Planned Somerset nuclear plant on hold ? or not ?

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 21 Oct 2015, 15:48

I very much doubt I will live to see this power station produce any electricity.

Current target date 2025, I think we can add 5 years to that on purely technical grounds, and the probability of economic and political BAU lasting another 15 years are slim.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Oct 2015, 16:17

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_c ... ts_on.html

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 21 Oct 2015, 16:36

"The terms for the 3.2GW plant have been agreed but the final contract, running to thousands of pages, would be signed in the next few weeks, EDF said."

So still not signed on the dotted line. And the headline price has gone up another £2,000,000,000

It is , of course, a major underestimate.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 21 Oct 2015, 16:46

And that increase would buy how many offshore wind turbines or how much pv?

Post by **clv101** » 21 Oct 2015, 17:34

The Chinese aren't really interested in Hinckley, they are just buying in to Bradwell and Sizewell to get Chinese reactors deployed in the west.

Post by **adam2** » 21 Oct 2015, 19:09

clv101 wrote:The Chinese aren't really interested in Hinckley, they are just buying in to Bradwell and Sizewell to get Chinese reactors deployed in the west.

Yes.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 22 Oct 2015, 03:11

We are actually asking the Chinese to station nuclear bombs in this country! It's like giving Russia access to one of our home airfields for their nuclear bombers during the cold war. Do we actually trust a country that is aggressively forming new islands off the coast of other countries and stationing troops on them in order to claim vast area of sea bed hundreds of miles from China?

Added to that China is dumping thousands of tonnes of steel onto the European market and putting home steel makers out of business just as they tried to corner the market in rare earth metals a few years ago by dumping vast quantities onto the market to put Canadian and other country's mines out of business. Pratt Osbourne is actually chasing them to take over this country!

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 22 Oct 2015, 10:49

adam2 wrote:
clv101 wrote:The Chinese aren't really interested in Hinckley, they are just buying in to Bradwell and Sizewell to get Chinese reactors deployed in the west.
Yes.

The idea that we're letting the Chinese build reactors in my neck of the woods isn't very reassuring.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 24 Oct 2015, 22:02

You think the Chinese building nukes here might not be the best thing since sliced bread? You tell 'em. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/109213/

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 24 Oct 2015, 22:33

kenneal - lagger wrote:We are actually asking the Chinese to station nuclear bombs in this country! It's like giving Russia access to one of our home airfields for their nuclear bombers during the cold war. Do we actually trust a country that is aggressively forming new islands off the coast of other countries and stationing troops on them in order to claim vast area of sea bed hundreds of miles from China?

Added to that China is dumping thousands of tonnes of steel onto the European market and putting home steel makers out of business just as they tried to corner the market in rare earth metals a few years ago by dumping vast quantities onto the market to put Canadian and other country's mines out of business. Pratt Osbourne is actually chasing them to take over this country!

Hold on a minute. So long as we hold our noses very tightly vis a vis Tibet, China has shown virtually no indication of wishing to enlarge its territory. To the extent it is showing such tendencies at all is for probably the same reason Russia is, to the very limited extent that it has done so. Namely to provide a buttress against aggressive economic, political and military expansionism of the West. Led as ever, by the USA. and what is allo of this bullshit about "dumpting"/ They are simply playing by the rules of global capitalism as set by, again, the good ol US of A. But, of course, when the boot is on the other foot we call it "dumping". This really is a poor post Ken.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 25 Oct 2015, 03:51

Spratley Islands, LJ?

Following its annexation of Tibet the Chinese were at war with India in the Himalayas for a number of years but were repulsed.

I believe that the Chinese conduct over monopolies in production of various items gives a good idea on where they are going. Also their conduct in various African countries on both mineral and food extraction is dubious.

They are pursuing the same economic colonialisation that the US has carried out worldwide rather than the other more overt military colonilisation that the US also carries out, at the moment.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 25 Oct 2015, 05:53

kenneal - lagger wrote:Spratley Islands, LJ?

Following its annexation of Tibet the Chinese were at war with India in the Himalayas for a number of years but were repulsed.

I believe that the Chinese conduct over monopolies in production of various items gives a good idea on where they are going. Also their conduct in various African countries on both mineral and food extraction is dubious.

They are pursuing the same economic colonialisation that the US has carried out worldwide rather than the other more overt military colonilisation that the US also carries out, at the moment.

Would you have a list of these American "'colonies" that you keep mentioning. I might want to move out into one of them to begin taking advantage of the oppressed natives.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 25 Oct 2015, 07:05

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia

The natives were kicked out a long time ago.

It is only small, but the process is repeated world wide. If the US wants a military base, the US gets a military base, regardless of international law.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 25 Oct 2015, 12:11

PS_RalphW wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia

The natives were kicked out a long time ago.

It is only small, but the process is repeated world wide. If the US wants a military base, the US gets a military base, regardless of international law.

Can"t say as that is a very good example considering that the UK owns it and leased it to the USA.

On 30 December 1966, the United States and the UK executed an agreement through an Exchange of Notes which permits the United States to use the BIOT for defense purposes for 50 years (through December 2016), followed by a 20-year optional extension (to 2036) to which both parties must agree by December 2014.[needs update?][20] No monetary payment was made from the United States to the UK as part of this agreement or any subsequent amendment. Rather, the United Kingdom received a US$14-million discount from the United States on the acquisition of submarine-launched ballistic missile system Polaris missiles per a now-declassified addendum to the 1966 agreement.[21]

You made it sound like the US had half of Africa and South America under the oppressive control of the USA version of the East India Company. I suppose you count South Korea as an American colony as we have troops there and factory production is shipped to the United States for sale in box stores?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Oct 2015, 11:21

What's the connection between Hinkley C, Trident replacement and the UK's place on the Security Council? http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_c ... power.html

It's an article from a year ago and doesn't account for letting the Chinese control the power stations!