Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Tichtheid]

Add on top, 85% of the coal is to be exported. Its not coking coal, the UK doesn't have any coking coal seams...

Someone is going to have to explain to me how digging coal out of the ground can possibly be carbon neutral.

You expend some kind of energy to get the stuff out of the ground, then it is sitting there - are we talking about using pit ponies and men with picks, women pulling the carts along a 3 foot high tunnel, like in the good old days, or what?

I hope they're not going try the "carbon offsetting" greenwash gambit.

[sockwithaticket]

Our glorious right wing press...

There seems to be a large serf mentality which appears to have got worse since HMG has announced they plan to use the military to break strikes. Rather than targeting their ire at the government(s) for forcing people into this situation and being the ones on the verge of cancelling Christmas leave for the troops they blame the worker. I can't get my head around it, perhaps it's my bias that we've threatened industrial action.

Crabs in a bucket. It's depressing. The time where we need class solidarity most and some people still fall for the Tories' divide and conquer rhetoric.

[Raggs]

Could we not instead of building a coal station, build nuclear or more renewables?

[Tichtheid]

Our glorious right wing press...

There seems to be a large serf mentality which appears to have got worse since HMG has announced they plan to use the military to break strikes. Rather than targeting their ire at the government(s) for forcing people into this situation and being the ones on the verge of cancelling Christmas leave for the troops they blame the worker. I can't get my head around it, perhaps it's my bias that we've threatened industrial action.

Crabs in a bucket. It's depressing. The time where we need class solidarity most and some people still fall for the Tories' divide and conquer rhetoric.

[yermum]

I struggle to get worked up about coal mining/north sea gas etc. If there are to be fossil fuels used, and they will be for at least a decade unless we fancy societal collapse, how about we make money off it to better our society rather than others doing the same?

we can all fiddle as the planet burns I guess.

What's your immediate solution?

Hold on while I dust off the cabinet for my future nobel prize.

The defeatist attitude of we can't make a difference so why try is pathetic.

Personally do what I can. I have solar panels batteries EV etc. I don't fly abroad. I try to use products with the least environmental impact and so on.

What's the point? My negligible carbon savings are like pissing in the wind of climate change. I do it because it's all I can do. As a country we should do all we can.

I feel sorry for future generations. They will look back at us as the worst people that ever walked the earth. We have all the information but we are to lazy to do anything because we might have to change our supremely privileged lifestyles.

[inactionman]

Could we not instead of building a coal station, build nuclear or more renewables?

We are building nuclear, just veeeery slowly. And possibly badly. And in hock to the French, at least for the larger reactors.

My ex-next-door-neighbour in Bath was Engineering Director for the new reactors at Hinckley Point C, on the limited times we talked shop is sounded like dates were forever moving to the right.

Rolls-Royce are looking to branch into small-scale nuclear power (noting the market for jet engines, which is quite feast-or-famine anyway, is looking a bit barren). This makes some sense, seeing as they've developed the PWR reactors for the RN nuclear boats. These small scale generators aren't due until 2029 on current plans.

https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/

[dpedin]

Could we not instead of building a coal station, build nuclear or more renewables?

We are building nuclear, just veeeery slowly. And possibly badly. And in hock to the French, at least for the larger reactors.

My ex-next-door-neighbour in Bath was Engineering Director for the new reactors at Hinckley Point C, on the limited times we talked shop is sounded like dates were forever moving to the right.

Rolls-Royce are looking to branch into small-scale nuclear power (noting the market for jet engines, which is quite feast-or-famine anyway, is looking a bit barren). This makes some sense, seeing as they've developed the PWR reactors for the RN nuclear boats. These small scale generators aren't due until 2029 on current plans.

https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/

My mate who used to work at RR tells me this is timeline is never going to happen and his view is that it will be at least another 5+ years after that before they begin to make any discernible impact to the national power requirements. However the Gov funding for this helps cross subsidise RR investment in their defence work for the. MoD.

The only thing we can do in the immediate term is to increase generation capacity using wind/tidal/renewable power and reduce demand with a concerted national effort to reduce consumption ie insulation, ensure new build is energy efficient, reduce wastage as per many EU countries are doing, push for more off peak utilisation, etc. Investment in renewables ie onshore wind farms, is quick and relatively inexpensive and England and Wales have huge capacity to do more if the politics, right wing oil and gas opposition and Nimbyism weren't issues. This could make a sizeable contribution to national requirements relatively quickly and way more cheaply than nuclear etc.

For me it is more essential in the short-medium term to see greater investment and R&D on energy storage technology such as batteries, hydro schemes, etc at a domestic, local and national level. In Scotland we have a surplus of energy, we export c30% to England, but until tidal becomes more commercially viable it can be difficult to ensure baseload requirements in Scotland.

However as long as we have a Tory gov in the back pockets of the oil and gas industries, dependant on their funding and who want to protect oil and gas profits rather than worrying about the country then we are fecked!

[petej]

I struggle to get worked up about coal mining/north sea gas etc. If there are to be fossil fuels used, and they will be for at least a decade unless we fancy societal collapse, how about we make money off it to better our society rather than others doing the same?

There is so much disinformation about that I really don't know what to think about this. I thought that one really good reason for it was that we import all our coal so this would be environmentally and economically better. But now I see we are exporting a load of it, but I've also seen people saying this in nonsense.

I struggle to get worked up about it as well. If we need fossil fuels it might as well be from our own resources and where the regulations are tighter on things like methane and we arent giving money to dictatorships. What annoys me is the god awful mess these pricks have got us in due to the absence of medium term planning. I had initially assumed this coal was primarily for steel production. I've not bothered to keep up to date with it though.

[GogLais]

I struggle to get worked up about coal mining/north sea gas etc. If there are to be fossil fuels used, and they will be for at least a decade unless we fancy societal collapse, how about we make money off it to better our society rather than others doing the same?

There is so much disinformation about that I really don't know what to think about this. I thought that one really good reason for it was that we import all our coal so this would be environmentally and economically better. But now I see we are exporting a load of it, but I've also seen people saying this in nonsense.

I struggle to get worked up about it as well. If we need fossil fuels it might as well be from our own resources and where the regulations are tighter on things like methane and we arent giving money to dictatorships. What annoys me is the god awful mess these pricks have got us in due to the absence of medium term planning. I had initially assumed this coal was primarily for steel production. I've not bothered to keep up to date with it though.

It always gets described as being for steel production, at least on BBC regional news. The world is going to carry on making steel, new turbines don’t grow on trees and we might as well have a slice of the action. Doesn’t affect the rights and wrongs of it but I wonder if any tax-payer money is going into it.

[inactionman]

Could we not instead of building a coal station, build nuclear or more renewables?

We are building nuclear, just veeeery slowly. And possibly badly. And in hock to the French, at least for the larger reactors.

My ex-next-door-neighbour in Bath was Engineering Director for the new reactors at Hinckley Point C, on the limited times we talked shop is sounded like dates were forever moving to the right.

Rolls-Royce are looking to branch into small-scale nuclear power (noting the market for jet engines, which is quite feast-or-famine anyway, is looking a bit barren). This makes some sense, seeing as they've developed the PWR reactors for the RN nuclear boats. These small scale generators aren't due until 2029 on current plans.

https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/

My mate who used to work at RR tells me this is timeline is never going to happen and his view is that it will be at least another 5+ years after that before they begin to make any discernible impact to the national power requirements. However the Gov funding for this helps cross subsidise RR investment in their defence work for the. MoD.

The only thing we can do in the immediate term is to increase generation capacity using wind/tidal/renewable power and reduce demand with a concerted national effort to reduce consumption ie insulation, ensure new build is energy efficient, reduce wastage as per many EU countries are doing, push for more off peak utilisation, etc. Investment in renewables ie onshore wind farms, is quick and relatively inexpensive and England and Wales have huge capacity to do more if the politics, right wing oil and gas opposition and Nimbyism weren't issues. This could make a sizeable contribution to national requirements relatively quickly and way more cheaply than nuclear etc.

For me it is more essential in the short-medium term to see greater investment and R&D on energy storage technology such as batteries, hydro schemes, etc at a domestic, local and national level. In Scotland we have a surplus of energy, we export c30% to England, but until tidal becomes more commercially viable it can be difficult to ensure baseload requirements in Scotland.

However as long as we have a Tory gov in the back pockets of the oil and gas industries, dependant on their funding and who want to protect oil and gas profits rather than worrying about the country then we are fecked!

I gather the pilot for the RR small scale reactor was supposed to be Grangemouth, but the SNP have kyboshed due to opposition to nuclear. I mention the SNP just to give some balance to the dirty tories angle.

There are existing schemes to help with insulation etc, but I agree completely that this does need to be more concerted - a friend if mine if Fife on UC has had his loft, radiators, doors and boiler replaced for free, but his next door neighbour who is not on UC can't afford to do similar. I'm very happy my mate and his young family have a warm house this winter, but it doesn't make colossal broader sense to make his house energy gold-standard whilst his neighbours have leaking windows.

[dpedin]

There is so much disinformation about that I really don't know what to think about this. I thought that one really good reason for it was that we import all our coal so this would be environmentally and economically better. But now I see we are exporting a load of it, but I've also seen people saying this in nonsense.

I struggle to get worked up about it as well. If we need fossil fuels it might as well be from our own resources and where the regulations are tighter on things like methane and we arent giving money to dictatorships. What annoys me is the god awful mess these pricks have got us in due to the absence of medium term planning. I had initially assumed this coal was primarily for steel production. I've not bothered to keep up to date with it though.

It always gets described as being for steel production, at least on BBC regional news. The world is going to carry on making steel, new turbines don’t grow on trees and we might as well have a slice of the action. Doesn’t affect the rights and wrongs of it but I wonder if any tax-payer money is going into it.

Probably - I say that because the West Cumbrian Mining Group is 82% owned by EMR Capital Investment Limited which is registered in Singapore. The ultimate parent entity of EMR Capital Investment Limited is EMR Capital Resources Fund which is registered in the Cayman Islands. Stinks a bit and there is probably Gov money to 'oil the wheels' and no doubt there will be some dodgy Tory donor involved down the line. This all sounds all to familiar!

[SaintK]

Good summary write up of the Truss debacle from the FT. She really does come over as bonkers!!
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2F ... ed2a3dca

[dpedin]

We are building nuclear, just veeeery slowly. And possibly badly. And in hock to the French, at least for the larger reactors.

My ex-next-door-neighbour in Bath was Engineering Director for the new reactors at Hinckley Point C, on the limited times we talked shop is sounded like dates were forever moving to the right.

Rolls-Royce are looking to branch into small-scale nuclear power (noting the market for jet engines, which is quite feast-or-famine anyway, is looking a bit barren). This makes some sense, seeing as they've developed the PWR reactors for the RN nuclear boats. These small scale generators aren't due until 2029 on current plans.

https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/

My mate who used to work at RR tells me this is timeline is never going to happen and his view is that it will be at least another 5+ years after that before they begin to make any discernible impact to the national power requirements. However the Gov funding for this helps cross subsidise RR investment in their defence work for the. MoD.

The only thing we can do in the immediate term is to increase generation capacity using wind/tidal/renewable power and reduce demand with a concerted national effort to reduce consumption ie insulation, ensure new build is energy efficient, reduce wastage as per many EU countries are doing, push for more off peak utilisation, etc. Investment in renewables ie onshore wind farms, is quick and relatively inexpensive and England and Wales have huge capacity to do more if the politics, right wing oil and gas opposition and Nimbyism weren't issues. This could make a sizeable contribution to national requirements relatively quickly and way more cheaply than nuclear etc.

For me it is more essential in the short-medium term to see greater investment and R&D on energy storage technology such as batteries, hydro schemes, etc at a domestic, local and national level. In Scotland we have a surplus of energy, we export c30% to England, but until tidal becomes more commercially viable it can be difficult to ensure baseload requirements in Scotland.

However as long as we have a Tory gov in the back pockets of the oil and gas industries, dependant on their funding and who want to protect oil and gas profits rather than worrying about the country then we are fecked!

I gather the pilot for the RR small scale reactor was supposed to be Grangemouth, but the SNP have kyboshed due to opposition to nuclear. I mention the SNP just to give some balance to the dirty tories angle.

There are existing schemes to help with insulation etc, but I agree completely that this does need to be more concerted - a friend if mine if Fife on UC has had his loft, radiators, doors and boiler replaced for free, but his next door neighbour who is not on UC can't afford to do similar. I'm very happy my mate and his young family have a warm house this winter, but it doesn't make colossal broader sense to make his house energy gold-standard whilst his neighbours have leaking windows.

Agree - David Cameron and his 'Green Crap Policies' stance doesn't seem so clever now! Insulating existing and building more energy efficient homes over the last 10 years would have been a lot cheaper than the current subsidy schemes we have now plus it would have created more jobs and targeted those most in need. Still at least the oil and cash sector are doing well.....

[TB63]

Why the government hasn't pushed for all new build to have PV on every suitable roof is beyond me.. Just been on a job where the roof has been tiled with PV slate effect roofing, until your up close, you can't tell the difference between slate and the PVs..

[inactionman]

Why the government hasn't pushed for all new build to have PV on every suitable roof is beyond me.. Just been on a job where the roof has been tiled with PV slate effect roofing, until your up close, you can't tell the difference between slate and the PVs..

Cost, presumably, although only over the relatively shorter term.

We might need a bit of our roof re-doing and I'm very keen on the new PV slate effect - although we're a bit sheltered by a church and trees we should get some incident light. The only stumbling block is cost, which would have been defrayed if it had been an original fit.

[petej]

We are building nuclear, just veeeery slowly. And possibly badly. And in hock to the French, at least for the larger reactors.

My ex-next-door-neighbour in Bath was Engineering Director for the new reactors at Hinckley Point C, on the limited times we talked shop is sounded like dates were forever moving to the right.

Rolls-Royce are looking to branch into small-scale nuclear power (noting the market for jet engines, which is quite feast-or-famine anyway, is looking a bit barren). This makes some sense, seeing as they've developed the PWR reactors for the RN nuclear boats. These small scale generators aren't due until 2029 on current plans.

https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/

My mate who used to work at RR tells me this is timeline is never going to happen and his view is that it will be at least another 5+ years after that before they begin to make any discernible impact to the national power requirements. However the Gov funding for this helps cross subsidise RR investment in their defence work for the. MoD.

The only thing we can do in the immediate term is to increase generation capacity using wind/tidal/renewable power and reduce demand with a concerted national effort to reduce consumption ie insulation, ensure new build is energy efficient, reduce wastage as per many EU countries are doing, push for more off peak utilisation, etc. Investment in renewables ie onshore wind farms, is quick and relatively inexpensive and England and Wales have huge capacity to do more if the politics, right wing oil and gas opposition and Nimbyism weren't issues. This could make a sizeable contribution to national requirements relatively quickly and way more cheaply than nuclear etc.

For me it is more essential in the short-medium term to see greater investment and R&D on energy storage technology such as batteries, hydro schemes, etc at a domestic, local and national level. In Scotland we have a surplus of energy, we export c30% to England, but until tidal becomes more commercially viable it can be difficult to ensure baseload requirements in Scotland.

However as long as we have a Tory gov in the back pockets of the oil and gas industries, dependant on their funding and who want to protect oil and gas profits rather than worrying about the country then we are fecked!

I gather the pilot for the RR small scale reactor was supposed to be Grangemouth, but the SNP have kyboshed due to opposition to nuclear. I mention the SNP just to give some balance to the dirty tories angle.

There are existing schemes to help with insulation etc, but I agree completely that this does need to be more concerted - a friend if mine if Fife on UC has had his loft, radiators, doors and boiler replaced for free, but his next door neighbour who is not on UC can't afford to do similar. I'm very happy my mate and his young family have a warm house this winter, but it doesn't make colossal broader sense to make his house energy gold-standard whilst his neighbours have leaking windows.

This isn't an old nuclear site and so would be an unlikely choice for a SMR pilot. I had assumed wylfa or Sellafield for a pilot.

[petej]

Why the government hasn't pushed for all new build to have PV on every suitable roof is beyond me.. Just been on a job where the roof has been tiled with PV slate effect roofing, until your up close, you can't tell the difference between slate and the PVs..

Yep. Also no new build should have a gas boiler.

[inactionman]

My mate who used to work at RR tells me this is timeline is never going to happen and his view is that it will be at least another 5+ years after that before they begin to make any discernible impact to the national power requirements. However the Gov funding for this helps cross subsidise RR investment in their defence work for the. MoD.

The only thing we can do in the immediate term is to increase generation capacity using wind/tidal/renewable power and reduce demand with a concerted national effort to reduce consumption ie insulation, ensure new build is energy efficient, reduce wastage as per many EU countries are doing, push for more off peak utilisation, etc. Investment in renewables ie onshore wind farms, is quick and relatively inexpensive and England and Wales have huge capacity to do more if the politics, right wing oil and gas opposition and Nimbyism weren't issues. This could make a sizeable contribution to national requirements relatively quickly and way more cheaply than nuclear etc.

For me it is more essential in the short-medium term to see greater investment and R&D on energy storage technology such as batteries, hydro schemes, etc at a domestic, local and national level. In Scotland we have a surplus of energy, we export c30% to England, but until tidal becomes more commercially viable it can be difficult to ensure baseload requirements in Scotland.

However as long as we have a Tory gov in the back pockets of the oil and gas industries, dependant on their funding and who want to protect oil and gas profits rather than worrying about the country then we are fecked!

I gather the pilot for the RR small scale reactor was supposed to be Grangemouth, but the SNP have kyboshed due to opposition to nuclear. I mention the SNP just to give some balance to the dirty tories angle.

There are existing schemes to help with insulation etc, but I agree completely that this does need to be more concerted - a friend if mine if Fife on UC has had his loft, radiators, doors and boiler replaced for free, but his next door neighbour who is not on UC can't afford to do similar. I'm very happy my mate and his young family have a warm house this winter, but it doesn't make colossal broader sense to make his house energy gold-standard whilst his neighbours have leaking windows.

This isn't an old nuclear site and so would be an unlikely choice for a SMR pilot. I had assumed wylfa or Sellafield for a pilot.

The design intent is that the reactor is factory-built and not built in-situ, so there's a greater freedom of location - although security, safety etc remain concerns.

Ironically, the plan was for the reactor to power an oil refinery

[GogLais]

Why the government hasn't pushed for all new build to have PV on every suitable roof is beyond me.. Just been on a job where the roof has been tiled with PV slate effect roofing, until your up close, you can't tell the difference between slate and the PVs..

Yep. Also no new build should have a gas boiler.

They’re not going to from about 2025. I’m pretty sure.

[Biffer]

Why the government hasn't pushed for all new build to have PV on every suitable roof is beyond me.. Just been on a job where the roof has been tiled with PV slate effect roofing, until your up close, you can't tell the difference between slate and the PVs..

Cost, presumably, although only over the relatively shorter term.

We might need a bit of our roof re-doing and I'm very keen on the new PV slate effect - although we're a bit sheltered by a church and trees we should get some incident light. The only stumbling block is cost, which would have been defrayed if it had been an original fit.

Nah, it’s ideology. The same part of the party that went on about green crap, and now writes off environmentalism as woke socialist nonsense. They’d be hugely against it and kick up a massive stink, while getting slipped a bit of cash by the home builders.

[fishfoodie]

My mate who used to work at RR tells me this is timeline is never going to happen and his view is that it will be at least another 5+ years after that before they begin to make any discernible impact to the national power requirements. However the Gov funding for this helps cross subsidise RR investment in their defence work for the. MoD.

The only thing we can do in the immediate term is to increase generation capacity using wind/tidal/renewable power and reduce demand with a concerted national effort to reduce consumption ie insulation, ensure new build is energy efficient, reduce wastage as per many EU countries are doing, push for more off peak utilisation, etc. Investment in renewables ie onshore wind farms, is quick and relatively inexpensive and England and Wales have huge capacity to do more if the politics, right wing oil and gas opposition and Nimbyism weren't issues. This could make a sizeable contribution to national requirements relatively quickly and way more cheaply than nuclear etc.

For me it is more essential in the short-medium term to see greater investment and R&D on energy storage technology such as batteries, hydro schemes, etc at a domestic, local and national level. In Scotland we have a surplus of energy, we export c30% to England, but until tidal becomes more commercially viable it can be difficult to ensure baseload requirements in Scotland.

However as long as we have a Tory gov in the back pockets of the oil and gas industries, dependant on their funding and who want to protect oil and gas profits rather than worrying about the country then we are fecked!

I gather the pilot for the RR small scale reactor was supposed to be Grangemouth, but the SNP have kyboshed due to opposition to nuclear. I mention the SNP just to give some balance to the dirty tories angle.

There are existing schemes to help with insulation etc, but I agree completely that this does need to be more concerted - a friend if mine if Fife on UC has had his loft, radiators, doors and boiler replaced for free, but his next door neighbour who is not on UC can't afford to do similar. I'm very happy my mate and his young family have a warm house this winter, but it doesn't make colossal broader sense to make his house energy gold-standard whilst his neighbours have leaking windows.

Agree - David Cameron and his 'Green Crap Policies' stance doesn't seem so clever now! Insulating existing and building more energy efficient homes over the last 10 years would have been a lot cheaper than the current subsidy schemes we have now plus it would have created more jobs and targeted those most in need. Still at least the oil and cash sector are doing well.....

I caught the arse end of an interview on Irish radio earlier, & one of the questions the presenter asked, was why, when the benefits to construction are so obvious,we don't build more modular homes in Ireland ?

Most of them being built in Ireland, are built from parts imported from the Baltic, states & Scandinavia.

It's a good question, because when you are building components in a factory, you can mass produce, & do the work to a much higher quality, than on the site; especially things like air tightness, which is critical.

From a political perspective, it's a win-win, because you are fixing a societal issue, & you create skilled jobs, in Industrial areas like the Red Wall seats; & if you do a good job of it, you can export too !

[Hal Jordan]

As has been mentioned above, to no one's surprise West Cumbria Mining's political consultants have donated £177k to the Tory Party.

This thing has "white elephant to own the woke" all over it. Getting insurance for coal mining is increasingly hard, and the steel industry is trying to move on as far as possible. If it ever gets built, it will be obsolete very quickly and the public purse will pick up the fallout as usual.

Although there's always the possibility that Gove was thinking about a mine for another sort of coke altogether.

[petej]

Why the government hasn't pushed for all new build to have PV on every suitable roof is beyond me.. Just been on a job where the roof has been tiled with PV slate effect roofing, until your up close, you can't tell the difference between slate and the PVs..

Cost, presumably, although only over the relatively shorter term.

We might need a bit of our roof re-doing and I'm very keen on the new PV slate effect - although we're a bit sheltered by a church and trees we should get some incident light. The only stumbling block is cost, which would have been defrayed if it had been an original fit.

Nah, it’s ideology. The same part of the party that went on about green crap, and now writes off environmentalism as woke socialist nonsense. They’d be hugely against it and kick up a massive stink, while getting slipped a bit of cash by the home builders.

And by the oil and gas companies.

[petej]

This isn't an old nuclear site and so would be an unlikely choice for a SMR pilot. I had assumed wylfa or Sellafield for a pilot.

The design intent is that the reactor is factory-built and not built in-situ, so there's a greater freedom of location - although security, safety etc remain concerns.

Ironically, the plan was for the reactor to power an oil refinery

I know but for a pilot you aren't going to put it in the middle of an industrial site you're going to put it on an existing licence site. Unless you want to give yourself a shitload of grief and hassle.

[fishfoodie]

This isn't an old nuclear site and so would be an unlikely choice for a SMR pilot. I had assumed wylfa or Sellafield for a pilot.

The design intent is that the reactor is factory-built and not built in-situ, so there's a greater freedom of location - although security, safety etc remain concerns.

Ironically, the plan was for the reactor to power an oil refinery

I know but for a pilot you aren't going to put it in the middle of an industrial site you're going to put it on an existing licence site. Unless you want to give yourself a shitload of grief and hassle.

The approval process for nuclear facilities is, rightfully, excruciatingly detailed.

Maybe after an extended pilot installation, some of the planning criteria can be waived for SMR, but until then, it makes sense to use an existing site.

I assume the UK is in the same situation as the US, in that there's no long term plan for waste storage ?, so wherever the SMR is built, will have to store a lot of the waste generated, on that site, after decommissioning, for potentially hundreds of years.

[petej]

The design intent is that the reactor is factory-built and not built in-situ, so there's a greater freedom of location - although security, safety etc remain concerns.

Ironically, the plan was for the reactor to power an oil refinery

I know but for a pilot you aren't going to put it in the middle of an industrial site you're going to put it on an existing licence site. Unless you want to give yourself a shitload of grief and hassle.

The approval process for nuclear facilities is, rightfully, excruciatingly detailed.

Maybe after an extended pilot installation, some of the planning criteria can be waived for SMR, but until then, it makes sense to use an existing site.

I assume the UK is in the same situation as the US, in that there's no long term plan for waste storage ?, so wherever the SMR is built, will have to store a lot of the waste generated, on that site, after decommissioning, for potentially hundreds of years.

Deep storage somewhere (i think under Cumbria).

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/geological-disposal
https://www.imeche.org/news/news-articl ... -millennia

[fishfoodie]

I know but for a pilot you aren't going to put it in the middle of an industrial site you're going to put it on an existing licence site. Unless you want to give yourself a shitload of grief and hassle.

The approval process for nuclear facilities is, rightfully, excruciatingly detailed.

Maybe after an extended pilot installation, some of the planning criteria can be waived for SMR, but until then, it makes sense to use an existing site.

I assume the UK is in the same situation as the US, in that there's no long term plan for waste storage ?, so wherever the SMR is built, will have to store a lot of the waste generated, on that site, after decommissioning, for potentially hundreds of years.

Deep storage somewhere (i think under Cumbria).

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/geological-disposal
https://www.imeche.org/news/news-articl ... -millennia

So not even as close to a resolution as the US with Yucca mountain; & with the State of the Tories, you'll be lucky to have started digging the big hole in the ground in the next fifty years !

Last time I checked, the UK hasn't started decommissioning any of it's retired nuclear submarines, & they're still tided up dockside, waiting for someone to fucking decide that what to do with their reactors.

[inactionman]

This isn't an old nuclear site and so would be an unlikely choice for a SMR pilot. I had assumed wylfa or Sellafield for a pilot.

The design intent is that the reactor is factory-built and not built in-situ, so there's a greater freedom of location - although security, safety etc remain concerns.

Ironically, the plan was for the reactor to power an oil refinery

I know but for a pilot you aren't going to put it in the middle of an industrial site you're going to put it on an existing licence site. Unless you want to give yourself a shitload of grief and hassle.

It depends whether they're piloting the technology - which is already in use in a variant form in submarines, which in engineering terms is already a more complex use case - or the applicability to alternative locations. It's not clear to me what the intent of the pilot was/is.

My assumption is that Mr Tax Exile Ratcliffe was prepared to pony up a proportion of the cost of the pilot.

[inactionman]

The approval process for nuclear facilities is, rightfully, excruciatingly detailed.

Maybe after an extended pilot installation, some of the planning criteria can be waived for SMR, but until then, it makes sense to use an existing site.

I assume the UK is in the same situation as the US, in that there's no long term plan for waste storage ?, so wherever the SMR is built, will have to store a lot of the waste generated, on that site, after decommissioning, for potentially hundreds of years.

Deep storage somewhere (i think under Cumbria).

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/geological-disposal
https://www.imeche.org/news/news-articl ... -millennia

So not even as close to a resolution as the US with Yucca mountain; & with the State of the Tories, you'll be lucky to have started digging the big hole in the ground in the next fifty years !

Last time I checked, the UK hasn't started decommissioning any of it's retired nuclear submarines, & they're still tided up dockside, waiting for someone to fucking decide that what to do with their reactors.

Sellafield had a re-processing facility although that's now been decommissioned. Even with that in service I'd still expect a significant volume of pretty unpleasant waste.

[Raggs]

Deep storage somewhere (i think under Cumbria).

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/geological-disposal
https://www.imeche.org/news/news-articl ... -millennia

So not even as close to a resolution as the US with Yucca mountain; & with the State of the Tories, you'll be lucky to have started digging the big hole in the ground in the next fifty years !

Last time I checked, the UK hasn't started decommissioning any of it's retired nuclear submarines, & they're still tided up dockside, waiting for someone to fucking decide that what to do with their reactors.

Sellafield had a re-processing facility although that's now been decommissioned. Even with that in service I'd still expect a significant volume of pretty unpleasant waste.

The unpleasant stuff is a tiny tiny amount really. Few meters cubed a year I believe. The large amount that isn't really dangerous are overalls etc that are thrown. Can't imagine it needs very high level storage.

[SaintK]

I'm shocked I tell you!!! Not open to abuse in the slightest.

Rishi Sunak’s government is expected to accept most of a proposed new code of conduct for MPs after the Owen Paterson scandal but has rejected the idea that ministers should declare more details about free hospitality from lobbyists and companies
Instead, they are allowed to make transparency declarations through their departments, without citing a value for hospitality received, and these are often infrequent, delayed and patchy. It

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ ... mps-code

[C69]

So not even as close to a resolution as the US with Yucca mountain; & with the State of the Tories, you'll be lucky to have started digging the big hole in the ground in the next fifty years !

Last time I checked, the UK hasn't started decommissioning any of it's retired nuclear submarines, & they're still tided up dockside, waiting for someone to fucking decide that what to do with their reactors.

Sellafield had a re-processing facility although that's now been decommissioned. Even with that in service I'd still expect a significant volume of pretty unpleasant waste.

The unpleasant stuff is a tiny tiny amount really. Few meters cubed a year I believe. The large amount that isn't really dangerous are overalls etc that are thrown. Can't imagine it needs very high level storage.

Given that I know a few people that work there, they would say that the nasty stuff is much more than could ever be made public.

[Torquemada 1420]

I struggle to get worked up about coal mining/north sea gas etc. If there are to be fossil fuels used, and they will be for at least a decade unless we fancy societal collapse, how about we make money off it to better our society rather than others doing the same?

we can all fiddle as the planet burns I guess.

Quite. But we'll die rich.

[geordie_6]

I struggle to get worked up about coal mining/north sea gas etc. If there are to be fossil fuels used, and they will be for at least a decade unless we fancy societal collapse, how about we make money off it to better our society rather than others doing the same?

we can all fiddle as the planet burns I guess.

Quite. But we'll die rich.

They will. We won't.

[Torquemada 1420]

we can all fiddle as the planet burns I guess.

Quite. But we'll die rich.

They will. We won't.

Sorry. Intended to be a quote!

[petej]

Sellafield had a re-processing facility although that's now been decommissioned. Even with that in service I'd still expect a significant volume of pretty unpleasant waste.

The unpleasant stuff is a tiny tiny amount really. Few meters cubed a year I believe. The large amount that isn't really dangerous are overalls etc that are thrown. Can't imagine it needs very high level storage.

I assume the reprocessing facility mentioned was the magnox reprocessing one and decommissioned as there is no more spent fuel to be reprocessed though i think keeping this legacy facility running has been a problem as old things breakdown more and safety standards are higher now. The thing with engineers is we love to tell stories of awful decisions and things going wrong.

[tabascoboy]

[Hal Jordan]

Nothing like "billionaire donor financing putsch" to let you know who runs the country.

[Camroc2]

I gather the pilot for the RR small scale reactor was supposed to be Grangemouth, but the SNP have kyboshed due to opposition to nuclear. I mention the SNP just to give some balance to the dirty tories angle.

There are existing schemes to help with insulation etc, but I agree completely that this does need to be more concerted - a friend if mine if Fife on UC has had his loft, radiators, doors and boiler replaced for free, but his next door neighbour who is not on UC can't afford to do similar. I'm very happy my mate and his young family have a warm house this winter, but it doesn't make colossal broader sense to make his house energy gold-standard whilst his neighbours have leaking windows.

Agree - David Cameron and his 'Green Crap Policies' stance doesn't seem so clever now! Insulating existing and building more energy efficient homes over the last 10 years would have been a lot cheaper than the current subsidy schemes we have now plus it would have created more jobs and targeted those most in need. Still at least the oil and cash sector are doing well.....

I caught the arse end of an interview on Irish radio earlier, & one of the questions the presenter asked, was why, when the benefits to construction are so obvious,we don't build more modular homes in Ireland ?

Most of them being built in Ireland, are built from parts imported from the Baltic, states & Scandinavia.

It's a good question, because when you are building components in a factory, you can mass produce, & do the work to a much higher quality, than on the site; especially things like air tightness, which is critical.

From a political perspective, it's a win-win, because you are fixing a societal issue, & you create skilled jobs, in Industrial areas like the Red Wall seats; & if you do a good job of it, you can export too !

We have companies that produce modular buildings, but they are mostly in the industrial/pharma/anything but resi sphere.

Why ?

Because once modular is mentioned, particularly for social housing, the shinners and their raggle taggle of leftie cohorts, bleat that 'prefabs' are not real houses, and it is the 'elite' ripping off the 'workers' again.

[derriz]

It depends whether they're piloting the technology - which is already in use in a variant form in submarines, which in engineering terms is already a more complex use case - or the applicability to alternative locations. It's not clear to me what the intent of the pilot was/is.

problem with SMRs is that - because of fundamental physical laws - they will always be less efficient than larger reactors - consuming more fuel and producing more waste per kWh. given that even large modern nuclear reactors can only survive in today's liberalised/competitive electricity markets with massive subsidies, SMRs have no chance.

people have been talking about this shit for 70 years and yet nobody has produced a single proven commercial/civilian SMR design. this wasn't the lack of trying - with an unlimited budget you can build something - like the McMurdo station plant in Antartica - which was replaced after a decade by a diesel generator - flying diesel by helicopter to the antarctic proved to be cheaper than running a small nuclear reactor.

the only reason smrs are even discussed is because the nuclear industry has been declining for years - global peak electricity share was in 1996 - nearly twice its share today and so the tiny handful of nuke power companies that haven't gone bust have learned to survive by sucking on the government money tit. smr is a good marketing story for gullible government even if it's nonsense engineering.