10 new nuclear power station sites named

Even if we could open the coal mines at minimal cost does anyone really believe any government would announce a major fossil fuel power program or even be allowed to do it by the EU given how we're all supposed to be cutting carbon footprints. Come on stop lingering in the past and come into the present we need real solutions to this problem and the key to this is in technology and properly funding it and thats where we screw it up everytime. Until we get a PM or ruling party prepared to put the long term needs of this country ahead of short term electoral gain we will never sort this out for any length of time.

Personally i would prefer to see a commitee created to deal with and plan for the long term energy needs of the UK that has some real power to implement and also be free from political interference can but dream eh.

Originally Posted by Moldova

The is millions of tonnes of coal left in all the old mining areas where the mines where closed and deliberately sealed with rubble and concrete to make them not cost effective to reopen and all the surface buildings demolished in most cases.

This has led to us importing the vast majority of the coal we use when we could still be self sufficient.

You forgot the billions of pounds worth of machinery left down there when the shafts were sealed. At the mine I used to work at we left everything down there, one machine was only just built up to start a new seam when Thatcher announced the closures, that was a new machine made by DOSCO at a cost of £3 million. Everything was left right down to the strip lights.

Add the amount of coal down there which is billions of tonnes plus the heating they can get from extracting the methane gas from the mine and selling it on to the national grid it all adds up to a nice little sum.

Coal fired power stations are still the way to go, if the EU don't like it "tough".

---------- Post added at 05:03 ---------- Previous post was at 05:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Yes, one aspect of Thatcher's strategy of Scargillite emasculation which I never understood and bitterly opposed. That having been said, the costs and time involved in building these nuclear power stations is going to be huge and I'd love to see some independent figures re. the comparative costs and timescales involved in each option.

You can get a mine up and running within 18 months, Ashfordby in Leicestershire was up and running within 18 months of the shafts being sunk. Sinking the shafts is the hardest part.

[injuneer]

Originally Posted by martyh

if you listen very carefully you can hear all the government contractors rubbing their hands together and working out how they will justify the money they will overcharge the country

I thought the French were already earmarked to build these?

Originally Posted by Moldova

The is millions of tonnes of coal left in all the old mining areas where the mines where closed and deliberately sealed with rubble and concrete to make them not cost effective to reopen and all the surface buildings demolished in most cases.

This has led to us importing the vast majority of the coal we use when we could still be self sufficient.

Our mines weren't cost effective first time round so it's a bit rich to suggest the concrete seals are all that would prevent them making money in the future.

Planet Earth is better off without our mines being open anyway. Funny how we don't hear so much about acid rain these days. I hear the Nordic countries are a lot less ambivalent towards us now we're not exporting quite so much forest-killing sulphuric acid in their direction.

---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 ----------

Originally Posted by injuneer

I thought the French were already earmarked to build these?

Let's hope so. While this country has spent decades in hoc to those who think progress is defined by rediscovering the horse and cart, France has forged ahead with its nuclear programme and has become rather good at it. We use quite a lot of nuclear-generated French electricity already.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Nidge

You forgot the billions of pounds worth of machinery left down there when the shafts were sealed. At the mine I used to work at we left everything down there, one machine was only just built up to start a new seam when Thatcher announced the closures, that was a new machine made by DOSCO at a cost of £3 million. Everything was left right down to the strip lights.

Add the amount of coal down there which is billions of tonnes plus the heating they can get from extracting the methane gas from the mine and selling it on to the national grid it all adds up to a nice little sum.

Coal fired power stations are still the way to go, if the EU don't like it "tough".[COLOR="Silver"]

Not quite sure I agree with that assessment bearing in mind that I read a few years back that we had enough coal to last maybe 200 years, and that was considered an optimistic estimate, and was made when our power requirements were much lower.

The problem is, we need to do one of two things. Increase our power generation, or reduce the power we use.

Now, bearing in mind the fuss that seems to have occured because the government is now requiring that people use energy efficient bulbs, and they ask that people switch something off at the mains rather than use Standby mode, which is easier?

If we opt to increase Power Generation, we still have problems.

Renewable Energy.: Very nice. Very planet friendly. Unfortunately massively inefficient. No one wants to live next door to a windfarm large enough to power even a small town (they are huge, and require lots of large, noisy wind turbines). Solar power suffers a similar problem (well, it's silent, but still requires an awful lot of space). Wave power has (I believe) been known to cause problems for sea based life forms.

Expensive to exploit.

Coal/Fossil Fuels
Limited supply. Can be exploited relatively cheaply, but causes a lot of pollution (including the aforementioned acid rain).

Nuclear

Can produce a lot of power from very little fuel. As long as it is maintained properly is apparently quite environment friendly. Unfortunately, if it is not maintained properly, can leave large tracts of land uninhabitable for decades, if not centurys (three mile island, chernobyl).

Coal is not the answer to the problem we face now and we have to start looking at practical solutions and put less emphasis on green and more on lower pollution technology that actually delivers sustainable efficient power.

[injuneer]

Various companies bidding for this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091026...20091026130436

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Coal is not the answer to the problem we face now and we have to start looking at practical solutions and put less emphasis on green and more on lower pollution technology that actually delivers sustainable efficient power.

Nor is just nuclear.

A sensible government would have several methods of generation. we should have a mix, as we do now.

Coal Fired
Gas Fired
Hydro
Wind
Tidal
Nuclear

We should keep a diverse portfolio of generation methods. The nuclear plants are nearing end of life and they should be replaced with newer ones - that's all.

[Osem]

Please don't get me wrong, I don't think coal is the long term option but I do think we're going to need something to fill the gap which appears to be facing us after so many years of doing very little. If there's going to be an energy shortage I'd rather we had access to UK coal, providing it can be viably mined, than Russian gas and Arab oil, the cost and supply of which is beyond our control.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Not quite sure I agree with that assessment bearing in mind that I read a few years back that we had enough coal to last maybe 200 years, and that was considered an optimistic estimate, and was made when our power requirements were much lower.

The problem is, we need to do one of two things. Increase our power generation, or reduce the power we use.

Now, bearing in mind the fuss that seems to have occured because the government is now requiring that people use energy efficient bulbs, and they ask that people switch something off at the mains rather than use Standby mode, which is easier?

If we opt to increase Power Generation, we still have problems.

Renewable Energy.: Very nice. Very planet friendly. Unfortunately massively inefficient. No one wants to live next door to a windfarm large enough to power even a small town (they are huge, and require lots of large, noisy wind turbines). Solar power suffers a similar problem (well, it's silent, but still requires an awful lot of space). Wave power has (I believe) been known to cause problems for sea based life forms.

Expensive to exploit.

Coal/Fossil Fuels
Limited supply. Can be exploited relatively cheaply, but causes a lot of pollution (including the aforementioned acid rain).

Nuclear

Can produce a lot of power from very little fuel. As long as it is maintained properly is apparently quite environment friendly. Unfortunately, if it is not maintained properly, can leave large tracts of land uninhabitable for decades, if not centurys (three mile island, chernobyl).

Coal Fired power stations are much cleaner than what they were years ago, they have filters in place that filter out all the so called acid rain particles that are rumoured to cause acid rain. Power stations now re-use the steam that once escaped into the sky.

Originally Posted by Nidge

they have filters in place that filter out all the so called acid rain particles that are rumoured to cause acid rain.

You are having a laugh, aren't you?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Nidge

Coal Fired power stations are much cleaner than what they were years ago, they have filters in place that filter out all the so called acid rain particles that are rumoured to cause acid rain. Power stations now re-use the steam that once escaped into the sky.

'Rumoured' to cause acid rain?

In the same way smoking is rumoured to cause cancer, I expect.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Nor is just nuclear.

A sensible government would have several methods of generation. we should have a mix, as we do now.

Coal Fired
Gas Fired
Hydro
Wind
Tidal
Nuclear

We should keep a diverse portfolio of generation methods. The nuclear plants are nearing end of life and they should be replaced with newer ones - that's all.

Drop at very least the first one from that list and preferably both the first two, I'm firmly in favour of the rest and totally agree. No-one has suggested we abandon them though as far as I'm aware, merely that we renew and increase reliance on nuclear generation. If it means lessening reliance on fossil fuels that's a bonus.

It's laughable, with technological progress, that we are even contemplating continuing to burn hydrocarbons to generate electricity.

Originally Posted by Chris

You are having a laugh, aren't you?

No why should I be, the Radcliffe on Soar power Station near Nottingham is one of the cleanest in the world.

Here you go.