From Policy Mogul today:
Government roadmap includes exploring a new power station as big as Hinkley C and Sizewell C
UK becomes first country in Europe to launch high-tech nuclear fuel programme with up to £300 million investment into UK production, pushing Putin out of global market
Measures such as smarter [sic] regulation will help quadruple UK nuclear power by 2050 up to 24GW – the biggest expansion for 70 years
Minister for Nuclear Andrew Bowie said:
“The government’s investment in nuclear will ensure the UK remains at the forefront of technological developments.
“Our plans will give investors the confidence to back new UK projects, with a simpler process for locating new schemes and clear support for private sector companies developing innovative new technologies.
Biggest expansion of nuclear power for 70 years to create jobs, reduce bills and strengthen Britain’s energy security – Key updates – PolicyMogul
I don’t know about you but that ‘smarter regulation’ term starts alarm bells ringing for me. They mean ‘less demanding’ don’t they.
As for Bowie, well we all know about him.
What happens in you invest big-time in nuclear? See these:
and this:
On June 16th this year, Reuters reported that in France- frequently cited by nuclear lobbyists as a successful example of nuclear investment- at least 50% of nuclear reactors were off-line as a result of corrosion.
The same report confirmed that the struggle to complete the construction of the now notorious EPR reactor at Flammanville was 4 times over budget (nearly 13Billion Euros) and over 10 years late. Failure of materials and welding were cited as the key problems.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
I would like to nominate Dounreay. Apparently it will be available in 300 years.
If they want to plan for the longterm, Chernobyl will be available in 20,000 years time.
There is always France It likes to build nuclear power stations. Lots of them. The UK could always import more electricity from its ally, if Scotland is not producing enough for its needs, or they could invest in Scottish renewables? Hydrogen (Grangemouth would be ideal), tidal (the Pentland Firth would be ideal), or hydro schemes (like those proposed for Loch Ness).
Thing is, Scotland is already producing several times the amount of renewable energy than it can use, and is already exporting to the North of England and by the looks of things (or things to come) also to Scandinavia and the rest of Europe.
Don’t get me started on oil and gas…
LikeLiked by 6 people
NuScale in the United States had to cancel a project in Idaho, with 6 small modular nuclear reactors, because in spite of substantial federal grants, its electricity prices were have been too high to attract customers.
LikeLiked by 4 people
gavinochiltree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No!! Ochiltree is too close to me.
LikeLike
While Scotland burns Bowie fiddles!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Considering Bowie’s failed career choices he should be the last person to give advice on ANY subject let alone something with such expensive/dangerous repercussions for the future .
LikeLiked by 2 people
They will want them all to be built in Scotland no doubt!!!
As I said…while Scotland burns Bowie fiddles!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d already touched on this madness in your “Labour MP claims ‘UK’ has 50% of Europe’s tidal energy – will he be mocked for dodgy statistics” article, but essentially RN and every subsequent employer knew what they were doing in ditching this bozo, unfortunately the K&D electorate have a few months more to thole being taken in by “Bartok the Magnificent” in 2017…..
eg “UK becomes first country in Europe to launch high-tech nuclear fuel programme with up to £300 million investment into UK production, pushing Putin out of global market”.
– Strip away all this dimwit’s political codswallop of “high-tech” and “Putin” and you’ve got 300 million investment in what ? It’s peanuts. I suggest that’s what was already allocated to deal with the mess these clowns including mop-up Bowie have visited on the UQ, now UK, simply because it allows space for brown envelopes.
As poignant a classic RN review ‘This man would be out of his depth in a puddle’ applies. He will have been standing in his own puddle for some time despite the smirk…
LikeLiked by 3 people
It is not just the Tories. Labour’s energy policy includes nuclear, too, and Scottish Labour is under the influence of baleful SNP hating former energy minister Brian Wilson, who wants nuclear stations in Scotland. The GMB union is strongly pro nuclear, too, and under its Scotland hating Scottish General Secretary Gary Smith is a donor to Labour.
Sadly, there are some in the SNP, who are not unsympathetic to nuclear.
We do not need it. We already generate more than enough for Scotland from renewables.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have a look at the 4 AGRs off line to address Steam valve problems, right now
LikeLiked by 1 person
Westminster Gov funding decommissioning nuclear. £13Billion a year for ten years. £130Billion. Increasing all the time. Rotting contaminated subs dumped at Rosyth. Flying nuclear waste around the world.
Trident and the military redundant weaponry costing £Billions. Redundant weaponry ending up on the black market. More security risks. Westminster illegally selling weapons to Saudi Arabia since the 1960’s. Keeping it secret under the Official Secrets Act. The most undemocratic place in the world.
Bowie will soon be gone. Off to cause trouble elsewhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We accept new nuclear power, we will get all the UK nuclear waste.
That’s the “benefit” from our sharing UK.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’t know how that happened, I am not Anonymous! Stephen McKenzie
LikeLike
Labour refused funding for two tidal wave projects. One at the Humber. £Billions. Cheaper, cleaner and less dangerous. There have been tidal systems in France since the 1960s. Hydro schemes in Scotland since the 1960’s. Pitlochry etc. Cost affective.
LikeLike
WordPress gremlins in the system. No name appears.
LikeLike
EXPEL THIS FILTHY UNIONIST
LikeLiked by 1 person
As postscript, since I’d commented elsewhere on Bowie’s speech in the Commons where he laboured much on SG’s refusal to engage on nuclear.
Firstly, it is England specifically which has a power demand it cannot sate…
Baseload is a much abused term in the argument for nuclear – It is a number, a minimum power which can be relied upon to service basic demand.
Nuclear cannot simply be turned on or off, not even even the massive tidal stream arrays when they are finally brought online can be so switched, but wind generators, hydro, etc can….
– Given the sheer number of wind generators on and offshore in Scotland, we can comfortably meet any load required, so baseload no longer means what it used to be in the days of coal etc..
And finally, the question nobody asks about baseload, why can’t we reduce it ?
I may have bored you silly with repeat example of my own energy conservation project, but latest figures show my gas consumption hitting 33% by the end of this year despite a -17 winter (so far…).
Where would Scotland be if it could reduce domestic baseload on the grid by 66%, indeed where would England be ?
LikeLike
The ‘baseload’ argument is usually presented as an allegedly clinching argument against renewables, which is usually portrayed as wind energy, rather than the number of sources, such as tidal, wave, hydro, solar, etc.
The baseload argument is predicated on, ‘what happens when the wind doesn’t blow?’ This was used as arguments in favour of coal, oil and gas and is now being used, equally spuriously, by nuclear energy advocates. Coal, oil and gas could actually be switched off, but, as you say nuclear reactors cannot be as easily switched off. The control rods can be raised or lowered depending on demand, but, if lowered completely to ‘switch off’ the reactor, restarting it is problematic.
It is very unlikely that the wind will not be blowing everywhere on land or offshore in the entire UK, but, if it were, the tides would continue to rise and fall, waves would be oscillating, water would still run downhill from lochs, there would still be sunlight even on cloudy days.
And, as Bob indicates, we can take actions to reduce ‘baseload’.
I am old enough to remember the ‘Atoms for Peace’ propaganda of the Eisenhower years. The memories of the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were still recent and the campaigns for nuclear disarmament attracted huge numbers. There was, probably, a substantial majority for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Atoms for Peace was to put on a smiley faced mask to hide nuclear weapons from sight and to present this golden hued vision of limitless PEACEFUL energy from ‘atoms’. It was lies. Governments went on producing weapons-grade uranium and plutonium behind the facade of Atoms for Peace.
Eisenhower also warned of the ‘military-industrial complex’ which preyed upon the fear of war to distort the economy to make profits for them and not for the common good. The nuclear energy industry, even with the new all-singing-all-dancing mini, portable reactors, continues to seek to distort the economy. While the military-industrial complex continues to be the armed forces and the weapons industries, it is largely controlled by the financiers who are profit driven. They also have willing participants amongst the workforces and their trade unions, particularly the GMB and through them, the Labour Party.
Alasdair Macdonald.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“This was used as arguments in favour of coal, oil and gas and is now being used, equally spuriously, by nuclear energy advocates. ” – is only missing “with sizeable bungs to those who can make it happen.
The origins of “baseload” lie in fuel stocks becoming scarce or shipping being disrupted post-war when they were building giant power stations – Having a spread of sources able to be fired up at least at a month’s notice gave energy resilience – Such thermal steam generators being fired up or down at a moment’s notice has become street legend but is factually incorrect…
For wind generation they’ve deployed the dead calm gambit – As if everywhere simultaneously experiences a dead calm, yet nowhere in the UK’s extensive meteorological history and naval almanacs has such an event ever been recorded.
The beauty of wind generators is they can give you incremental changes and do so intelligently, seamlessly boosting available supply, the greater the spread geographically and the mythical ‘dead calm’ disappears up it’s own rectum, better known as a Bowie.
It does however touch on another piece of mischief orchestrated by London – Why are there no continental interconnects to Scotland ?
Were HMG so concerned over redundancy of supply, why were they so anxious to gazump the Peterhead to Norway interconnect ?
Most already figured this out years ago, London is obsessed with control over energy, to remain the ‘gate-keepers’, to retain monopoly of control, to maintaining the revenue status quo.
Let’s call it out for what it is, the Cosy Nostra…
LikeLike