Our Nuclear power stations to be run by terrorists?

I've heard of some stupid ideas coming out of our government lately, but allowing immigration rules for the nuclear power industry to be relaxed takes the bloody biscuit. Jesus H Christ! We are not talking about working in McDonald's, this is an industry which has the potential to kill on a massive scale. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for nuclear power, in fact in my opinion we have desperate need for the government to pull its finger out and stop dithering.

I work in the power industry and with some training could move into the well paid nuclear power industry. But why should an employer spend money training me, a British citizen, when they can take someone from halfway around the world who's already done the training? Yes it's good for the employer, but what happened to Gordon Brown's "British jobs for British workers"?

And what about national security? This government has already shown us that it is pathetic at keeping track of illegal immigrants. How can we expect them (or trust them) to properly vet people coming here from anywhere in the world? We've got an Hijacker working for BA a mile from Heathrow bloody airport! We've had illegal immigrants guarding the Prime Minister's car, six were working for the Metropolitan Police, others were employed at airports, ports and government buildings.

For God's sake, someone please call a General Election.

Energy Crisis in the UK - Go Nuclear go Green.

The following is taken from the NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) Website:

An International Energy Agency (IEA) analysis found that nuclear power’s life-cycle emissions range from 2 to 59 gram-equivalents of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. Only hydropower’s range ranked lower, at 2 to 48 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear energy’s life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are lower than wind (7 to 124 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents) and solar photovoltaic (13 to 731 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents), according to the agency. The life-cycle emissions from natural gas-fired plants ranged from 389 to 511 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents per kilowatt-hour.

Many nuclear critics have claimed that new nuclear plants would need to use lower ore uranium, which requires more energy to extract, and therefore would have higher emissions. In response, British Energy conducted a follow-up study that showed even with a very low uranium ore grade, CO2 emissions would remain very small. If Torness used this ore for all its fuel, its emissions would only rise from 5.05 g/kWh to 6.85 g/kWh.

To view a chart showing the the amount of CO2 produced by different forms of energy, click HERE (You need PowerPoint to view this).

To find out more about the life cycle of nuclear energy, click on the graphic above.

Hansard written answers Wednesday 23rd Jan 2008

Are your local streets clean? They should absolutely spotless. Last year in England alone we spent £1.83m every single day of the year to sweep the streets and dispose of those sweepings. The following is from Hansard:

Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was to local authorities in England of (a) collecting and (b) disposing of road sweepings in the latest period for which figures are available.

Joan Ruddock: My Department does not hold specific data relating to the cost of the collection or disposal of road sweepings.

Local authorities are required to make revenue outturn returns to the Department for Communities and Local Government. This includes their expenditure and income on street cleansing (not chargeable to the Highways Department). In 2006-07, the net total cost of street cleansing to local authorities in England was £667 million. These figures are not available broken down into collection and disposal costs.

Next we look at the question of the building of Nuclear Power Stations in the UK:

Mr. Hollobone: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the planning process for applications to build a new nuclear power station in Scotland.

David Cairns: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a wide range of issues, including energy matters. However, responsibility for the planning process is devolved to Scottish Ministers.

Mr. Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on new nuclear power stations in Scotland.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had no such recent discussions. The decision to grant consent to construct or operate any power station, including nuclear, with a capacity in excess of 50 MW in Scotland lies with the Scottish Ministers.

Guess were all the Nuclear Power Stations are going to be built. I'll give you a clue: It starts with E and ends in D.

Throwing Money To The Wind. (The Great Wind Farm Swindle).

This is a post I wrote a while ago, and now seems like a good time to put it back up:

The government has blown (excuse the pun) half a billion pounds subsidising the wind turbine industry. "So what, it's a worthy cause" I hear you say. Well, it turns out that it is anything but worthy and more worryingly, it is a total waste of our tax money. It is alleged that energy companies are receiving subsidies for wind farms that will never make any money, because they have exaggerated the potential of sites with not enough wind.

The government are miles away (or kilometers as our EU friends prefer) from achieving the target of providing 20% of our energy from renewable sources by 2020. Despite blowing (there I go again - sorry) half a billion pounds of our money, the energy companies have failed to provide even 0.5% of our requirements. For a wind farm to be viable it must have a load factor of 30 per cent. But Jim Oswald, an engineering consultant, found that the average across the country was 28 per cent.

Michael Jefferson, policies chairman of the World Renewable Energy Network believes that the subsidies are encouraging energy companies to exaggerate the amount of potential wind energy a farm can supply. Mr Jefferson said: "We should be putting our money where the wind is and that is quite often not where the development pressure is."

In a previous post about nuclear power’s life-cycle emissions it turned out that the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions for nuclear plants are lower than that of wind farms. Now it turns out that on average these farms are not even financially viable.

For God's sake (and ours) let's stop pandering to the green brigade, and get some nuclear power plants built.

Gordon Brown's address to the CBI - A new world order?

Having returned to the UK, Gordon Brown will attempt to restore faith in his floundering government in a speech to the CBI. Brown is expected to announce greater spending on transport infrastructure and energy, including nuclear power stations. If Gordon really wants to impress the nation with increased spending, then he should give Des Browne the £1bn for defence that he refused him last week. Of course he won't because Des has already been told not to trouble his boss with further concerns over the defence budget. That to me sounds a bit imperious, I can just imagine Gordon wearing a toga, laying on the sofa in No10 whilst dictating his commands to a lowly scribe.

Gordon will use sugar to make the bad medicine he has to announce in his speech go down. He will announce that the planning system will be streamlined so that it will be easier to build nuclear power stations - the sugar will be that this will also make it easier to build homes. He will announce a third runway at Heathrow, which he will hope to sweeten with a promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 60% by 2050. I wonder if any pies (or pigs, take your pick) will be taking off from the new runway? Even though I'm in favour of expanding our capacity for air travel, I think some honesty would be welcome on the subject. Building a third runway is not going to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions, so to continually promise a reduction of at least 60% by 2050 at every opportunity is a little two faced.

Update: Gordon has just quoted Montgomery's statement that the most important thing to a frontline soldier is not his weapon or equipment, but it is the soldier's skills. I think Gordon will find that today's soldiers would not agree. Your skills will not stop you getting blown up by a roadside improvised explosive device, a decent armoured vehicle and body armour will do that.

The questions from the audience have generally been negative towards Gordon's governance of the country. There is however one point that I would like to praise from his speech: That is the desire to get the long term unemployed back to work through skills training. The only problem with that, is whether or not Labour have the leadership skills required to implement them. They have shown that they are highly skilled at setting up schemes and throwing money at them, but they have failed miserably at managing those schemes.

Vladimir Putin ignores assassination plot and visits Iran.

This will be the first visit by a Russian president since 1943. Though the assassination threat was considered very serious, Putin said: "If I listened to what the security services said, I would never leave my home." The Russian president will hold talks with president Ahmadinejad on Iran's nuclear standoff with the West.

Putin is said to be calling for peaceful resolution to the nuclear situation and he is asking for patience. I can't say that I'm happy about those two meeting. They are not well known for their love of the West and they are both wanting to show that their nations are to be taken seriously.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

And I thought Ming was nuttier than squirrel sh*t

GroenLinks (Dutch Green Left Party) leader Femke Halsema was seriously considering wearing a hat designed for her to wear at tomorrow's budget presentation. The hat, consisting of a pile of coal topped by a chimney, is supposed to be an anti-coal-fired power station statement.

What with Ming being anti-nuclear maybe he will take to wearing a uranium hat in parliament.

Go Nuclear - Go Green - Life Cycle Emissions Comparable to Renewables.

The following is taken from the NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) Website:

An International Energy Agency (IEA) analysis found that nuclear power’s life-cycle emissions range from 2 to 59 gram-equivalents of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. Only hydropower’s range ranked lower, at 2 to 48 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear energy’s life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are lower than wind (7 to 124 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents) and solar photovoltaic (13 to 731 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents), according to the agency. The life-cycle emissions from natural gas-fired plants ranged from 389 to 511 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents per kilowatt-hour.

Many nuclear critics have claimed that new nuclear plants would need to use lower ore uranium, which requires more energy to extract, and therefore would have higher emissions. In response, British Energy conducted a follow-up study that showed even with a very low uranium ore grade, CO2 emissions would remain very small. If Torness used this ore for all its fuel, its emissions would only rise from 5.05 g/kWh to 6.85 g/kWh.

To view a chart showing the the amount of CO2 produced by different forms of energy, click HERE (You need PowerPoint to view this).

To find out more about the life cycle of nuclear energy, click on the graphic above.

Tony Blair backs the Nuclear Power Solution in the Energy White Paper

In November 2006 a legally binding target to reduce long-term carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by the year 2050 was set. At the time Tony Blair pointed out that the UK was set to lose about 15% of its electricity generation capacity as existing nuclear power plants reached the end of their operating lives. Mr Blair said: "We need to put nuclear power back on the agenda and at least replace the nuclear energy we will lose. Without it, we will not be able to meet either our objectives on climate change or our objectives on energy security."

In a letter to the Times, Mr Blair has once again shown his support for the role that nuclear power can play in the governments energy strategy, saying: "It is right that we consider how nuclear power can help to underpin the security of our energy supply without increasing our reliance on fossil fuels. We can meet our carbon dioxide emissions targets, but only if we are willing to think ahead and take tough decisions over new wind farms - and give serious consideration to nuclear power."

It is suggested that the government intends to build eight nuclear power plants, this will undoubtedly lead to arguments as to where they are sited. People tend to be in favour of nuclear power, but they don’t want it in their back yard. The Trade and Industry Secretary, Alistair Darling, said: "Whether you like it or not, nuclear power is a low carbon-emitting source. To exclude nuclear would be a big mistake."

The Planning White Paper introduced on Monday will speed up the planning system for large projects such as the proposed nuclear expansion. That’s a bit of a coincidence isn’t it?

Gordon Brown is also said to be in favour of using nuclear power as part of the solution to the country‘s future energy security and supply needs. However, Caroline Lucas, of the Green Party, said: "We should concentrate on reducing energy demand through conservation and energy-efficiency measures, and financially supporting the development of alternative renewable energy generation capacity."

With the current political climate in the Middle East and Russia, surely now is the time to invest heavily in Nuclear Energy. As long as we are dependant on Fossil fuels we will not have energy security and we will be at the mercy of foreign governments. With a firm and secure nuclear energy supply we would be in a position to phase in alternative forms of energy as the technology advances.

There are those who are against nuclear energy but also believe that fossil fuels are causing untold damage to the environment. Nuclear energy could be seen as a secure and clean stop gap to environmentally friendly forms of energy. Legislation could be brought in to ensure nuclear energy is replaced as soon as is possible, thus removing the fear of having a long term reliance upon it.

There is no doubt that if relations with foreign governments decline further, causing a restriction in our fuel supply, this country will be crippled.

Update: Independent Article - Is thorium the answer to our energy crisis?

Is it time to start a major push towards Nuclear Energy?

Back in November of last year I held the following referendum vote on this site:

A legally binding target to reduce long-term carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by the year 2050 has been set. The bill will establish a "Carbon Committee" to make sure targets are met. However the bill makes no reference to annual CO2 reductions targets. Opposition parties and environmentalists deem CO2 reductions necessary to tackle global warming.
The Queen told MPs and peers: "My government will publish a bill on climate change as part of its policy to protect the environment, consistent with the need to secure long-term energy supplies."
David Cameron said he was delighted to hear the proposals in the Queen's Speech. "I hope it will be a proper bill and not a watered down bill. Government has got to give a lead by setting a proper framework." That must mean an independent body with annual targets and an annual report from government on its progress."
The prime minister responded by pointing out that the UK was set to lose about 15% of its electricity generation capacity as existing nuclear power plants reached the end of their operating lives.
"We need to put nuclear power back on the agenda and at least replace the nuclear energy we will lose. Without it, we will not be able to meet either our objectives on climate change or our objectives on energy security."

Should we invest in new nuclear power stations?

The results were:

Yes 84% No 16% Do not know 0%

With the current political climate in the Middle East and Russia, surely now is the time to invest heavily in Nuclear Energy. There is an Energy War going on and we are losing it. As long as we are dependant on Fossil fuels we will not have energy security and we will be at the mercy of foreign governments. Industry should be put on a war footing, not to build weapons but to build a new energy infrastructure. At the same time money should be poured into the advancement of alternative (wind, wave, solar etc) forms of energy. With a firm and secure nuclear energy supply we would be in a position to phase in alternative forms of energy as the technology advances.
The money that we have spent fighting the war in Iraq to secure our oil supply could have been spent on nuclear energy here without loss of life. There are those who are against nuclear energy but also believe that Fossil fuels are causing untold damage to the environment. Nuclear energy could be seen as a secure and clean stop gap to environmentally friendly forms of energy. Legislation could be brought in to ensure nuclear energy is replaced as soon as is possible, thus removing the fear of having a long term reliance upon it.

There is no doubt that if relations with foreign governments decline further, causing a restriction in our fuel supply, this country will be crippled.

Update: Today's Independent Article - Is thorium the answer to our energy crisis?

Nuclear winter?

A legally binding target to reduce long-term carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by the year 2050 has been set. The bill will establish a "Carbon Committee" to make sure targets are met. However the bill makes no reference to annual CO2 reductions targets. Opposition parties and environmentalists deem CO2 reductions necessary to tackle global warming.
The Queen told MPs and peers: "My government will publish a bill on climate change as part of its policy to protect the environment, consistent with the need to secure long-term energy supplies."
David Cameron said he was delighted to hear the proposals in the Queen's Speech. "I hope it will be a proper bill and not a watered down bill. Government has got to give a lead by setting a proper framework." That must mean an independent body with annual targets and an annual report from government on its progress."
The prime minister responded by pointing out that the UK was set to lose about 15% of its electricity generation capacity as existing nuclear power plants reached the end of their operating lives.
"We need to put nuclear power back on the agenda and at least replace the nuclear energy we will lose. Without it, we will not be able to meet either our objectives on climate change or our objectives on energy security."

Q. Should we invest in new nuclear power stations?

To view the results go to:

http://dailyreferendum.co.uk/