Bishop Hill Greenpeace's failed predictions
Aug 20, 2015 Energy: gas Energy: wind Greens Whilst offshore wind is expected to get cheaper as the industry grows, the cost of gas is set to increase due to a combination of rising fuel and carbon prices. Our bills are likely to go up in all future energy scenarios, but the government's own advisers say the best way to limit that rise is through increased renewable energy.
Greenpeace spokesman, September 2013
The gas price has fallen – which makes subsidising nuclear (and offshore wind) much more expensive. Cheaper options for cutting emissions – like onshore wind and efficiency measures have, for various reasons, been parked.
Greenpeace spokesman, August 2015
Which is about as convincing a demonstration as you could wish for of the foolishness of listening to environmentalists.
Hat tip Ben Pile
Reader Comments (58)
Vangel
Do you not have an appointment with a psychiatrist that you need to attend?
Dung, you are aware that the nuclear power generation industry is the most over regulated industry in the world - they have regulations governing regulations that govern regulations and that is before building can start. After that there are several more layers of regulations on regulations before power can be generated.
By all means regulate how safety will be undertaken while the plant is running but the shear bull crap required before anything can begin is just stupidity given to us by the greens and the Greenham Common mob from the 80s that set the idea that anything with nuclear in the name was very bad and would kill us all. That general idea that nuclear is bad persists to this day and has been shown to be untrue (think Fukushima that survived an earthquake and tsunami without blowing up and wiping that section of Japan off the map).
It's amazing really.
After all the subsidies, after all the taxes, regulations and restrictions on the competition such as oil, gas and nuclear, after decades of free PR from the media and the education system - wind power is still a technical and economic turkey.
ivan
Add in all the nuclear-powered ships/submarines around the world. When was the last time we heard of a problem with one of them?
Dung
For which you can lay the blame fairly and squarely on the mendacity and ignorance of the eco-warriors (though the Greenham Common wimmin did their bit!)I'm surprised at you. Vangel's point was quite correct (in my view) so perhaps I need the services of a psychiatrist as well, yes?. The nuclear industry is regulated to death.
Martin van der Weyer made a good point in his article in last week's Spectator
New nuclear in the UK update - from Office for Nuclear Regulation website:
http://www.onr.org.uk/new-reactors/faq.htm#q4
Q4 - What are the benefits of Generic Design Assessment? (GDA)
GDA allows the regulators to get involved with designers at the earliest stage, where they have the most influence. By assessing at the design stage, any potential issues can be identified and highlighted so they can be addressed by the requesting parties( the companies who have submitted a design for assessment) before commitments are made to construct the reactors.
Q18 - What reactors have been assessed or are currently going through GDA?
The first two nuclear power station designs that were assessed were EDF/AREVA’s EPR and the AP 1000 designed by Westinghouse Electric Company. In December 2012 we confirmed that EDF and AREVA’s UK EPR reactor design is suitable for construction in the UK and we issued them with a Design Acceptance Confirmation (DAC) and Statement of Design Acceptability (SoDA).
The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design re-entered the GDA process in August 2014 with 51 outstanding issues remaining. Resolution plans for the 51 issues were published on our website in March 2015. All issues will need to be resolved before Design Acceptance Confirmation and a Statement of Design Acceptability can be granted.
We are currently assessing Hitachi-GE’s UK Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (UK-ABWR ).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So, in the UK, today there are 3 reactor types envisaged:
A. AREVA’s UK EPR reactor – approved in December 2012 for construction in the UK.
This is for for Hinkley Point C.
However, EPR not going well in Olkiluoto 3, (Finland) - 9 years late and way over budget, or at Flamanville 3 (France) – 5 years late and beset with procurement and construction delays.
This EPR does not look like a good idea.
EDF have not yet taken the final investment decision.
Don't hold your breath.
B. Westinghouse AP1000 reactor – under review
Westinghouse is aiming to complete GDA in early 2017 but this will be dependent on the timely delivery of high quality documentation for regulatory assessment.
http://tinyurl.com/qy5uzgh
Don't hold your breath.
C Hitachi-GE’s UK Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (UK-ABWR )
A revised programme of submissions has been agreed, and we continue to work towards completion of GDA by the end of 2017.
http://tinyurl.com/ozn8pzt
Don't hold your breath.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So a poor choice has been approved two years ago and, as yet, no decision to proceed by EDF, and approval of the other two types is at least 2 years away.
It is reasonable to assume that there will be no new nuclear in the UK for donkey's years, if at all.
Meanwhile, the Regulator, instead of getting on reviewing reactor designs, has been otherwise engaged in teaming up with the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES) to raise awareness within the nuclear industry of transgender issues.
http://tinyurl.com/o8f74j4
Brownedoff,
Your comment just highlights the stupidity of regulations piled on regulations piled on regulations.
The 51 outstanding points for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor have very little to do with the safety of the reactor in use and a lot to do with some jumped up civil servant trying to make a name for himself. There is no reactor builder that would knowingly put an unsafe reactor on the market and with the best will in the world there is no civil servant with enough brains/knowledge to find any faults in the design anyway.
The Office for Nuclear Regulation is a QUANGO that should have been abolished years ago because of its useless stance and lack of knowledge. It is just a paper pushing organisation that lives for paperwork.
Ivan, browned off, we also labour under regulatory overkill in the oil and gas drilling industry, though I suspect nuclear has it even worse.
What is striking is when you go to an offshore wind farm rig, how light the regulatory touch is by comparison, even though many of the risks are identical.
Ditto for geothermal.
Ivan. kellydown
It is not only ignorance and mendacity (h/t MJ above) but cowardice on the part of politicians.
Having allowed poison to be poured into their gullible ears by the eco-warriors for decades, the politicians just set the compliant drones in the Civil Service to framing inconvenient, time consuming and expensive rules (hoops) for the promoters to jump through.
The purpose of these "regulations" is merely to put trip wires to delay and frustrate in the hope that they will abandon the project altogether.
The politicians do not have the guts to ban outright the things they despise, rather they create a situation where, in the event that projects are abandoned or not even started, they can claim that they were right all along.
The same thing occurred in 2008 when that loser Miliband crowed "no more coal without CCS" - he did not have the spine to ban coal altogether as Moonbat desired - he just torpedoed the business case for the construction of new coal fired power stations.
In this way, when eventually it becomes apparent to even the meanest intelligence (e.g. Moonbat) that the lack of many new coal and nuclear power stations is a disaster, they never have to admit they were wrong, they just say, "but we did not say you cannot build them, the promoters did not proceed with such projects".
Trebles all round, and oh, just pass that orange coloured bra.