Also we should build more normal-sized nuclear reactors, lots and lots of them. I'm really enthused by Starmer's ambition to do things quickly. We should have done this long ago.
Also we should build more normal-sized nuclear reactors, lots and lots of them. I'm really enthused by Starmer's ambition to do things quickly. We should have done this long ago.
Two issues; at the moment the economy is at capacity, so in order to do this you would need to raise taxes which Labour are loathe to do (Reeves should do this anyway, as it would counter growing inequality and relatedly asset price inflation).
Second; there are all sorts of labour bottle necks you are going to run into; example, nuclear reactors are one of those projects that require very high precision concrete. There are two or three specialised firms in the UK that can work with it, and until the point when Sunak cancelled HS2, they were completely booked out between HS2 and Hinkley Point. To build a French style fleet of them you'd need to massively expand capacity or do them in serial. At the moment the UK is going to struggle to replace existing reactors before they are decommissioned:
Finally, the article you posted contains this niggling sentence:
"An industry source said the changes would be welcome in the longer term, but that planning was not the main obstacle holding back SMRs."
So the changes he's making are unlikely to help and the real issue is the government dithering when it comes to procurement (at which point you are probably back at the start of my post).
We should just get on and go for deep underground disposal. The waste already exists, we have to do something with it. Making more doesn't make the problem any worse.
We could. Just answer the question "where?".
Also, what do we want to dispose of by bunging it down a big hole in the ground? Do we dispose of all our nuclear material, and call it all waste? Or, do we consider that some spent fuel is actually an asset and needs to be separated out from the waste? Removing useful material (plutonium and remaining 235U being obvious material to recover, which can still be used to fuel reactors) from spent fuel reduces the volume of what needs to be bunged down the hole, but the process invariably creates more low and intermediate level waste that also needs a disposal route. And, of course, you need reactors that will actually use recovered fissile materials.
And, what if there are other materials in that waste that you later want to recover - there's a non-negligible quantity of rare earth metals in spent fuel, for example. Do you then want that asset down a big hole in the ground where it's very difficult to get to it? Or do you instead want to build stores closer to the surface where you can access the stuff should you need to (which could be because the store is failing, or it could be because someone has a better idea of what to do with the stuff)?
Although putting the stuff down a hole in the ground and forget about it, hoping it'll be OK there for 100,000 years or more, is the commonly accepted approach it's not the only one. And, so far only Finland and (just recently) Sweden have actually found somewhere to dig such a big hole.
Added to which, SMRs (or, for that matter the big new PWRs being built at Hinkley and planned for Sizewell) have different types of fuel which will all need new facilities to manage before it gets to a big hole in the ground, should such a hole ever be dug. Those interim handling and storage facilities also need to built, and the question of "where?" applies there as well.
It's a good job we don't need nuclear power. The UK has more than enough renewable resources that we don't need to go down that route. With the bonus that renewables are cheaper to install, and can be powering our gadgets far sooner than a nuclear power station could be built.
We should just get on and go for deep underground disposal. The waste already exists, we have to do something with it. Making more doesn't make the problem any worse.
We could. Just answer the question "where?"
I hear there's a hardly-used constituency office in Clacton-on-Sea that's appropriate for piling up toxic shite...
If we are serious about decarbonising we ought to be building nuclear. It is good to have renewables but it is even better to have both renewables and nuclear.
The risks associated with nuclear are to my mind miniscule compared with those from climate change. Furthermore if the West does not pursue nuclear power then new nuclear stations worldwide (of which there are many in the works) will be built to Chinese or Russian standards. The former might be all right. The latter not so much. I'd still rather have Russian nuclear than no nuclear.
There will be Western design reactors. France connected the first of their new fleet of EPR reactors (same design as under construction at Hinkley Point and planned for Sizewell) to grid in December and there are at least 6 more planned. There's also a new Westinghouse PWR design from the US, 6 constructed (in China and Georgia, the US state not the nation) and 6 more under construction - although as Westinghouse went bankrupt in 2017 the completion of those and the remaining 19 planned is in doubt (also as 9 of those planned are in Ukraine there's additional doubt there).
Nuclear is an utter irrelevance to decarbonising on the time scales in which we need to do it. By all means carry on what's already started but it's never going to be ready in time to replace gas, and grid level battery storage will be far cheaper by the time nuclear comes on stream.
Nuclear is an utter irrelevance to decarbonising on the time scales in which we need to do it. By all means carry on what's already started but it's never going to be ready in time to replace gas, and grid level battery storage will be far cheaper by the time nuclear comes on stream.
Can you back that up please? How much of our current 1,651 TWh consumption will need to be stored, and what will be the footprint of that?
Why are the only renewables being talked about wind and solar? What about tidal? The European Marine Energy Centre, in Orkney, has new tidal stream turbines tested, and beginning to be installed. Why isn't the government investing in ringing the country with them? Britain is a small island with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world, so tidal could play a large part in replacing gas.
Nuclear is an utter irrelevance to decarbonising on the time scales in which we need to do it. By all means carry on what's already started but it's never going to be ready in time to replace gas, and grid level battery storage will be far cheaper by the time nuclear comes on stream.
Can you back that up please? How much of our current 1,651 TWh consumption will need to be stored, and what will be the footprint of that?
How much storage we'll need is going to depend, to a significant extent, on the mix of renewable generating capacity we have and also on how demand develops. If we have just wind, then we're going to need more storage capacity than if we have a mix with significant contributions from wind, solar, hydro and tidal power. For demand, we're already seeing dynamic pricing giving cheaper electricity when demand is lower than supply and I expect that process to continue and that to lead to behavioural changes that will partially match demand to supply. The more that supply and demand are in step the less storage capacity needed.
But the main point is that we can easily install new renewables capacity, at a rate that will exceed any realistic new nuclear construction and at a significantly lower price.
Why are the only renewables being talked about wind and solar? What about tidal? The European Marine Energy Centre, in Orkney, has new tidal stream turbines tested, and beginning to be installed. Why isn't the government investing in ringing the country with them? Britain is a small island with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world, so tidal could play a large part in replacing gas.
When talking renewables I always mention the big four currently available for large scale deployment - wind, solar, hydro and tidal. There's a bit more work needed before wave power can be added to that mix, but it will be.
Though, for tidal the sort of turbines already generating power in the Pentland Firth are really only suitable for locations with similar powerful tidal currents. The current 6MW generating is a mere demonstration, the current plans will see that expand to 400MW. That's still a long way short of the 10-20GW potential. There are some other locations around Scotland that would be suitable, I know somewhere near Islay has been proposed.
Why are the only renewables being talked about wind and solar? What about tidal? The European Marine Energy Centre, in Orkney, has new tidal stream turbines tested, and beginning to be installed. Why isn't the government investing in ringing the country with them? Britain is a small island with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world, so tidal could play a large part in replacing gas.
Well, because wind and solar are cheaper sources, require far less in initial investment and subsequent maintenance, the UK hasn't tapped out those sources, and you'd ideally want to avoid transporting generated energy around because of the cost of additional grid and transmission loss (which can quickly eat up the efficiencies you get over slight more marginal sources)
Though, a tidal turbine installation around Anglesey will be well placed to supply Liverpool and Manchester without to much transmission loss (and, assuming the infrastructure wasn't removed, tapping into the connections to the old Wylfa nuclear power station would mean you don't even need new transmission lines). Portland Bill would be well placed to supply Southampton, Portsmouth etc. There are sites around the Severn Estuary that would be well placed to supply Cardiff and Bristol.
The biggest point, in relation to storage needs, is that it's a source of power that operates on different cycles from wind and solar and hence reduces the problems of all power dropping out (over a night with little wind, for example).
Though, we do also need to have a serious look at how our National Grid is structured and how it's designed. The current design, intended to get power from all over the country into London, isn't fit for purpose. A redesign that is more balanced, aimed at providing cheap power supplies to the regions will a) be better fit to the reality of power generation locations and b) help level up as it means people and businesses will have better grid connections in places outwith the SE of England. It would also help with the costs of connecting to the grid if a solar farm near London isn't paid to connect to the grid, whereas a solar farm of the same size in, say, Cornwall or Lancashire has to pay for the connection.
I think unfortunately when it comes to tidal, the Welsh government and to an extent Westminster (even if mostly looking on) still go a bit pale when Swansea is mentioned. (Readers of Private Eye may recall it being the subject of one of their long running bits of journalism). Even now I don’t really want to say more than that, but I think it put government off tidal for the simple reason that it takes a bit more understanding than a windmill.
Why are the only renewables being talked about wind and solar? What about tidal? The European Marine Energy Centre, in Orkney, has new tidal stream turbines tested, and beginning to be installed. Why isn't the government investing in ringing the country with them? Britain is a small island with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world, so tidal could play a large part in replacing gas.
When talking renewables I always mention the big four currently available for large scale deployment - wind, solar, hydro and tidal. There's a bit more work needed before wave power can be added to that mix, but it will be.
Though, for tidal the sort of turbines already generating power in the Pentland Firth are really only suitable for locations with similar powerful tidal currents. The current 6MW generating is a mere demonstration, the current plans will see that expand to 400MW. That's still a long way short of the 10-20GW potential. There are some other locations around Scotland that would be suitable, I know somewhere near Islay has been proposed.
Between Islay and Jura would certainly have potential, and to a lesser extent Gunna Sound (between Tiree and Coll).
Why are the only renewables being talked about wind and solar? What about tidal? The European Marine Energy Centre, in Orkney, has new tidal stream turbines tested, and beginning to be installed. Why isn't the government investing in ringing the country with them? Britain is a small island with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world, so tidal could play a large part in replacing gas.
We can't replace gas yet. I need it for my hob and also central heating
Why are the only renewables being talked about wind and solar? What about tidal? The European Marine Energy Centre, in Orkney, has new tidal stream turbines tested, and beginning to be installed. Why isn't the government investing in ringing the country with them? Britain is a small island with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world, so tidal could play a large part in replacing gas.
We can't replace gas yet. I need it for my hob and also central heating
Luxury - earlier today I took delivery of 900 litres of fuel oil, to be paid on delivery at today’s spot price.
For non rural types, that works out to about 6 months heating, assuming we use the three wood and coal fireplaces daily as well.
Before the eco-warriors get too excited, as a sometime Green voter I’d point out that my long term view is our village is perfect for a community ground source heating grid, in the same way the parish put in water in the 1920s
In some ways, those who are already off the gas-grid are often high up the list of places suitable for decent heat pump heating (which could be community based or per property if they're more isolated), right behind new builds which should be constructed without a connection to the gas mains and with heat pumps in the first place (no point making the existing problem worse by building any house with gas mains connection).
Changing existing properties to disconnect gas will need to be phased in. Start with any property undergoing major refurbishment - if you're ripping everything out then you're more than half way to putting in heat pump based heating, and most of the extra costs of installing a heat pump relate to the need (in some cases) to improve insulation and replace radiators and pipe work. And, whenever an existing gas boiler reaches end of life it should never be simply swapped out for another gas combi boiler (I'm willing to accept that if the boiler completely fails in middle of winter and can't be repaired then that's not the time to have the heating down while a completely new system is installed ... that doesn't apply when there's a chance to plan for a replacement). With gas boiler lifetimes of 10-15y there should be no need for any gas mains at all in 20 years time.
In some ways, those who are already off the gas-grid are often high up the list of places suitable for decent heat pump heating (which could be community based or per property if they're more isolated), right behind new builds which should be constructed without a connection to the gas mains and with heat pumps in the first place (no point making the existing problem worse by building any house with gas mains connection).
Changing existing properties to disconnect gas will need to be phased in. Start with any property undergoing major refurbishment - if you're ripping everything out then you're more than half way to putting in heat pump based heating, and most of the extra costs of installing a heat pump relate to the need (in some cases) to improve insulation and replace radiators and pipe work. And, whenever an existing gas boiler reaches end of life it should never be simply swapped out for another gas combi boiler (I'm willing to accept that if the boiler completely fails in middle of winter and can't be repaired then that's not the time to have the heating down while a completely new system is installed ... that doesn't apply when there's a chance to plan for a replacement). With gas boiler lifetimes of 10-15y there should be no need for any gas mains at all in 20 years time.
I was nodding in agreement with all of that until the last sentence.
If, through no fault of your own, in 20 years time you’re one of the last on a gas main the costs are either going to be punitively crippling or cripplingly punitive.
It can’t run down like that, government needs to step in well before that and just pay.
Yes, the process will need to see the government stepping up, in any location as more and more homes are removed from the gas mains system the costs for those left will increase (the maintenance costs aren't going to go down, and will be shared among fewer consumers - that's even without factoring in the inevitable above inflation costs for gas as well). There will be some people who can't afford the switch over, they should get help at whatever point that switch over is inevitable (ie: when their boiler needs replacing). There will be some people for whom the switch is going to be very difficult - some housing in heritage areas face a lot of problems even getting double glazing fitted and would never be able to heat the property without gas unless that sort of basic thermal efficiency steps are taken - and that's probably going to need a whole lot of changes to legislation.
Well indeed but look what Wes Streeting is doing - transphobic talking points in his column in The Sun today plus he's taken actual discriminatory action against trans people plus his comments about the NHS and 'migrant doctors' and he's still the minister and thus officially represents the party on these matters.
'Polite' bigotry is still absolutely fine in the Labour Party. If you publish it in the Murdoch press or the Telegraph it's perfectly OK. Just don't have the bad taste to put it on WhatsApp instead of doing it out in the open and being proud of it.
Nuclear is an utter irrelevance to decarbonising on the time scales in which we need to do it. By all means carry on what's already started but it's never going to be ready in time to replace gas, and grid level battery storage will be far cheaper by the time nuclear comes on stream.
Can you back that up please? How much of our current 1,651 TWh consumption will need to be stored, and what will be the footprint of that?
How much storage we'll need is going to depend, to a significant extent, on the mix of renewable generating capacity we have and also on how demand develops. If we have just wind, then we're going to need more storage capacity than if we have a mix with significant contributions from wind, solar, hydro and tidal power. For demand, we're already seeing dynamic pricing giving cheaper electricity when demand is lower than supply and I expect that process to continue and that to lead to behavioural changes that will partially match demand to supply. The more that supply and demand are in step the less storage capacity needed.
But the main point is that we can easily install new renewables capacity, at a rate that will exceed any realistic new nuclear construction and at a significantly lower price.
Thank you Alan. A political answer methinks : ) In other words, grid level battery storage is absurdly expensive, just like it is domestically. Wind requires massive redundancy (any with vacuum fly-wheels yet?). Solar too. Even worse in some ways. When we need it most, it isn't there. Unless we only make cement and steel in the summer. Scotland seems more blessed with every potential nonetheless.
And the politics of nuclear is that regardless of it being a waste of money, it's visible. Cranes on the horizon. And it's government looking bullish, forging ahead, doing something regardless of resistance. Jobs!
So, hydro, tidal & wave tomorrow. You've got the lot. We haven't. Scotland. England. Wales has some: We don't have the mountains to shove water up. And neither does Wales really. Lake Vyrnwy with a much bigger dam? Bala?
So for England, nuclear is beginning to look like more than propaganda. It looks more like supply meeting demand. Although it's not drought proof... As France discovered. Ah, build by the sea. Like we do.
Or we just go for massive 'sustainable' redundancy.
Would Anglesey tidal really power Liverpool-Manchester?
'Polite' bigotry is still absolutely fine in the Labour Party. If you publish it in the Murdoch press or the Telegraph it's perfectly OK.
Exactly, and this was always likely to be the endpoint of writing in that part of the press, but people in the previous thread pushed back when I raised it as a concern.
Similarly, I see the Times had a story that the government is going to start putting out videos of immigrants being deported:
This will solve nothing, prove nothing to those intent on voting for Reform, and make political atmosphere ever more febrile and toxic, all while victimising some of the most vulnerable people. But yeah, Starmer will pivot left.
So, hydro, tidal & wave tomorrow. You've got the lot. We haven't. Scotland. England. Wales has some: We don't have the mountains to shove water up. And neither does Wales really. Lake Vyrnwy with a much bigger dam? Bala?
You don't need mountains for hydro, you just need water flowing. At present there's a bit over 1MW of hydro power installed on the Thames, mostly making use of weirs associated with locks to make the river navigable with at least one old water mill converted to generate hydro electricity, and that's barely scratched the surface of potential capacity from that river. Scale that up to include other rivers adapted for navigation, including the larger rivers such as the Severn, and there's probably close to 1GW of potential hydro power in the UK just from rivers without the need to do anything that changes water flow, comparable to a new nuclear power reactor. With some new storage hydro schemes planned or under development that could put total hydro power at above 5% of UK electricity generation, which would be baseline with a bit of storage flexibility.
Would Anglesey tidal really power Liverpool-Manchester?
It could certainly make a big contribution. The current demonstration scheme should generate 240MW through a mix of technologies (because it's a test bed for different technologies), which would be 1-2% of the total electricity demand for NW England. Total capacity for the waters around Anglesey should be easily an order of magnitude above that.
And this is standing with fascism. It's clear what Trump is and what Farage stands for and what they are doing and that immigrants and trans people are some of the most heavily targeted and scapegoated groups by modern fascism which has now taken power in America, yet Labour joins in the attacks on these groups - even using the same vectors. They see exactly what it is now yet won't reject it.
How can they be part of the resistance to fascism and the far right when their position is that Trump and Farage are absolutely correct in some of their most toxic signature views?
Labour people are now in the proverbial Nazi Bar situation and time is running out to get rid of Starmer and Streeting before they play their part in helping to entirely normalise the main views of the far right and make Reform electable as a government.
Why are the only renewables being talked about wind and solar? What about tidal? The European Marine Energy Centre, in Orkney, has new tidal stream turbines tested, and beginning to be installed. Why isn't the government investing in ringing the country with them? Britain is a small island with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world, so tidal could play a large part in replacing gas.
We can't replace gas yet. I need it for my hob and also central heating
Both of those uses are currently replaceable with electricity. Induction cooktops offer similar "instant-on" performance to gas, without any of the downsides of burning hydrocarbons inside your house. Heat pumps work to heat homes.
Your hob is easy - when you next replace it, buy an induction top. Job done. Converting a home with gas central heating to a heat pump is significantly more work (GCH systems heat the water to a high temperature, which is sensible for a gas boiler, but isn't efficient for a heat pump system, which means that you can't just replace the boiler - you might need to replace your radiators as well (not guaranteed: lots of current installations have oversized radiators that will still work fine at the lower temperatures produced by a heat pump system. If you're a person who likes to allow your house to cool while you're out, and then blast it with heat before you get home from work, you'll find that it will take a little longer to heat up with a lower-temperature system. This just means you need to adjust your timers a bit.)
Why are the only renewables being talked about wind and solar? What about tidal? The European Marine Energy Centre, in Orkney, has new tidal stream turbines tested, and beginning to be installed. Why isn't the government investing in ringing the country with them? Britain is a small island with some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world, so tidal could play a large part in replacing gas.
We can't replace gas yet. I need it for my hob and also central heating
Both of those uses are currently replaceable with electricity. Induction cooktops offer similar "instant-on" performance to gas, without any of the downsides of burning hydrocarbons inside your house. Heat pumps work to heat homes.
Your hob is easy - when you next replace it, buy an induction top. Job done. Converting a home with gas central heating to a heat pump is significantly more work (GCH systems heat the water to a high temperature, which is sensible for a gas boiler, but isn't efficient for a heat pump system, which means that you can't just replace the boiler - you might need to replace your radiators as well (not guaranteed: lots of current installations have oversized radiators that will still work fine at the lower temperatures produced by a heat pump system. If you're a person who likes to allow your house to cool while you're out, and then blast it with heat before you get home from work, you'll find that it will take a little longer to heat up with a lower-temperature system. This just means you need to adjust your timers a bit.)
I am an old man who could conk out at any time. Are you seriously suggesting that I spend a shedload of money changing things when I will probably be dead before the government requires me to change things.
If something is right to do, do you need to wait for instructions from government to do so?
If you have the means to do so, when your heating system needs to be replaced (I've no idea about when that was last done, and whether that's likely to happen before you "conk out" but I hope you're here long enough for boiler replacement to occur before then) swapping that out for a low carbon version (eg: a heat pump, other heating options are available) would a) not be as expensive as changing heating systems earlier (you'll have trades in to do work anyway, and you'll only be needing to consider the extra cost above the price of a combi boiler, b) it will cut your heating costs for the rest of the time you have (which, of course, will be true regardless of whether you make the swap earlier), and c) will increase the value of the property that you'll be passing on when many years later you do actually "conk out".
In the meantime we have another problem that could help with energy/heating - rubbish. Landfill sites are not only pretty much full, they are dreadful for the environment and they waste a valuable potential energy source. Before people start chuntering, take a look at this which seems a sensible alternative.
And in the meantime all domestic heating systems should have FLue Gas Heat Recovery as standard.
Labour are good at hitting back on Reform in Parliament. Much as I don’t like this version of Labour they have done some good stuff. They are not good at getting that info out. They are still particularly bad at Social Media. It is a known problem.
I think @Louise is absolute right above, I don't think the manner in which they are 'hitting back on Reform' is landing at all, and if anything is moving the conversation in Reform's preferred direction.
The Guardian is now running columns that repeat the diagnosis of the left of a year ago:
That Starmer's leadership has largely focused on factionalism and has few ideas for economic betterment apart form 'growth'. Additionally, the problems are with the intellectual void on the Labour right, not this one individual.
I am an old man who could conk out at any time. Are you seriously suggesting that I spend a shedload of money changing things when I will probably be dead before the government requires me to change things.
No. What I said was "when your hob breaks, replace it with an induction top". I'm not suggesting you replace functioning equipment - I'm suggesting that as what you have reaches the end of its natural life, you replace it with something different rather than more of the same. Whether the replacement is done by you, or by whoever inherits your home after you "conk out" isn't terribly important.
Labour are good at hitting back on Reform in Parliament. Much as I don’t like this version of Labour they have done some good stuff. They are not good at getting that info out. They are still particularly bad at Social Media. It is a known problem.
Hitting back by booing and heckling when a Reform member tries to speak. It's easy to be good at it with such a numerical advantage....at the moment
Labour are good at hitting back on Reform in Parliament. Much as I don’t like this version of Labour they have done some good stuff. They are not good at getting that info out. They are still particularly bad at Social Media. It is a known problem.
Hitting back by booing and heckling when a Reform member tries to speak. It's easy to be good at it with such a numerical advantage....at the moment
No hitting back from the dispatch box when Reform spout nonsense and uninformed questions.
The chums of Andrew Gwynne have really put the cat among the pigeons . Labour have suspended the MP for Burnley and 9 councillors
The question is, given they knew about the issues in that CLP some time ago, why it took it going public for them to do something. You can bet that if Gwynne and co had been on the left of the party the opportunity for another purge would have been seized instantly. Plus we know from the Forde report that senior staff on the right of the party behave in much the same way.
"Labour responded by tightening laws around the small boats using the borders bill. This is entirely fair. It promoted videos of raids and deportations – a grim and vindictive spectacle, but ultimately the kind of thing you could just about accept as the enforcement of pre-existing rules."
In a wide-ranging radio interview with Bylines Scotland writer Martin Roche, former Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said that Prime Minister Keir Starmer is wrong to stick to Labour’s “red lines” of keeping the UK out of the European single market and the customs union. Ms Sturgeon said that the Westminster government’s position on Europe is “the biggest single barrier to achieving growth in the economy
She is good on their scapegoating around minorities and immigration too.
'The biggest single barrier to achieving growth in the economy...' there in a nutshell is why their whole electoral offer to the nation about funding better public services from growth was always bunkum, no better than Boris Johnson's own guff and magical thinking about Brexit.
This is why we're really screwed. Voices like Sturgeon's are rare. We have three major UK parties dominating political coverage whose offers to the public are rooted in persecution of minorities and economic fantasy - the former often pursued to cover up for the latter.
Brexit has always struck me as the moment when political lying and disinformation became truly respectable on air. You might argue it was always so - for example austerity. But it seemed to me there was a real stepchange in the way that people known to be lying and peddling complete fantasy were platformed equally and with a straight face in a way that made it hard for people who hadn't already researched the issue to see they were being lied to, and the lies were pushed relentlessly to the point where they have now taken over both of the major parties and normalised the far right who are now serious challengers. In fact, we now have three far right parties in contention to form the next UK government.
Getting back to reality based politics is our only hope and that can't happen until Brexit and all its works are ditched.
(I've posted about the gender aspects of the interview in Epiphanies on the Trans kids UK thread)
Do Labour not know the internet exists. They seem to think they can say something and it not get round. They certainly don’t use social media that well. They seem to not understand if you say one thing then say you didn’t it is there on line for all who wish to search for it. The party that knows how to use social media will probably win the next election.
Comments
Two issues; at the moment the economy is at capacity, so in order to do this you would need to raise taxes which Labour are loathe to do (Reeves should do this anyway, as it would counter growing inequality and relatedly asset price inflation).
Second; there are all sorts of labour bottle necks you are going to run into; example, nuclear reactors are one of those projects that require very high precision concrete. There are two or three specialised firms in the UK that can work with it, and until the point when Sunak cancelled HS2, they were completely booked out between HS2 and Hinkley Point. To build a French style fleet of them you'd need to massively expand capacity or do them in serial. At the moment the UK is going to struggle to replace existing reactors before they are decommissioned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#Power_stations
Finally, the article you posted contains this niggling sentence:
"An industry source said the changes would be welcome in the longer term, but that planning was not the main obstacle holding back SMRs."
So the changes he's making are unlikely to help and the real issue is the government dithering when it comes to procurement (at which point you are probably back at the start of my post).
Also, what do we want to dispose of by bunging it down a big hole in the ground? Do we dispose of all our nuclear material, and call it all waste? Or, do we consider that some spent fuel is actually an asset and needs to be separated out from the waste? Removing useful material (plutonium and remaining 235U being obvious material to recover, which can still be used to fuel reactors) from spent fuel reduces the volume of what needs to be bunged down the hole, but the process invariably creates more low and intermediate level waste that also needs a disposal route. And, of course, you need reactors that will actually use recovered fissile materials.
And, what if there are other materials in that waste that you later want to recover - there's a non-negligible quantity of rare earth metals in spent fuel, for example. Do you then want that asset down a big hole in the ground where it's very difficult to get to it? Or do you instead want to build stores closer to the surface where you can access the stuff should you need to (which could be because the store is failing, or it could be because someone has a better idea of what to do with the stuff)?
Although putting the stuff down a hole in the ground and forget about it, hoping it'll be OK there for 100,000 years or more, is the commonly accepted approach it's not the only one. And, so far only Finland and (just recently) Sweden have actually found somewhere to dig such a big hole.
Added to which, SMRs (or, for that matter the big new PWRs being built at Hinkley and planned for Sizewell) have different types of fuel which will all need new facilities to manage before it gets to a big hole in the ground, should such a hole ever be dug. Those interim handling and storage facilities also need to built, and the question of "where?" applies there as well.
It's a good job we don't need nuclear power. The UK has more than enough renewable resources that we don't need to go down that route. With the bonus that renewables are cheaper to install, and can be powering our gadgets far sooner than a nuclear power station could be built.
The risks associated with nuclear are to my mind miniscule compared with those from climate change. Furthermore if the West does not pursue nuclear power then new nuclear stations worldwide (of which there are many in the works) will be built to Chinese or Russian standards. The former might be all right. The latter not so much. I'd still rather have Russian nuclear than no nuclear.
Can you back that up please? How much of our current 1,651 TWh consumption will need to be stored, and what will be the footprint of that?
But the main point is that we can easily install new renewables capacity, at a rate that will exceed any realistic new nuclear construction and at a significantly lower price.
Though, for tidal the sort of turbines already generating power in the Pentland Firth are really only suitable for locations with similar powerful tidal currents. The current 6MW generating is a mere demonstration, the current plans will see that expand to 400MW. That's still a long way short of the 10-20GW potential. There are some other locations around Scotland that would be suitable, I know somewhere near Islay has been proposed.
Well, because wind and solar are cheaper sources, require far less in initial investment and subsequent maintenance, the UK hasn't tapped out those sources, and you'd ideally want to avoid transporting generated energy around because of the cost of additional grid and transmission loss (which can quickly eat up the efficiencies you get over slight more marginal sources)
The biggest point, in relation to storage needs, is that it's a source of power that operates on different cycles from wind and solar and hence reduces the problems of all power dropping out (over a night with little wind, for example).
Between Islay and Jura would certainly have potential, and to a lesser extent Gunna Sound (between Tiree and Coll).
We can't replace gas yet. I need it for my hob and also central heating
Luxury - earlier today I took delivery of 900 litres of fuel oil, to be paid on delivery at today’s spot price.
Before the eco-warriors get too excited, as a sometime Green voter I’d point out that my long term view is our village is perfect for a community ground source heating grid, in the same way the parish put in water in the 1920s
Changing existing properties to disconnect gas will need to be phased in. Start with any property undergoing major refurbishment - if you're ripping everything out then you're more than half way to putting in heat pump based heating, and most of the extra costs of installing a heat pump relate to the need (in some cases) to improve insulation and replace radiators and pipe work. And, whenever an existing gas boiler reaches end of life it should never be simply swapped out for another gas combi boiler (I'm willing to accept that if the boiler completely fails in middle of winter and can't be repaired then that's not the time to have the heating down while a completely new system is installed ... that doesn't apply when there's a chance to plan for a replacement). With gas boiler lifetimes of 10-15y there should be no need for any gas mains at all in 20 years time.
I was nodding in agreement with all of that until the last sentence.
If, through no fault of your own, in 20 years time you’re one of the last on a gas main the costs are either going to be punitively crippling or cripplingly punitive.
It can’t run down like that, government needs to step in well before that and just pay.
Andrew Gwynne can no longer consider himself one of Sir Keir chums.
'Polite' bigotry is still absolutely fine in the Labour Party. If you publish it in the Murdoch press or the Telegraph it's perfectly OK. Just don't have the bad taste to put it on WhatsApp instead of doing it out in the open and being proud of it.
Thank you Alan. A political answer methinks : ) In other words, grid level battery storage is absurdly expensive, just like it is domestically. Wind requires massive redundancy (any with vacuum fly-wheels yet?). Solar too. Even worse in some ways. When we need it most, it isn't there. Unless we only make cement and steel in the summer. Scotland seems more blessed with every potential nonetheless.
And the politics of nuclear is that regardless of it being a waste of money, it's visible. Cranes on the horizon. And it's government looking bullish, forging ahead, doing something regardless of resistance. Jobs!
So, hydro, tidal & wave tomorrow. You've got the lot. We haven't. Scotland. England. Wales has some: We don't have the mountains to shove water up. And neither does Wales really. Lake Vyrnwy with a much bigger dam? Bala?
So for England, nuclear is beginning to look like more than propaganda. It looks more like supply meeting demand. Although it's not drought proof... As France discovered. Ah, build by the sea. Like we do.
Or we just go for massive 'sustainable' redundancy.
Would Anglesey tidal really power Liverpool-Manchester?
Exactly, and this was always likely to be the endpoint of writing in that part of the press, but people in the previous thread pushed back when I raised it as a concern.
Similarly, I see the Times had a story that the government is going to start putting out videos of immigrants being deported:
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/sir-keir-starmer-plans-to-fight-reform-uk-on-immigration-8kkzjwfkh
This will solve nothing, prove nothing to those intent on voting for Reform, and make political atmosphere ever more febrile and toxic, all while victimising some of the most vulnerable people. But yeah, Starmer will pivot left.
It could certainly make a big contribution. The current demonstration scheme should generate 240MW through a mix of technologies (because it's a test bed for different technologies), which would be 1-2% of the total electricity demand for NW England. Total capacity for the waters around Anglesey should be easily an order of magnitude above that.
How can they be part of the resistance to fascism and the far right when their position is that Trump and Farage are absolutely correct in some of their most toxic signature views?
Labour people are now in the proverbial Nazi Bar situation and time is running out to get rid of Starmer and Streeting before they play their part in helping to entirely normalise the main views of the far right and make Reform electable as a government.
Both of those uses are currently replaceable with electricity. Induction cooktops offer similar "instant-on" performance to gas, without any of the downsides of burning hydrocarbons inside your house. Heat pumps work to heat homes.
Your hob is easy - when you next replace it, buy an induction top. Job done. Converting a home with gas central heating to a heat pump is significantly more work (GCH systems heat the water to a high temperature, which is sensible for a gas boiler, but isn't efficient for a heat pump system, which means that you can't just replace the boiler - you might need to replace your radiators as well (not guaranteed: lots of current installations have oversized radiators that will still work fine at the lower temperatures produced by a heat pump system. If you're a person who likes to allow your house to cool while you're out, and then blast it with heat before you get home from work, you'll find that it will take a little longer to heat up with a lower-temperature system. This just means you need to adjust your timers a bit.)
I am an old man who could conk out at any time. Are you seriously suggesting that I spend a shedload of money changing things when I will probably be dead before the government requires me to change things.
If you have the means to do so, when your heating system needs to be replaced (I've no idea about when that was last done, and whether that's likely to happen before you "conk out" but I hope you're here long enough for boiler replacement to occur before then) swapping that out for a low carbon version (eg: a heat pump, other heating options are available) would a) not be as expensive as changing heating systems earlier (you'll have trades in to do work anyway, and you'll only be needing to consider the extra cost above the price of a combi boiler, b) it will cut your heating costs for the rest of the time you have (which, of course, will be true regardless of whether you make the swap earlier), and c) will increase the value of the property that you'll be passing on when many years later you do actually "conk out".
In which case, it may be that a heat pump isn't the best solution, and other low-carbon heating options may be more appropriate.
And in the meantime all domestic heating systems should have FLue Gas Heat Recovery as standard.
The Guardian is now running columns that repeat the diagnosis of the left of a year ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/09/keir-starmer-politics-labour-growth-reform-uk
That Starmer's leadership has largely focused on factionalism and has few ideas for economic betterment apart form 'growth'. Additionally, the problems are with the intellectual void on the Labour right, not this one individual.
No. What I said was "when your hob breaks, replace it with an induction top". I'm not suggesting you replace functioning equipment - I'm suggesting that as what you have reaches the end of its natural life, you replace it with something different rather than more of the same. Whether the replacement is done by you, or by whoever inherits your home after you "conk out" isn't terribly important.
Hitting back by booing and heckling when a Reform member tries to speak. It's easy to be good at it with such a numerical advantage....at the moment
No hitting back from the dispatch box when Reform spout nonsense and uninformed questions.
The question is, given they knew about the issues in that CLP some time ago, why it took it going public for them to do something. You can bet that if Gwynne and co had been on the left of the party the opportunity for another purge would have been seized instantly. Plus we know from the Forde report that senior staff on the right of the party behave in much the same way.
Not impressed.
Not at all.
I'm with Dunt.
Fuck.
I'm not:
"Labour responded by tightening laws around the small boats using the borders bill. This is entirely fair. It promoted videos of raids and deportations – a grim and vindictive spectacle, but ultimately the kind of thing you could just about accept as the enforcement of pre-existing rules."
https://bylines.scot/politics/nicola-sturgeon-says-starmer-and-reeves-wrong-on-europe/
The whole Nicola Sturgeon interview is here
https://www.mixcloud.com/GladRadio/southside-democracy-03/
She is good on their scapegoating around minorities and immigration too.
'The biggest single barrier to achieving growth in the economy...' there in a nutshell is why their whole electoral offer to the nation about funding better public services from growth was always bunkum, no better than Boris Johnson's own guff and magical thinking about Brexit.
This is why we're really screwed. Voices like Sturgeon's are rare. We have three major UK parties dominating political coverage whose offers to the public are rooted in persecution of minorities and economic fantasy - the former often pursued to cover up for the latter.
Brexit has always struck me as the moment when political lying and disinformation became truly respectable on air. You might argue it was always so - for example austerity. But it seemed to me there was a real stepchange in the way that people known to be lying and peddling complete fantasy were platformed equally and with a straight face in a way that made it hard for people who hadn't already researched the issue to see they were being lied to, and the lies were pushed relentlessly to the point where they have now taken over both of the major parties and normalised the far right who are now serious challengers. In fact, we now have three far right parties in contention to form the next UK government.
Getting back to reality based politics is our only hope and that can't happen until Brexit and all its works are ditched.
(I've posted about the gender aspects of the interview in Epiphanies on the Trans kids UK thread)