“If they could get at waste 1000 metres below rock.”
I worked in South Africa once at a research institute headed by a man who had once run Koeberg power plant in Cape Town. At the time Fukushima had just happened and I asked him his thoughts on nuclear energy.
“The trouble”, he said. “Is that the underlying assumption when running a plant is that humans can follow processes without error for 1000 years. If you agree that this is possible, then you agree that nuclear energy is safe”.
I don’t know about you, but I for one am terrified that the ANC has its hands on a nuclear reactor. Zuma’s cousin so-and-so, having failed his matric, but managing a nuclear reactor nontheless through his marriage to Tsitsi X, probably makes Homer Simpson look like Stephen Hawking.
Now, granted, the UK is not South Africa. But it’s not exactly Switzerland either.
So, in short, here’s hoping that there are no adverse incidents on the way to getting that toxic material between the railway station and its intended destination 1000m below land.
I agree, it’s an awful piece. Absolutely no acknowledgement of reality, actual risk and the growing need we all have for electricity generation without fossil fuels. One of the worst pieces I’ve read in Unherd. Terrible. I’ve posted separately setting out why.
What reality? That we have decided to use less fossil fuels and thereby have to employ more nuclear power? I am open to arguments but I wonder if you would be quite so sanguine if this were anywhere near where YOU live?!
What reality? That we have decided to use less fossil fuels and thereby have to employ more nuclear power? I am open to arguments but I wonder if you would be quite so sanguine if this were anywhere near where YOU live?!
“If they could get at waste 1000 metres below rock.”
I worked in South Africa once at a research institute headed by a man who had once run Koeberg power plant in Cape Town. At the time Fukushima had just happened and I asked him his thoughts on nuclear energy.
“The trouble”, he said. “Is that the underlying assumption when running a plant is that humans can follow processes without error for 1000 years. If you agree that this is possible, then you agree that nuclear energy is safe”.
I don’t know about you, but I for one am terrified that the ANC has its hands on a nuclear reactor. Zuma’s cousin so-and-so, having failed his matric, but managing a nuclear reactor nontheless through his marriage to Tsitsi X, probably makes Homer Simpson look like Stephen Hawking.
Now, granted, the UK is not South Africa. But it’s not exactly Switzerland either.
So, in short, here’s hoping that there are no adverse incidents on the way to getting that toxic material between the railway station and its intended destination 1000m below land.
I agree, it’s an awful piece. Absolutely no acknowledgement of reality, actual risk and the growing need we all have for electricity generation without fossil fuels. One of the worst pieces I’ve read in Unherd. Terrible. I’ve posted separately setting out why.
D Glover
1 year ago
There’s a lot of emotive language in this.
The nearest nuclear power station to Theddlethorpe is in Suffolk, 96 miles away as the fallout flies,
Yes, but also 96 miles as the electricity is supplied to locals who all want mains power.
migratory birds, who could carry toxins hundreds of miles.
If they could get at waste 1000 metres below rock.
Andrew McDonald
1 year ago
‘An alliance of experienced politicians, full-time administrators and a rich and secretive industry take on volunteer activists who are largely without funds and unversed in the arts of persuasion. A glacial decision-making process, with tedious procedures and slippery language, wears down local opposition’
That’s a good description of just about any Nationally Significant Infrastructure Programme, and will strike a chord with (say) those in Suffolk who aren’t totally convinced by EDF’s programme for yet another late/overbudget/nonfunctional EPR generator in a sensitive landscape. What’s always certain in these doomed Big Plans is that the consultants and the job-hopping politicians will grind a few more career points and pension contributions out of the mess.
Andrew McDonald
1 year ago
‘An alliance of experienced politicians, full-time administrators and a rich and secretive industry take on volunteer activists who are largely without funds and unversed in the arts of persuasion. A glacial decision-making process, with tedious procedures and slippery language, wears down local opposition’
That’s a good description of just about any Nationally Significant Infrastructure Programme, and will strike a chord with (say) those in Suffolk who aren’t totally convinced by EDF’s programme for yet another late/overbudget/nonfunctional EPR generator in a sensitive landscape. What’s always certain in these doomed Big Plans is that the consultants and the job-hopping politicians will grind a few more career points and pension contributions out of the mess.
Karen Arnold
1 year ago
I live in Lincolnshire and received Edge of England: Landfall in Lincolnshire as a gift, it’s a great read, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Two thoughts on this occur to me, trains carrying any nuclear waste are likely to travel on the line through Lincoln to Grimsby, this would blight the tourism of the city; and I agree that everyone would be wary of buy crops grown in this area, this would have a negative impact on UK food security.
You’d probably be surprised, Karen, at the number of shipments of nuclear material already taking place on our rail network. No tourism has been blighted so far.
That’s because Nobody Knows. If you start a major national debate on ‘Where shall we put all the horrid nuclear waste, what about Grimsby?’ the situation might be a little different.
That’s because Nobody Knows. If you start a major national debate on ‘Where shall we put all the horrid nuclear waste, what about Grimsby?’ the situation might be a little different.
You’d probably be surprised, Karen, at the number of shipments of nuclear material already taking place on our rail network. No tourism has been blighted so far.
Karen Arnold
1 year ago
I live in Lincolnshire and received Edge of England: Landfall in Lincolnshire as a gift, it’s a great read, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Two thoughts on this occur to me, trains carrying any nuclear waste are likely to travel on the line through Lincoln to Grimsby, this would blight the tourism of the city; and I agree that everyone would be wary of buy crops grown in this area, this would have a negative impact on UK food security.
“Why here?”, ask the nimbies.
Why not? Used nuclear fuel (that which cannot be re-used) has to be stored somewhere, so the argument is whether civil nuclear power remains part of electricity generation. Almost all experts agree that nuclear is indispensable. The alternative to nuclear is not renewables, as Germany has discovered – it’s fossil fuels. We simply cannot fulfil our climate change commitments without it, as we abandon gas and electrify our cars.
If one has regard to actual facts rather than emotive nonsense and selective anecdote (as in this piece of very poor journalism), one knows that nuclear power generation is literally the safest that there is. Yes, literally! People talk of Fukushima, as if we are meant to draw lessons from this event that should shape energy policy around the world forever. Fact: nature threw a magnitude 9 earthquake and a tsunami at a crappy 1960s-designed power station and guess what? No one died.
If we had just discovered nuclear power, we’d be overjoyed that a solution had been found to climate change. The late Professor Lovelock (originator of Gaia Theory) recognised how critically important it is. George Monbiot knows it too. It’s about time public opinion caught up with their wisdom. Nuclear is green.
Even if you think, contrary to all the actual evidence, that storage of used nuclear fuel may present a threat to human health, it would still be worth it. This century is the most environmentally dangerous there has ever been. To throw away nuclear at this critical juncture would be madness.
“This century is the most environmentally dangerous there has ever been” is pretty much complete rubbish. Far fewer people are dying of climate related disasters than ever before. More people by far die of cold than of heat as well. We’re Safer From Climate Disasters Than Ever Before – WSJ
If that is the sort of argument used, then we all do have to be quite worried both about the costs involved in the energy transition and of course the mass re-industrialisation of the countryside – the transmission capacity having to increase at least threefold for example.
“This century is the most environmentally dangerous there has ever been” is pretty much complete rubbish. Far fewer people are dying of climate related disasters than ever before. More people by far die of cold than of heat as well. We’re Safer From Climate Disasters Than Ever Before – WSJ
If that is the sort of argument used, then we all do have to be quite worried both about the costs involved in the energy transition and of course the mass re-industrialisation of the countryside – the transmission capacity having to increase at least threefold for example.
Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Fisher
John Clinch
1 year ago
“Why here?”, ask the nimbies.
Why not? Used nuclear fuel (that which cannot be re-used) has to be stored somewhere, so the argument is whether civil nuclear power remains part of electricity generation. Almost all experts agree that nuclear is indispensable. The alternative to nuclear is not renewables, as Germany has discovered – it’s fossil fuels. We simply cannot fulfil our climate change commitments without it, as we abandon gas and electrify our cars.
If one has regard to actual facts rather than emotive nonsense and selective anecdote (as in this piece of very poor journalism), one knows that nuclear power generation is literally the safest that there is. Yes, literally! People talk of Fukushima, as if we are meant to draw lessons from this event that should shape energy policy around the world forever. Fact: nature threw a magnitude 9 earthquake and a tsunami at a crappy 1960s-designed power station and guess what? No one died.
If we had just discovered nuclear power, we’d be overjoyed that a solution had been found to climate change. The late Professor Lovelock (originator of Gaia Theory) recognised how critically important it is. George Monbiot knows it too. It’s about time public opinion caught up with their wisdom. Nuclear is green.
Even if you think, contrary to all the actual evidence, that storage of used nuclear fuel may present a threat to human health, it would still be worth it. This century is the most environmentally dangerous there has ever been. To throw away nuclear at this critical juncture would be madness.
I could go along with most of your “Scribes” arguments re dangers from radiation including present life around Chernoble but something nasty has happened in that location which needs airing. Where did the Russian Infantrymen got their (reported) radiation burns from when they “dug-in?” Many years ago a minor part of my naval training was dealing with “radioactive spills,”in fact the collection and disposal of debris should some fool ‘techie’ drop certain electronic valves/TWTs so I do understand some of the science albeit my brain has deteriorated a bit since then. I can also remember feeling the heat of the noses of certain “special” weapons but the OSA* (as was) is ever present, even today, so I daren’t tell you where and when. *I kid you not.
I could go along with most of your “Scribes” arguments re dangers from radiation including present life around Chernoble but something nasty has happened in that location which needs airing. Where did the Russian Infantrymen got their (reported) radiation burns from when they “dug-in?” Many years ago a minor part of my naval training was dealing with “radioactive spills,”in fact the collection and disposal of debris should some fool ‘techie’ drop certain electronic valves/TWTs so I do understand some of the science albeit my brain has deteriorated a bit since then. I can also remember feeling the heat of the noses of certain “special” weapons but the OSA* (as was) is ever present, even today, so I daren’t tell you where and when. *I kid you not.
Low risk, very high consequence. I’ve always been fairly pro-nuclear. But there is no doubt that we underestimate Black Swan events and essentially say they have no chance of happening.
Low risk, very high consequence. I’ve always been fairly pro-nuclear. But there is no doubt that we underestimate Black Swan events and essentially say they have no chance of happening.
Mark Duffett
1 year ago
The “inevitable risks” of a subsea GDF are practically nil.
There’s a lot of emotive language in this.
Yes, but also 96 miles as the electricity is supplied to locals who all want mains power.
If they could get at waste 1000 metres below rock.
“If they could get at waste 1000 metres below rock.”
I worked in South Africa once at a research institute headed by a man who had once run Koeberg power plant in Cape Town. At the time Fukushima had just happened and I asked him his thoughts on nuclear energy.
“The trouble”, he said. “Is that the underlying assumption when running a plant is that humans can follow processes without error for 1000 years. If you agree that this is possible, then you agree that nuclear energy is safe”.
I don’t know about you, but I for one am terrified that the ANC has its hands on a nuclear reactor. Zuma’s cousin so-and-so, having failed his matric, but managing a nuclear reactor nontheless through his marriage to Tsitsi X, probably makes Homer Simpson look like Stephen Hawking.
Now, granted, the UK is not South Africa. But it’s not exactly Switzerland either.
So, in short, here’s hoping that there are no adverse incidents on the way to getting that toxic material between the railway station and its intended destination 1000m below land.
The UK is not South Africa………yet.
We use to say the US wasn’t China or Russia.
We use to say the US wasn’t China or Russia.
Climate change
The UK is not South Africa………yet.
Climate change
Agreed, sounds like NIMBYism to me
I agree, it’s an awful piece. Absolutely no acknowledgement of reality, actual risk and the growing need we all have for electricity generation without fossil fuels. One of the worst pieces I’ve read in Unherd. Terrible. I’ve posted separately setting out why.
What reality? That we have decided to use less fossil fuels and thereby have to employ more nuclear power? I am open to arguments but I wonder if you would be quite so sanguine if this were anywhere near where YOU live?!
What reality? That we have decided to use less fossil fuels and thereby have to employ more nuclear power? I am open to arguments but I wonder if you would be quite so sanguine if this were anywhere near where YOU live?!
“If they could get at waste 1000 metres below rock.”
I worked in South Africa once at a research institute headed by a man who had once run Koeberg power plant in Cape Town. At the time Fukushima had just happened and I asked him his thoughts on nuclear energy.
“The trouble”, he said. “Is that the underlying assumption when running a plant is that humans can follow processes without error for 1000 years. If you agree that this is possible, then you agree that nuclear energy is safe”.
I don’t know about you, but I for one am terrified that the ANC has its hands on a nuclear reactor. Zuma’s cousin so-and-so, having failed his matric, but managing a nuclear reactor nontheless through his marriage to Tsitsi X, probably makes Homer Simpson look like Stephen Hawking.
Now, granted, the UK is not South Africa. But it’s not exactly Switzerland either.
So, in short, here’s hoping that there are no adverse incidents on the way to getting that toxic material between the railway station and its intended destination 1000m below land.
Agreed, sounds like NIMBYism to me
I agree, it’s an awful piece. Absolutely no acknowledgement of reality, actual risk and the growing need we all have for electricity generation without fossil fuels. One of the worst pieces I’ve read in Unherd. Terrible. I’ve posted separately setting out why.
There’s a lot of emotive language in this.
Yes, but also 96 miles as the electricity is supplied to locals who all want mains power.
If they could get at waste 1000 metres below rock.
‘An alliance of experienced politicians, full-time administrators and a rich and secretive industry take on volunteer activists who are largely without funds and unversed in the arts of persuasion. A glacial decision-making process, with tedious procedures and slippery language, wears down local opposition’
That’s a good description of just about any Nationally Significant Infrastructure Programme, and will strike a chord with (say) those in Suffolk who aren’t totally convinced by EDF’s programme for yet another late/overbudget/nonfunctional EPR generator in a sensitive landscape. What’s always certain in these doomed Big Plans is that the consultants and the job-hopping politicians will grind a few more career points and pension contributions out of the mess.
‘An alliance of experienced politicians, full-time administrators and a rich and secretive industry take on volunteer activists who are largely without funds and unversed in the arts of persuasion. A glacial decision-making process, with tedious procedures and slippery language, wears down local opposition’
That’s a good description of just about any Nationally Significant Infrastructure Programme, and will strike a chord with (say) those in Suffolk who aren’t totally convinced by EDF’s programme for yet another late/overbudget/nonfunctional EPR generator in a sensitive landscape. What’s always certain in these doomed Big Plans is that the consultants and the job-hopping politicians will grind a few more career points and pension contributions out of the mess.
I live in Lincolnshire and received Edge of England: Landfall in Lincolnshire as a gift, it’s a great read, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Two thoughts on this occur to me, trains carrying any nuclear waste are likely to travel on the line through Lincoln to Grimsby, this would blight the tourism of the city; and I agree that everyone would be wary of buy crops grown in this area, this would have a negative impact on UK food security.
What could go wrong with that?
Sincerely,
The East Palestine, OH Citizens Board for Train Safety
What could wrong with the nuclear component? Basically nothing.
What could wrong with the nuclear component? Basically nothing.
You’d probably be surprised, Karen, at the number of shipments of nuclear material already taking place on our rail network. No tourism has been blighted so far.
That’s because Nobody Knows. If you start a major national debate on ‘Where shall we put all the horrid nuclear waste, what about Grimsby?’ the situation might be a little different.
That’s because Nobody Knows. If you start a major national debate on ‘Where shall we put all the horrid nuclear waste, what about Grimsby?’ the situation might be a little different.
What could go wrong with that?
Sincerely,
The East Palestine, OH Citizens Board for Train Safety
You’d probably be surprised, Karen, at the number of shipments of nuclear material already taking place on our rail network. No tourism has been blighted so far.
I live in Lincolnshire and received Edge of England: Landfall in Lincolnshire as a gift, it’s a great read, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Two thoughts on this occur to me, trains carrying any nuclear waste are likely to travel on the line through Lincoln to Grimsby, this would blight the tourism of the city; and I agree that everyone would be wary of buy crops grown in this area, this would have a negative impact on UK food security.
Everyone expects electricity to flow at the flick of a switch but no-one wants the power station at the end of their road.
Some facts to illuminate the discussion:
Total wastes | UK Radioactive Waste Inventory (UKRWI) (nda.gov.uk)
Everyone expects electricity to flow at the flick of a switch but no-one wants the power station at the end of their road.
Some facts to illuminate the discussion:
Total wastes | UK Radioactive Waste Inventory (UKRWI) (nda.gov.uk)
“Why here?”, ask the nimbies.
Why not? Used nuclear fuel (that which cannot be re-used) has to be stored somewhere, so the argument is whether civil nuclear power remains part of electricity generation. Almost all experts agree that nuclear is indispensable. The alternative to nuclear is not renewables, as Germany has discovered – it’s fossil fuels. We simply cannot fulfil our climate change commitments without it, as we abandon gas and electrify our cars.
If one has regard to actual facts rather than emotive nonsense and selective anecdote (as in this piece of very poor journalism), one knows that nuclear power generation is literally the safest that there is. Yes, literally! People talk of Fukushima, as if we are meant to draw lessons from this event that should shape energy policy around the world forever. Fact: nature threw a magnitude 9 earthquake and a tsunami at a crappy 1960s-designed power station and guess what? No one died.
If we had just discovered nuclear power, we’d be overjoyed that a solution had been found to climate change. The late Professor Lovelock (originator of Gaia Theory) recognised how critically important it is. George Monbiot knows it too. It’s about time public opinion caught up with their wisdom. Nuclear is green.
Even if you think, contrary to all the actual evidence, that storage of used nuclear fuel may present a threat to human health, it would still be worth it. This century is the most environmentally dangerous there has ever been. To throw away nuclear at this critical juncture would be madness.
“No one died” Really, really?Can that be true? Very hard to believe. Must do research.
Do some research! What you “believe” is irrelevant. Only evidence is relevant.
Do some research! What you “believe” is irrelevant. Only evidence is relevant.
“This century is the most environmentally dangerous there has ever been” is pretty much complete rubbish. Far fewer people are dying of climate related disasters than ever before. More people by far die of cold than of heat as well.
We’re Safer From Climate Disasters Than Ever Before – WSJ
If that is the sort of argument used, then we all do have to be quite worried both about the costs involved in the energy transition and of course the mass re-industrialisation of the countryside – the transmission capacity having to increase at least threefold for example.
“No one died” Really, really?Can that be true? Very hard to believe. Must do research.
“This century is the most environmentally dangerous there has ever been” is pretty much complete rubbish. Far fewer people are dying of climate related disasters than ever before. More people by far die of cold than of heat as well.
We’re Safer From Climate Disasters Than Ever Before – WSJ
If that is the sort of argument used, then we all do have to be quite worried both about the costs involved in the energy transition and of course the mass re-industrialisation of the countryside – the transmission capacity having to increase at least threefold for example.
“Why here?”, ask the nimbies.
Why not? Used nuclear fuel (that which cannot be re-used) has to be stored somewhere, so the argument is whether civil nuclear power remains part of electricity generation. Almost all experts agree that nuclear is indispensable. The alternative to nuclear is not renewables, as Germany has discovered – it’s fossil fuels. We simply cannot fulfil our climate change commitments without it, as we abandon gas and electrify our cars.
If one has regard to actual facts rather than emotive nonsense and selective anecdote (as in this piece of very poor journalism), one knows that nuclear power generation is literally the safest that there is. Yes, literally! People talk of Fukushima, as if we are meant to draw lessons from this event that should shape energy policy around the world forever. Fact: nature threw a magnitude 9 earthquake and a tsunami at a crappy 1960s-designed power station and guess what? No one died.
If we had just discovered nuclear power, we’d be overjoyed that a solution had been found to climate change. The late Professor Lovelock (originator of Gaia Theory) recognised how critically important it is. George Monbiot knows it too. It’s about time public opinion caught up with their wisdom. Nuclear is green.
Even if you think, contrary to all the actual evidence, that storage of used nuclear fuel may present a threat to human health, it would still be worth it. This century is the most environmentally dangerous there has ever been. To throw away nuclear at this critical juncture would be madness.
Here is another nuclear waste disposal tale from downunder https://newmatilda.com/2020/03/07/the-half-lives-and-believable-truths-of-australias-radioactive-waste-facility/
I could go along with most of your “Scribes” arguments re dangers from radiation including present life around Chernoble but something nasty has happened in that location which needs airing. Where did the Russian Infantrymen got their (reported) radiation burns from when they “dug-in?” Many years ago a minor part of my naval training was dealing with “radioactive spills,”in fact the collection and disposal of debris should some fool ‘techie’ drop certain electronic valves/TWTs so I do understand some of the science albeit my brain has deteriorated a bit since then. I can also remember feeling the heat of the noses of certain “special” weapons but the OSA* (as was) is ever present, even today, so I daren’t tell you where and when. *I kid you not.
I could go along with most of your “Scribes” arguments re dangers from radiation including present life around Chernoble but something nasty has happened in that location which needs airing. Where did the Russian Infantrymen got their (reported) radiation burns from when they “dug-in?” Many years ago a minor part of my naval training was dealing with “radioactive spills,”in fact the collection and disposal of debris should some fool ‘techie’ drop certain electronic valves/TWTs so I do understand some of the science albeit my brain has deteriorated a bit since then. I can also remember feeling the heat of the noses of certain “special” weapons but the OSA* (as was) is ever present, even today, so I daren’t tell you where and when. *I kid you not.
Here is another nuclear waste disposal tale from downunder https://newmatilda.com/2020/03/07/the-half-lives-and-believable-truths-of-australias-radioactive-waste-facility/
The “inevitable risks” of a subsea GDF are practically nil.
Low risk, very high consequence. I’ve always been fairly pro-nuclear. But there is no doubt that we underestimate Black Swan events and essentially say they have no chance of happening.
Low risk, very high consequence. I’ve always been fairly pro-nuclear. But there is no doubt that we underestimate Black Swan events and essentially say they have no chance of happening.
The “inevitable risks” of a subsea GDF are practically nil.