2007 - 2020

Hinkley, oh my god Hinkley

nuclear3aThere are few policy ideas so hauntingly stupid as Hinkley C. It is a catastrophic decision that will leave a legacy of nuclear waste, spiralling costs to the consumer and cede control over energy and technology to the French and the Chinese. It will bleed resources away from the renewable sector and further burden future generations with a toxic nuclear inheritance. It’s a financial, ecological and political mistake of colossal proportions.

It’s not just the wrong thing to do now it’s the wrong thing to do for hundreds of years. That’s if it happens. Finland’s new EPR (which uses the same technology as Hinkley) was due to come online in 2009, and it still isn’t operating today. EDF announced that the “First electricity from Hinkley C is due to be produced in 2025” – it’s a timetable that none of the experts believes at all.

Mark Ruskell of the Scottish Greens said:

“Hinkley is a total waste of public money and will simply add to the toxic legacy the nuclear industry has already left us to deal with. The anti-Green agenda of the Westminster Government is doing serious damage to Scotland’s renewable energy potential. The Tories are locking us into a deal involving a type of reactor that has never been successfully built, with EDF’s other projects behind schedule and over budget. The fact that the UK Government is talking about future nuclear new builds underlines the need for Scotland to have greater control over energy policy, so we can chart a different course and create lasting jobs in industries that have a future.”

While Caroline Lucas called it: “The biggest white elephant in British history given the green light. An absurd decision on every level.”

It’s only through  Freedom of Information Acts that we know the £70bn costs to clean-up of the Sellafield plant in Cumbria. Some think it could be as high as £218 billion others claim it just ‘can’t be forecast’.  Hinkley C had been described as “the most expensive object on Earth” many months before the National Audit Office (NAO) revealed that subsidies would be nearly five times as big as had been previously advertised.

The ‘low-carbon electricity’ argument is a complete red herring. It’s almost impossible to comprehend the renewable infrastructure, innovation and research a fraction of this budget could support. It’s almost inconceivable to imagine the insulation a tiny portion of this budget could support or how a third of this budget could transform British energy and fund a dynamic carbon reduction strategy.

The reality is that Hinkley C is already obsolete. With the boom in wind, tidal, hydro and solar we won’t ever need it.

Friends of the Earth Scotland’s Director, Dr Richard Dixon, said:

“Building new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point and committing to pay EDF twice the current energy price for the next 35 years is a colossal waste of public money. Our grandkids will still be paying it off and for generations to come.

“Once the deal has been signed comes the truly difficult part of actually building the plant. This type of reactor design has never been successfully completed anywhere with EDF’s two other projects in Finland and France well over budget and behind schedule.  It is quite possible the Hinkley Point reactors will never produce a single electron.”

So what’s the driver behind this grand-scale disaster? It’s a form of crisis-capitalism that is going to create particular problems for Scotland. As Alistair Davidson has noted (‘Remindbi Me’):

“Hinkley Point is a serious problem for Scotland. The Scottish Government’s economic strategy is to transfer our world-leading marine engineering skills from oil to offshore wind. With 1/4 of Europe’s wind energy potential, and interconnectors to Norway and perhaps even Canada being planned, renewable energy could be a goldmine for Scotland – and give us real economic independence from Britain. Unfortunately for us, nuclear is the hardest power source to combine with wind, because while wind power is intermittent and unpredictable, nuclear power stations have to run 24/7 at a high proportion of their capacity. It’s no surprise that a Tory chancellor would casually wreck the environment and regional economies, but why hand over nuclear infrastructure to China in particular, and why now? The answer, as ever, is banking.

To compete with America, China needs to be able to borrow at cheap rates across the globe. Ever since Nixon ended the gold standard in the 1970s, the dollar has been- the currency central banks hold on to in case of emergencies. That has allowed America to borrow at staggeringly cheap rates, funding its Far East import addiction. Now China wants to join the party, and the City of London wants in. Far more important than the infrastructure projects is the sale of RMB30bn ($4.7bn) of Chinese debt in London – the first-ever foreign sale of Chinese debt. The Financial Times explains:

As renminbi internationalisation accelerates, the UK and China have implemented initiatives to link their financial markets, including plans to formally connect London and Shanghai stock markets.

“A highlight of China-UK economic relations is London’s potential role as a top offshore renminbi centre in Europe. This will further strengthen London’s position as a predominant global financial centre,” wrote Shen Jianguang, chief Asia economist at Mizuho Securities, last week.”

Once again, the future of Britain has been auctioned off to keep money flowing into the London banking ponzi scheme.”

This in the week that MeyGen opened the world’s largest tidal energy project, a project we reported on two years ago (‘The Winds of Change’).

“There is no doubt that the eyes of the world are on this project,” said Nicola Sturgeon, ahead of a visit to the Nigg Energy Park on Monday to see Atlantis unveil the first turbine to be installed under the waters of the Pentland Firth.

Unfortunately the eyes of the world are now looking on incredulous as Theresa May’s government goes against our national interest and creates an ecological nightmare for the future.

 

Tags:

Comments (42)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Helen Lomas says:

    And when all’s said and done, Hinckley will produce a mere 7 percent of our needs. If some of the money was spent on insulating every house in the country, we could save 7 percent. Nothing about nuclear makes sense, and Hinckley is right on a tidal bore…tidal energy.

    1. Rory MacLennan says:

      That is exactly what France did in the 1980s, national programme to insulate homes, for them it was like discovering a new energy, except no side effects, only benefits.

      Generally, I am disinterested in what happens in England, its their choice what happens, but on this occasion, it will impact everyone. The most important sentence in the piece is:

      “It will bleed resources away from the renewable sector and further burden future generations with a toxic nuclear inheritance.”

      In other words, Scotland will give all its tax to England, part of which will be used others to build and run this monstrosity rather than Scotland retaining its Tax and spending it on wave and wind power and becoming a world leader.

      Yet still labour, tories and liberals in Scotland would see us continue in this squalid union?

      The one good thing about Mrs May is that she is out of touch and hasn’t a clue, doesn’t know what to do about brexit, grammar schools and now this farce, those of us who are Scot Nats rather than brit nats merely need to sit back, relax and let the unionists do the work for us!

      1. Haideng says:

        The renewables subsidy is not based on tax but on a tarrif placed on energy bills. It’s the other way round. English and Welsh pensioners are expected to pay more for bills to subsidise Scottish renewables – Scotland as part of the integrated market, sue to it’s different policy on energy actually had a great deal – which is why the SNP are so keen to keep it. The English and Welsh less so for obvious reasons.

        I’d be genuinely interested to hear how Scotland will develop renewables without the support of the UK market? Will the government put up energy prices to compensate when the South of England decides it can get cheaper energy elsewhere?

        1. Stuart Fraser says:

          Like any other independent European country Scotland would choose it’s priorities, not have our priorities forced upon us by a colonial power.

          You and others like you will not be treated kindly when Scottish history is written, you’ll be viewed as backward british nationalists whose greatest fear is that Scotland would gain its freedom.

          You choose britain above Scotland, what are you doing on this site other than making an arse of yourself?

          1. Haideng says:

            What are you taking about. I’m agreeing with you. Scottish energy should be completely independent and not subsidised by colonial English and Welsh. The Scottish government now since the Smith Commission can do this. Why not? Why are poor people in Liverpool paying for it still?

          2. Haideng says:

            And it’s a perfectly reasonable question. How much will Scottish energy bills increase when independent from rUK’s energy considerations and of no more interest to the English and Welsh than cheaper energy in France or Ireland?

            I love all you nats who bleat on about being ‘oppressed’ then spit the dummy when you actually get what you asked for.

            You want independence from rUK this is what will happen! There will be zero incentive to continue investing in a subsidy for a rival country.

  2. Thrawn says:

    If your main argument is that the Govt subsidised building of Hinckley C will render uncompetitive the Govt subsidised building of tidal energy then you’re already on very shaky ground. You dont see government subsidising gas or oil fired power stations…because they make money. If tidal was such a “goldmine” it wouldn’t need any subsidising either and Hinckley C would be irrelevant

    1. Juteman says:

      Are you a paid troll?
      Seriously, you and your sidekicks are nothing but doom and gloom on every Bella article. No matter the subject, you are against it. Either you are paid to spend hours every day trolling the comment section, or you are a middle aged frustrated virgin, with a very small penis and anger issues.
      Which one is it?

      1. Robert Graham says:

        ha ha well spotted and thanks for the warning , it really saves time when reading posts , maybe a star system could be put in place for frequent offenders “like or dislike” seems so ineffective now

      2. Thrawn says:

        Wow…it’s pretty difficult to concede the moral high ground to a middle aged virginal paid troll with a small penis and anger issues…but kudos…you still managed it

        1. ⭐ ⭐Harry Alffa⭐ ⭐ (@HarryAlffa) says:

          @Thrawn
          “If your main argument is that the Govt subsidised building of Hinckley C will render uncompetitive the Govt subsidised building of tidal energy then you’re already on very shaky ground. You dont see government subsidising gas or oil fired power stations…because they make money. If tidal was such a “goldmine” it wouldn’t need any subsidising either and Hinckley C would be irrelevant”

          You are a skilled propagandist, not an idiot, or are you?
          You compare the mature petrochemical industries profitability with the less than mature renewables while also comparing subsidies of the mature (or at least it should be) nuclear energy with subsidies for the still developing renewables. All with the aim of supporting your “shaky ground” claim.
          Are you really so stupid you don’t see the flaws in your statements, or are you, as charged, a paid troll who insults the intelligence of honest contributors here?

          If you are honest, then you are stupid, but don’t just take my word for it; have it confirmed here: https://www.mensa.org.uk/workout

          1. Haideng says:

            Wait…you can get paid to wind folk up on Bella?

    2. bringiton says:

      All energy production is subsidised by Westminster one way or another,including fossil fuels.
      As usual,Westminster is making policy decisions based on politics and outdated ideas when most of the developed world is going in a very different direction.
      By the time their various grandiose nuclear projects come online,technology will have moved on and left tax payers with some very expensive white elephants.
      Just the usual incompetence we have come to expect from England’s Tory governments.

      1. Haideng says:

        The rest of the world is building an entirely new generation of small reactors, especially China and India and other developing countries who have no choice due tot he speed of growth in energy consumption.

    3. SimonB says:

      The problem with renewable sources is that the current amoral economic paradigm fundamentally favours non-renewable power generation. ie the greatest bucks and the most powerful corporations are connected to the oil and gas industry, to state the obvious.

      A finite resource such as gold is quantifiable in monetary terms, defined according to the current insane paradigm as having value, whereas, assuming that Providence and Nature can be relied upon to continue the cycle of creation, an infinite resource, such as renewable energy, has little comparable ‘value’.

      Regarding renewable energy, a seldom quoted fact is that Norway now produces ALL of it’s power from renewable sources, and has actually been producing the lion’s share from renewables for many years now. Other progressive countries such as Costa Rica are similarly on course to achieving this objective.

      Curiously Hinkley Point, located on the Severn Estuary, is the site of one of the greatest tidal flows on Planet Earth which if a tidal barrage was installed is said would produce so much power as to be equivalent to that of quite a number of nuclear power stations!

      Though there are of course environmental implications to the installation of tidal barrages, the French have successfully harnessed many thousands of giga watts of relatively clean energy in this way since the 1960’s at Rance:

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

      This achievement has now been overshadowed by a South Korean tidal barrage with a total power output capacity of 254MW which accordingly cost £180 million:

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

      Regardless of the man made fiction of monetary cost, which so masterfully hypnotises, brain washes and enslaves our visionless minds, the real costs are the externalities not featured on the accountant’s ledger: the environmental and social costs to our children’s future.

      May sophistry wither and Common Sense and Decency at last prevail!

      1. Broadbield says:

        Yes indeed. But we don’t have to wait for our children to be affected by externalities relating to burning hydrocarbons (or nuclear – chernobyl); we are bearing the costs now in atmospheric pollution in many forms leading to millions of premature deaths.

      2. Haideng says:

        I’m all for tidal and agree there should be another feasibility study for Severn and greater investment in other tidal + wave tech (please no more destroying of the Scottish landscape and bird life/ econ system with giant windmills), but I’m not convinced it isn’t without controversy. Wasn’t the one of the main objections to the barrier environmental, due to the estuary ecosystem (plants, fish and plankton basically) being upset? In many respects nuclear (so long as there isn’t an accident) is less environmentally damaging. But I do take your point that economics favours established energy and profit which is wrong.

  3. Robert Graham says:

    Every News channel has been salivating at the prospect of so many jobs so much guaranteed energy , oh never mind if the rest of the world has learned this is not the prefered direction of travel , or the guaranteed cost of every amp produced is and will for evermore going to exceed market value even if electricity production resale value drops through the floor the guaranteed value of electricity is set in stone , the same stone that will be used to protect the public from radiation you know that stuff that kills and destroys everything for thousands of years ,
    Then again its a tory project it must be safe , i mean they are so thorough with things arent they ?

  4. Connor McEwen says:

    Ah but,ah but the Wheeshtminster Lobbyists and their wee broon envelopes to their LORDSHIPS will bloody weel make sure it happens ,dear boy. It would not be cricket otherwise.
    My dear boy what ho, sense does not come into it back pocket WONGA dear boy

  5. Pogliaghi says:

    “The ‘low-carbon electricity’ argument is a complete red herring. It’s almost impossible to comprehend the renewable infrastructure..”

    Yeah. It isn’t impossible actually, you just haven’t researched it. Instead what you’ve done is sort of down-sampled some rants from the nationalist scene into a new-sounding rant.

    Alisdair Davidson for example; he has always been a nationalist first and a self-proclaimed Marxist and environmentalist second and third. It’s probably got something to do with coming from Stirling or thereabouts (all the really backwards nationalists seem to come from that little rural triangle called Stirlingshire.) Well I come from Glasgow. Who the hell cares about what’s “good for Scotland” when it comes to decarbonization? That is not the priority. There is no myth of a nation called “Scotland” on a dead planet, especially not one sustained by oil revenue.

    What would be particularly good for Scotland (as a place comprise of people and not some convoluted ideological myth) would be to reclaim our sanity on climate change and the sine qua non there is to stop being hypocrites. Recognising that two nuclear plants supply the same amount of low carbon energy (reliably) as all our wind turbines put together; without despoiling some quite large tracts of wild land. Recognising that we have a Holyrood government that pretends to be “green” (not that that means anything any more) while spending orders of magnitude more on infrastructure for cars than on cycling or public transport. Anyway, this is all too much to ask in the brave new world of independence campaigning. Except with this quality of politics, of course “independence” isn’t really coming, constitutionally, or culturally.

  6. Haideng says:

    Get tae all you schools, hospitals, homes and businesses in Manchester, London, Newcastle, Liverpool and Glasgow… Aparently the brave new SNP world is upon us and despite all their huffing and puffing still haven’t answered baseline or how to create and integrated ‘viable’ renewable area without the UK integrated market in energy and that the real reason renewables in Scotland are so far behind Denmark, Holland and now England was the years of uncertainty over access to that market – go take a look at the companies who went bust during the indyref like Pelamis – any of you Yessers in Leith can wonder down and see the empty site (and while you’re there take a look at the sub sea 7 vessels anchored up also due to the loss of the (Norwegian govt) contract to extend the billion pound subsea inter connectors to Scotland – It is now ONLY going to England thank to Scottish nationalism – See Fergus Ewings lies about how the rUK would be falling over themselves to maintain the integrated UK market (BULLSHIT). But ho hum deflect deflect deflect. Just one of many Mike Small’s omissions but here are a few others.

    1) ‘…and interconnectors to Norway and perhaps even Canada being planned, renewable energy could be a goldmine for Scotland’ most interconnectors are being built to service the economically viable ENGLISH energy market, from France – Nuke, Ireland – Wind, Norway – Hydro, Denmark – offshore, England + Wales tidal + offshore. Other countries including ENGLAND also have an abundance of renewable energy – the problem is cost. How will SCOTLAND pay for them with a viable market to offset investment???? The Scottish government has FULL control over planning and can borrow in the billions for capital spending. So why are we SCOTS paying for it??? Why are we expecting ENGLISH pensioners to freeze to pay for OUR dream of renewable energy??? Why should the FiT raise ENGLISH and WELSH poor people’s energy bills??? It’s a long long way from the pentland firth to London or Manchester and energy is cheaper elsewhere.

    2) That the reason China is investing in the UK (including Scotland – see Sturgeon’s selfies – so I’m assuming it’s only bad when the UK does it??) is because it is a wider policy of expansion with regard to shifting the Chinese economy away from manufacturing to high end engineering. Oh by the way, hundreds of British/ Scottish companies are operating in many different fields in China INCLUDING RENEWABLE companies.

    3) The UK government is NOT abandonging renewables, they just are no longer interested in SCOTTISH renewables especially onshore wind due to the very real possibility of independence and the endless hostility of SCOTTISH SNP governments. The UK is building tida, and offshore in the Northsea using SCOTTISH contractors.

    Jesus this is just so ignorant it’s embarrasing. You don’t give a shit about the environment or renewables and Aberdeen energy industry, You only give a shit about flags and prejudice just like Farage. What ever fits – welcome to nationalism.

    And for what it’s worth I’ skeptical of Hinkley but dressing every single government decison in a tired boring Nationalist shirt is absurd.

    1. Kenny Smith says:

      I was gony come back with an argument for you and the other 2 but realised it was a waste of time so I’ll just leave you with one of my favourite Scottish sayings ” away n take your face fur a shite ” claim the moral high ground aw you like it made me feel better after enduring your pish

      1. bringiton says:

        Methinks it does protest too much and as usual shows what a disaster it has been for Scotland leaving Westminster in charge of major policies such as energy.

      2. Haideng says:

        Pish it maybe, but it’s factual pish, not made up Bullshit.

        Here’s another piece of pish…

        “A highlight of China-UK economic relations is London’s potential role as a top offshore renminbi centre in Europe. This will further strengthen London’s position as a predominant global financial centre,” wrote Shen Jianguang, chief Asia economist at Mizuho Securities, last week.”

        Once again, the future of Britain has been auctioned off to keep money flowing into the London banking ponzi scheme.”

        This simply ignores the reality of the world. Banking is not a ponzi scheme. Banking has lifted millions out of poverty. Banking and the issuing of government bonds is not inherently bad. Capital investment is not bad – it builds hospitals etc. Banking based on the trading and over leveraging of overly complicated products like CDOs – of bundled up unsecured sub prime mortgages traded on a 3 monthly basis rather than long term asset management – predicated entirely on the need for the fundamental asset at the bottom of the pile – the house of the guy at with a variable loan of 1 million dollars who works earns 20 thousand dollars a year – to constantly rise, is a disaster + ponzi scheme. Ireland was the worst – Ireland was what the SNP want to do to Scotland. That is the basis of their economic policy – low corp tax (that magical lever) and maintaining high public spending by diverting some of the ‘giant poll of global money – mostly Chinese’ to the Scotland through the creation of asset bubbles (Ireland mark 2) – private debt to facilitate public deficit.

        It works like this:

        1) There is a giant pool of money in the world – pensions, savings, central bank reserves etc. That pool has doubled – it took 300 years since the issuing of govt bonds for it to reach 40 trillion – but in the last decade or so it has doubled – 40 trillion in TEN YEARS!!! And that is down pretty much to one countries development and export led growth – China.

        2) That money has to go somewhere – contrary to simplistic belief countries can’t simply pump vast amount of savings into their economy without raising prices and pricing out industry – a balanced economy is not necessarily capital intensive – see variations on the Dutch Disease.

        3) That money – due to Alan Greenspan reducing interest rates went into a panic. Pension pots have to go up they can’t stagnate. So, they look around for another source of growth and found these wonderful ever rising products based ultimately on sub prime mortgages…andd the rest is history.

        4) The Chinese therefore are actually quite smart. They aren’t about to invest their saved cash in dodgy products anymore, but interest rates are still low so they look for capital spend projects – you could argue it is a form of economic imperialism – in Africa it certainly is – but for the UK and developed countries it isn’t, it is good sense. We get a power station essentially for free (on a long term financing deal).

        5) There are serious issues about security and nuclear power that are separate.

        6) The biggest concern and threat to wealth and health is not banking but the opposite, the protection of capital or the concentration of capital.

        Case Study Norway: See Steve Keen…

        Norway due to an over concentrated oil based economy + massive fund has a varient of Dutch disease that is about to get worse now the price of oil is to long term low. They can’t diversify the economy if they prop up their high public spending by spending the fund as it drives out other industry and cause private debt bubbles to compensate. Therefor they need to spread investment elsewhere…as do the Chinese. It is good for everyone (on a purely economic basis) that China are investing in European developed countries. Banking and the facilitation of that exchange (so long as it is regulated) by the UK – including Scotland, is not an inherently bad thing.

        1. Keith MacAllan says:

          Keep taking the pills!

          1. Haideng says:

            The Sleep of Reason….

  7. Pilrig says:

    “There are serious issues about security and nuclear power”…you don’t say !

    1. Haideng says:

      All the major accidents occurred in designs nearly 40 + years old, including Fukushima + have the good sense not to build them on geological fault lines. Nuclear energy today is comparatively safe and has moved on immeasurably since 3 mile island, Chernoble etc and is much less of a risk than the known slow disaster of carbon emissions – it also will provide a base load (the problem of when the wind stops blowing) upon which renewables can be built until the time there is a fully functioning Europe wide integrated renewable clean smart grid where different sources and types of energy can be exchanged to ultimately reduce the use of nuclear and completely rid northern Europe of carbon – this unfortunately requires cooperation, something Scot nats and Brexit nats don’t seem to fully grasp. The debate always pits one thing against the other, when really they should be looked as how they can compliment each other for the best and quickest outcome.

  8. Fiona says:

    The thing that’s tragic about all of this is that nuclear power – done as safely as it can be – is realistically the only hope we’ve got as a species. We need to stop all carbon emissions *now* – not in 20 years, not reduce the levels, stop them. It needs to be done immediately, and we do not have the infrastructure or efficient enough renewables to make up the loss.

    Nuclear power is scary, because when it goes wrong it goes catastrophically wrong. However, even if you combine every single nuclear power catastrophe into one, it doesn’t even register on the scale when compared to what using carbon as power has done. Untold millions of deaths, untold extinctions of species, whole nations being lost, war, famine. Human and environmental suffering on a scale so terrible we have caused the sixth mass extinction of the world. Nuclear power doesn’t come even slightly close, it’s just that human beings are incapable of assessing comparative risk when one of those risks is already in place.

    If we were told ‘you can have a source of power which carries a very small risk of destruction to the immediate area, making it uninhabitable for a century or so, and with the possibility of further deaths because of cancers and immune conditions, or you can have a source of power which will certainly drown countries, turn others to deserts, kill millions of people in chaotic weather events, cause global crop failures, make thousands of species extinct and carries the not insignificant risk of the end of human civilisation as we know it’, which would you choose? Just because we are already using one doesn’t make it somehow safer than nuclear power. And that’s even without taking into account that studies over the last 15 years have demonstrated that coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.

    Of course nuclear power isn’t ideal, and once the renewable industry is capable of taking on the full weight of energy usage we should immediately transition to that and safely decommission the power stations, but if we want life to continue, one option is infinitely more risky than the other. But, in order to minimise the risk of the nuclear power industry, no, it can’t be run by China, because relying on another country for power is dangerous. It can’t be run by people who sacrifice safety for profit. And, since we’re not going to go for either of those things, we’re going to continue into the abyss.

    1. Sandy says:

      If we need to cut carbon emissions ‘now’ as you say, how is building a nuclear reactor that will take ten years before it produces any power (assuming it works at all) going to help?

      1. Haideng says:

        It means you can simultaneously develop your renewable smart grid + tech without having to worry about energy supply security or the fact that even when renewables are workable economically and technologically there will be a backup.

        No nuclear = no renewables (for the time being).

        1. Sandy says:

          Sorry, not seeing your logic there. With energy saving, storage and smart technology we can easily do without nuclear. Future power systems will be much less reliant on inflexible ‘base load’ generation. Nuclear also needs back up – it’s not 100% reliable and needs to come off line for refuelling.

          1. Haideng says:

            True, you make a good point about refueling + rare earth needed for Nuke, but storage tech – pump storage? still requires energy and isn’t especially good at scale, and all other forms of battery/ energy storage are decades away from being workable.

            You want to keep the lights on then you need a reliable source of intensive energy.

  9. c rober says:

    But surely someone somewhere has questioned why state owned EDF is operating despite the EU mandate on removing state owned industry – due to competition and open market rules?

    Its easy to understand just why the Eu ref had the result it had , but where are those Farages and Borises on their white horses now , that are ever so silent on how THE EU can dictate rules on state owned banks being anti competitive – when Germany has one or two state owned development banks.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprise#Europe

    An eye opener.

  10. Sandy says:

    @Haideng I think you’ll find battery storage is a lot less than decades away. National grid just procured 200MW for delivery next year to provide system stability and the amount of storage required ‘to keep the lights on’ reduces substantially when those lights are LEDs consuming a fraction of the energy of conventional lighting.

  11. Doubting Thomas says:

    The issue of secure future energy supplies is huge for the UK but this contract for Hinckley is not a good deal in my opinion.
    It would be better to take some time and consider options.
    I don’t have a problem with nuclear per se but this particular project carries very high risk in terms of out turn cost and also delivery within the projected contract period.
    Renewables however are incapable of providing an alternative supply option within the timescales under discussion.
    Haideng makes some reasonable points with regards to arrangements being made to supply energy to meet the UK’s future needs.
    The fact of the matter is that Renewables are a very expensive method of producing energy regardless of the environmental benefits and they are currently the source of the biggest redistribution of wealth from the general population to the landowning gentry in Scotland.
    Hydro schemes and wind farms built on private land are enjoying FiT at hugely beneficial rates which enable returns in capital in very short periods of operation.
    This leaves the income from generated energy entirely available to the owners who as I said are mainly land owning gentry.
    The income comes directly from the subsidy applied to our energy costs paid by the poorest, by pensioners and by the people least able to afford what are amongst the highest energy costs in the world.
    Something stinks!

    1. Doubting Thomas says:

      Och silly me.
      Nearly forgot to say large portions of the land used for these schemes is owned by long standing SNP supporters aka The Tartan Tories.
      The same demographic who form the 29 per cent of SNP supporters who voted to leave the EU.

      1. Doubting Thomas says:

        Progressive??
        Er naw!!

  12. James dow says:

    I think most of you are unaware of England’s dire energy predicament, it is dependant on gas supplies from Norway, Belgium, and Holland for nearly 70 per cent of its power requirments to drive gas fired electricity generators . This at a time when England is forced to close down existing dirty coal fired generators. As all this gas is supplied by submarine pipelines through international waters England could be shut down in a day if say Russia or anyone else chose to detonate explosives over the pipelines. It is this vulnerable situation that has a broke and broken England clutching in desperation at any outcome that would reduce their dependence on submarine gas pipelines.
    Obviously if this situation did occur Russia would be instantly blamed , but they could cry nyet it must have been another American false flag to implicate our dear motherland. I live half a word away in Australia and nothing could be clearer to me.
    I will say it again a conjoined Scotland attached to a drowning England will suffer the same fate, cut the cord now Scotland or practice holding your breath underwater to see how long you can last for that will be your sure fate.

    1. Sandy says:

      Worrying about explosives on underwater pipelines is one thing, but don’t you think those nuclear power stations make awfully big targets for missile strikes or terrorist activity?

      1. C Rober says:

        http://midwestenergynews.com/2016/06/16/researchers-150-year-old-technology-could-provide-clean-coal-solution/

        If this works , then how many stations could be retained , and using open cast mining ready for land fill use later , another two problems solved as a bi product if you include employment rather than import?

        I didnt realise they had moved plasma out of the furnace into the exhause , and with a much lower parasitic drain than pure plasma furnace.

  13. James Dow says:

    Not really Sandy, the whole point is submarines can lay explosive charges over targets unseen, unheard, anonymous. If this scenario was ever played out it would represent the nearest thing to a nuclear attack in its cause and effect. The outcome would be the same a shattered England.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.