Skip to main content

Nuclear Expansion an Issue in U.K. Election

It's election day in the United Kingdom, and current Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to win rather easily, but not without the opposition kicking up something of a racket. That's the case with nuclear energy, where Blair's Labor Party is straining not to mention a possible expansion that would help the nation meet its ambitious carbon emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol.

Here's the Times (U.K.):
Labour is determined to get through this election without saying where it stands on building new nuclear power stations — one of the “greenest” energy sour-ces in climate change terms, but a dirty word with green lobbies worried about waste and potential “meltdown”. Officially, Labour stands where it did in the 2003 White Paper: ill-disposed toward nuclear power and enthusiastic about serried phalanxes of windmills, rolling miles of biomass crops and “high standards of energy efficiency”. But even if renewable energy sources are able to provide 20 per cent of Britain’s electricity by 2020, as hoped, they would merely be making up a loss of around 20 per cent in electricity supply that will be inevitable if no new nuclear reactors are built. Nuclear energy furnishes nearly a quarter of Britain’s electricity today, but most of its 12 nuclear stations are due to be decommissioned before 2020.

But while Labor might not be talking about nuclear, a number of British companies are gearing up all the same, according to the Daily Mail:
BRITISH companies led by BNFL and Amec are lining up to take part in a £12bn bonanza to build up to 10 nuclear power stations in the UK.

The firms are developing advance strategies ahead of a widely-expected announcement to build the plants should Labour win the election tomorrow.

Both Amec and BNFL's Westinghouse are keen to be involved, with Mitsui Babcock, Bechtel and Kellogg Brown & Root seen as likely contenders.

Whatever Blair's plan might be, the usual suspects are already lining up in opposition. Click here for a previous post on the situation in the U.K. from a few weeks back.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…