is hurtling the other way toward guaranteed disaster.
But you have to do what makes you happy.
Simon