Plans to fast-track new nuclear power stations
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Plans to fast-track a new generation of nuclear power stations are set to be unveiled by the Government, it was reported today.
Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband will tomorrow announce a series of national policy statements analysing 11 sites for power stations and raising many more potential locations, it was reported in the Sunday Telegraph.
Under changes to the planning laws, the Infrastructure Planning Commission will be able to speed through the proposals for new schemes in a year if it decides they fit in with the policy statements.
Alongside nuclear power, the Government will also issue policy statements on renewables, fossil fuels, gas and infrastructure
The rapid pace of approval for new nuclear sites would contrast with examples such as the six-year struggle to steer the Sizewell B power station through the planning process.
It would also encourage foreign entrants such as E.ON, RWE npower and EDF, which bought nuclear power firm British Energy last year with the aim of being a major player in producing a new fleet of UK power stations.
Most of the sites under consideration have a strong nuclear heritage, including Dungeness in Kent, Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk.
Mr Miliband told the Labour conference in September that the "challenge of climate change is too big to reject nuclear".
He added: "That's why we're right to reform planning laws including for nuclear power and press ahead with plans for new nuclear power."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
We have one of the largest tidal ranges in the world, easily enough energy there to make up for the lack of super expensive and morally corrupt nuclear power.
http://www.withouthotair.com
To cut to the answer, we need to get twice as efficient at using energy and we need some of everything available, wind, tide, solar, nuclear and even some carbon capture. If we do that we can get the improvement we need - we cannot pick and choose. What we don't need, pace the green-fascists, is a total change in everyone's lifestyle, just some good engineering.
• The Cardiff-Weston barrage - a 10-mile scheme costing £14bn that would stretch from near Cardiff to near Weston-super-Mare. It could generate up to 8GW - 5% of the UK's energy needs
• Shoots barrage - a scheme further upstream which would generate around 1GW, equivalent to a large fossil fuel plant
• Beachley barrage - an even smaller scheme, just above the Wye River, which would generate around 625MW
• Bridgwater Bay lagoon - a proposal which would impound a section of the estuary on the coast between east of Hinkley Point and Weston-super-Mare, which could generate 1.36GW
• Fleming lagoon - a similar scheme which would generate the same amount of power from a section of the Welsh shore between Newport and the Severn road crossings.
Offshore wind and wave power - once the reliability issues sorted.
Marcusoralias.
People say that new generation of power stations have bullet proof reliability.
When you cant 100% guarantee for a reasonable period of operational life for something as simple and static as a loaded nut and bolt or a stressed solid cable, how can you guarantee a complex power station x 11.
We need greater safety and security when moving away from fossil fuels - more renewables backed by minimal nuclear power.
This was a 'relatively' small incident & was brought completely under control in a few days, however the images gave some indication of how such incidents/disasters could affect the whole of the UK & its population of 60 million, GB is after all a small geographical area yet one of the higher densities in the world. If we equate this to a Chernobyl style incident (don't say it can't happen) which covered an area many times the size of the UK added to the time it took to control & clean, given these images & the possibility (however small) of a disaster (accident/terroist attack etc) I have to say I have reconsidered my support for the nuclear option.
Although it could be the answer to those who worry about the UK carbon footprint as the islands are laid waste for 500,000 years & its population no more.
In the 1970's the UK was the world leader in wave power. At a Scottish university (Edinburgh I think), Dr Salter created whats called "Salters duck", a wave power device that had over 90% efficiency for converting a wave into mechanical power.
But some smart arse in the government dismissed wave power as being too expensive by adding an extra zero onto the cost per Kwh figures. This made renewable power seem too expensive and funding was terminated.
Britian could have been a world leader in offshore renewables by now if there wasnt dirty politics at play...
In 2003 Energy Review NuLab rejected nuclear in favour of renewables. They didn't do much a of job on those, but by the time of the 2007 'review' ex-ministers had 'relocated' to the nuclear industry which mysteriously came back into favour.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e94b0702-9
So, if you favour nuclear - which I don't - that was four years lost.
Two years further on and it's talk of 'fast track'.
That's it with NuLab: talk!