EDF Energy are going to save us

EDF Energy has a new advert out. It's interesting to watch. They play on the global warming angle with a vengeance, scary predictions and all. But it's okay! Because they're are going to save us by reducing the carbon intensity of their electricity generation.

What is particularly fun is that EDF Energy is going to achieve this by building new nuclear reactors in the South of England. Of course they don't tell us that. But why should they? Global warming is the greatest threat the planet has ever faced we're constantly told (even more than that planetoid that hit us 5 billion years ago creating the Moon). If it is the greatest threat we've ever faced, then surely it is greater than the threat from nuclear accidents, nuclear proliferation, nuclear waste blah blah blah.

So all hail EDF Energy. They're picking the lesser of two evils.

(Not that nuclear power is really evil at all. In fact, it's lovely.)

Just when you thought it was safe to like Auntie

Here's how the BBC does analysis of the government's nuclear decision. By dedicating an article to romanticising the ignorant antics of the aging dinosaurs of yesterdecade. All the other articles are pretty hard headed factual accounts of the situation (though you can almost hear the Beeboid journos' teeth grinding as they force themselves to give the pro side its share of lines as well).

The only one to stray into the realm of a more personal account is this article, which focuses purely on the opponents and their views. When are we going to get this kind of star treatment? Maybe we don't qualify because we're not in the habit of committing acts of vandalism, aggravated trespass, intimidation, disturbance of the peace and all those other wonderful things for which the quintagenarians are so honoured.

Edit: As quick as it appeared, it's gone. Replaced by this saucy number. Now this might be the article, which puts me in my place, you could say. But, I still have a gripe. While the beginning does indeed opening with what is essential a view from the perspective of benighted nuclear worker, and would indeed serve as a good counterbalance to the tribute to the opponents, they still can't resist pooring cold water on the proceeding by inviting cynicism. The final line is,

The fact is, it won't be his generation that knows if his decision was the
right one.

As a stand alone article it is fine in terms of trying to capture the inside story while offering some balance; a perspective from the nuke worker, while also raising the doubts. However, the other article is an exercise in Greenpeace propoganda. The BBC (and media in general) line is that pro-shifting articles must balance with a hint of doubt, but anti-shifting articles can go off on one all they like. In the end, it's a media victory for the opponents... as always.

NB This bit amused.

But when our short tour begins, and we cross a thick red line painted on the
ground, new attire becomes compulsory: a bright blue shopkeeper's coat, white
construction helmet, heavy plastic glasses and shoes with steel caps.

Ooh how dangerous and scary nuclear power stations must be. Not really. Sounds like just the kind of thing we wear round the yards of oil field suppliers.

Edit edit: The second article is now on the front page while the first article is still missing. Maybe the Beeb is not too bad after all.

Crunch time is here

The Cabinet has given the green light.

Now will they have the strength and competence to push it forward?

All the government should provide is a proper and sensible regulatory framework, clarity on back end processes (if the government is to handle final waste disposal, what charge is to paid for that service) and most importantly bamboo sticks to bludgeon any Usual Suspects who approach nuclear facilities.

Because Alex Salmond has control of the planning system is Scotland, he has ruled out any possibility of new reactors being built here. This of course means that Scotland's energy infrastructure will collapse in the next few years, no doubt to be replaced by natural gas and imports from England if what the government say comes to pass. Maybe in a few years time, "It's Scotland's oil!" will be replaced by "It's England's actinides!" as the new nationalist obsession.

NB you'll note in typical BBC style, right at the top of the article is a link to listen to the "Greenpeace view". As if they have anything original to say.

Things to do on a quiet Saturday morning

Four fuddites declare their undying devotion to Sizewell

This may be a subjective thing, but I would normally expect a party larger than 4 to have staged their antics before headlining it as a "protest". Still, this is a rather typical Beeb thing to do when they agree with the protestors (notice how they also give plenty of space for the Usual Suspects to deliver their opinions without a word from the other side).

This bit amused though as it shows the complete lack of logical thought by the Usual Suspects:

"We were lying across the road for 15 minutes fastened together before the
security guards came," said campaigner Mell Harrison, 36, of Bungay, Suffolk.
"We were 200 metres from the reactor, if that. If we can do it so can
terrorists. Imagine that. We didn't get inside the fence. But protesters have
done that before.

If terrorists basically comes to Sizewell to stand across the road, then I don't think we have anything to worry about. When will they learn that they're going to have to do better than that?

Good luck to British Energy. Some brand spanking new Generation III+ reactors will do us well. Scotland will also be needing the imports sooner or later anyway unless the Exalted One comes to his senses.

It's a conspiracy I tells ya!

Derek Wall, principal speaker of the Green Party of England and Wales, appeared on 18 Doughty Street's Cross Talk programme on the 12th July, where he faces simultaneous questioning from a left wing angle by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and from a right wing angle by Iain Dale.

Okay, so we don't expect much lucidity from the head honcho of the Green Party. We barely expect it from the Lib Dems and they're mainstream. But this guy really seemed off it. Yasmin asked him at one point to list the straight forward reasons behind their anti-nuclear position. So we get terrorism, waste, etc, but apparently the Green Party of England and Wales also opposes nuclear power because it is a threat to civil liberties. Wall seems to believe that a "nuclear state" will have to cut back on civil liberties for some reason (probably because he knows his lot will wage a campaign of what is euphemistically called "direct action" ie aggrevated trespass, intimidation, vandalism, and sometimes full blown terrorism).

At its heart, this seems to come from the mindset that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are as intertwined as electric and magnetic fields; that one cannot exist without the other. Derek Wall seems unable to disconnect the two. This is exemplified, not only by his use of the term "nuclear state" to describe a country with nuclear power stations, when it is usually for countries with nuclear weapons, but also by his response to Iain's question on why some European countries like Denmark had slowed their renewables project. He suggested it's just because they have "right wing governments that obviously prefer nuclear power and nuclear weapons". Of course, in the case of Denmark, the statement is ridiculous anyway because that country has neither.

It's almost a throwback to the acid soaked 60s mentality of raging against the perceived "military-industrial complex". Nuclear power cannot just be seen a technology for generating electricity. It can only be seen as part of "The Machine" controlled by moustache twirling villains hell bent on destroying the planet and oppressing the people for some reason.

Bring back Caroline Lucas. At least she appeared somewhat rational in her opinions, even if she was woefully misinformed.

The one benefit though is it makes you somewhat appreciative of the lot we have in government. At least they're not the Greens.

BBC loves homeopathy

So no wonder they pounce upon this opportunity with a particularly polemical article.

Japan is the only country to have suffered a full-scale nuclear attack, and the
only country to have suffered massive casualties from radioactive fallout.

It seems odd, then, that it is so addicted to nuclear energy, operating more
reactors than any other country after the United States and France.

This is pathetic. If someone almost drowns in a swimming pool, it doesn't mean they stop drinking water, or if they get stabbed during a mugging, they suddenly decide to stop using cutlery (it might have a bit at first, but after a while, they'd be expected to get over it).

The Japanese are often at the forefront of technological progress. You don't reach this point by embracing CND superstitution and maintaining that because nuclear weapons brought horrible death and destruction upon your country, you cannot use a beneficial new technology that harnesses energy from the same source.

Then there's the use of the word "addicted". A more shameless use of negative connotations there is not. And only 30% of their electricity comes from nuclear power stations anyway, so their dependency is exaggerated (the Beeb exaggerating? Surely not!).

Every day in the North Sea, some platform spills a few barrels of hazardous chemicals overboard and at best gets a strongly worded letter from the DTI about it. Nobody else cares. But it seems the decades old habit of running around like a headless chicken at the mention of the words "nuclear" and "radioactive" lives on.

Japanese earthquake causes coolant water leak

Almost breaking news from the BBC and AFP. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, the world's largest nuclear power station with a combined output of over 8GWe from its 7 BWR units, was close to the epicentre of the earthquake.

No details on exactly the source of the leak nor any figures on the levels of radioactivity released (unlikely in mass media articles anyway). The leaked water is said to have been released into the sea and in both articles, TEPCO is quoted as saying the quantity was not hazardous.

There was also a large fire, again of unspecified origin, though it is likely to have been on the generator side of the process.

We'll see what more information comes out in the coming days.

Edit:
CNN confirms it was a transformer fire. It also says 315 US gallons of water was released. No indication of the total activity of that volume.

Edit edit:
It appears that 315 gal is the total amount that was spilled. The discharged volume was actually just 1½ litres, which is 0.4 gal, or less than 1% of a barrel.

Edit edit edit:
NEI Nuclear Notes is on the case. Still no mention of the origins of the water.

Nuclear renaissance on BBC News 24

A recent episode of Our World entitled 'Old Man Atom' has just aired on News 24. Not entirely expected of the BBC, it was rather positive in its outlook. The beginning focused on a GE facility in North Carolina, which manufactures fuel rods for export. According to the program, the business is thriving as demand has never been higher.

We then moved onto India, insatiably ravenous for more reliable supplies of electricity. After the nuclear walls have come down between the West and India over its weapons program, GE forsees new opportunities for nuclear expansion on the sub-continent, which is desparately needed to curb the damaging power cuts constantly being faced.

There was, however, a public perception problem in Mumbai as a significant number of people there were not really aware of the significance of nuclear energy in electricity generation and merely saw it as a tools of the military. One person was not even aware India used nuclear power for electricity at all (it's not too shocking really when you consider neither Sarkozy nor Royal knew of its importance to country of which they wanted to be president).

A particularly interesting part was the focus on India's attempts to develop thorium reactors as a way of improving energy security and ensuring non-proliferation (the regular fuel cycle isn't particularly useful either, but with thorium it's pretty much impossible). These reactors were touted as the future of energy in India. I was just impressed that a Beeboid had heard of thorium at all.

Kirk will be pleased.

It was an interesting programme and a reassuring one to any nuclear supporter. The attitude to nuclear power was positive. The featured sites looked professional. The personnel, all speaking up for their energy source, were likeable. Anyone would leave with the impression that a nuclear renaissance was underway and just warming up.

Energy quote of the day

Three days and counting until Scottish politics is potentially turned upside down. North of the border, the Scottish parties are even more wet than their national counterparts. For example, the Scottish LibDems for example want Scotland to be 100% renewable (ie energy sources they like) within 20 years. Just when you thought that party couldn't get more deluded, you go North and they surprise you.

This month's energy supplement in the Press and Journal contained some analysis and opinion about the political landscape from the perspective of the energy industry. A most excellent comment sums up the situation.

So really, these are not energy policies at all. They are, if you will
pardon the mixed metaphor, cherry-picked slices of apple pie.

The big time!

You know you've hit the big time when you are quoted on none other than the BBC itself.

Okay so it's only the Action Network bit that no-one pays any attention to, but we all have to start somewhere. They described me as a campaign group. Excellent. Now all I need is to find a group.

Watch out Iain Dale!

(hat tip: niof)

Swedish maintenance not what it once was

A transformer at Ringhals 3 catches fire.

You'll note how my headline is significantly less incriminating than AFP's. A transformer isn't directly related to the operation of the reactor, the actual nuclear bit. It is a standard piece of equipment at any power station, regardless of the heat source. Obviously, if such a component does malfunction, production must shut down. It is, in reality, nothing related to nuclear power itself.

Why do I bring this up?

Was I suggesting that AFP were attempting to falsely smear nuclear power by relating it the malfunction of a non-nuclear component, simply because they had the audacity to inform the reader about the heat source for the power station?

Well actually, I wouldn't put it past AFP overall, but I don't think there isn't any evidence to suggest malicious intent here. They were quick to mention that the transformer was located seperately from the reactor.

The point is that while this article is innocent, there are those out there who would try to turn this into anti-nuclear propoganda (not to mention any names beginning Greenpeace), a sort of guilt by association ploy.

In response to this thought, I whipped this one up.

Anyway, no one was hurt in this accident and hopefully the transformer will be fixed and reactor brought back up before the operator loses too much money.

Climate change and ad hominems

David Cameron has a problem. He pledged to go Green in the hopes of improving the image of his party and capturing votes from the Liberal Democrats. However, the Liberal Democrats are not a party of government. They are a third party, a protest vote, better suited to telling the government what it is doing wrong rather than what it should- credibly- do right. To use Greeniness to out-green the Lib Dems is an impossibility.

Green politics is a giant black hole. Say, Cameron, in a bid to save the planet by discouraging fuel use, pledged to slap a 10p levy on a litre of regular unleaded petrol over what is already taken in tax (although it probably really isn't necessary). That is quite an increase. Ming Campbell, free from any obligation to be responsible in his policy making, says that doesn't go far enough and pledges to add £1 on the litre. Cameron says, "Hold on there a minute! Let's not get carried away!"

How do you think that would be received by the Lib Dems and the media, particularly that giant of eco-hype, the Independent. The headlines are easily predictable:

"Cameron soft on climate change"
"The Tories reject tough action on global warming"
"Cameron criticises Lib Dem plan for Green taxes"

No matter how Green you try to be, there will always be someone who will say that isn't enough. That's why Cameron's plan to out-green the Greens is destined to failure. He will be asked to present solid policies by the time of the next general election and any attempt to be sensible and pragmatic, as we would expect from a party with serious prospects to be the next government, will be derided as a weak stance on the environment.

And now for another point. In light of the Stern report and it's call for higher taxation, ad hominems are once again being traded by both sides of the debate.

From the Telegraph.

Those who dispute their efficacy – including this newspaper – will be dismissed
as having fallen for tendentious science, or being in the pay of the oil
companies, or simply not caring about the viability of the planet.

It is indeed true that the derisory label "climate change denier", a more subtle example of Godwin's Law, is applied to anyone who doesn't follow the paradigm that increased and dramatic statism is the only way to deal with global warming, rather than those who simply dispute the magnitude, or even just causes, or climate change.

But the other ad hominem applied to any "climate change denier", that they must be in the pay of Big Oil or Big Coal (see also a comment on that article by a Dr. Simon Dresner and hopefully, when it is approved, my response) seem to overlook one thing. What is in it for them to be "a climate change denier"? Corporate dollars? But what good is money if there is no planet on which to spend it? Do these corporate $hills have a secret spacecraft, with which they will travel to the rich tax haven of Mars Carlo to spend the money they made from denying global warming? If they, and their families, are stuck on this planet too, are they not signing their own death warrants by opposing methods to handle global warming?

If we then look at the other side of the conspiracy coin, and go with the right wingers, who say global warming is a big hoax, perpetrated by socialists to apply statism, while equally as paranoid, it isn't as inherently contradictory. After all, if there is no threat, then pulling a fast one on the population to convince them of the "necessity" of their politics, is not really costing them much.

In the battle of ad hominems, the victory is to the deniers.

Of course, all this is irrelevant to the science of global warming itself. The truth is not determined by who has the most credible conspiracy theory.

Oh yes and by the way, where is the goddamn demand for more nuclear power!?

And now for something completely different

Such as sticking one to Michael Palin and his Transport 2000 puritans.

(Okay, this post has little to do with promoting freedom for fission, but it is related to opposing the domination of the BBC by the Friends of the Earth types.)

Richard Hammond looks to be making a somewhat miraculous recovery after his accident.

Despite this, the Chatterati vultures are already gathering to dance on his near grave calling for the cancellation of the Top Gear. It is long been an target for those who don't like its more free-spirited style. It is by far the most popular programme on BBC TWO and a highly profitable franchise for the BBC. But because the BBC is funded by the poll tax license fee, it need not be answerable to its viewers: the paying British public.

Therefore, if it wants to cancel the show because it does not conform to the prevailing PC orthodoxy, a large part of which involves the Beeb being a mouthpiece for the Green lobby, it would not suffer any ill consequences as commercial channels would since its funding is guaranteed by pain of prison to the television owners.

The cause of protecting Top Gear is about more than just protecting a very enjoyable show. It's about ensuring the BBC are not allowed to violate the wishes of the viewing public with impunity. More people watch Top Gear than any other BBC TWO programme. This must be respected.

It is also important that the BBC optimise diversity of its programming rather than insisting they all conform to the narrow mindset of its governing elite. If a British television viewer does not like Channel Four programming, they do not have to watch and thus by not seeing the adverts, they do not pay for it. But they must still pay for the BBC regardless and the corporation has a duty to cater to as wide an audience as possible, including those who do not hold chattering class Green piety in particularly high esteem.

Top Gear is such a programme. It caters to those who actually dare to like fast cars, laddish banter, immature antics and motoring as a sport and pastime. It is not consistent with the general attitude of the BBC lineup, which leans towards Green sympathy, and that is precisely why it must stay.

The petition has passed 25,000 and continues to climb. And every signature counts.

On a related note, the Get Well Soon Hamster sentiment had been directed towards charitable donations to the Yorkshire Air Ambulance Charity. Currently, the fundraising drive is up to £180,000. Their target is £500,000. At least, that's the least one. The enormous generosity has forced them to keep raising it. You can help them reach this goal at Justgiving.

Making a million micrograms out of a gram

That media sure know how to make mountains out of molehills. The LA Times is no exception (and given they're from California, they do everything bigger).

Radioactive Leak Reaches Nuclear Plant's Groundwater

It's the story of the discovery of tritiated ground water at the site of the decomissioning San Onofre. Long story short, it didn't spread out of the site.

Now, here's the most important bit.

Samples of the groundwater beneath San Onofre's decommissioned unit contained
50,000 to 330,000 picocuries per liter, Bricks said.

Three hundred and thirty thousand. Wow! What a large number! Except the unit is picocuries, which is a trillionth of a curie. Large number, small unit. So 330,000pCi is basically 0.33µCi or basically 12kBq.

12,000 decays per second within one litre of water. A litre of water consists of over a trillion, trillion atoms and we're getting worried because 12,000 of those are decaying each second and decaying by emitting a pretty meak 20keV at that.

As Cheat Seeking Missiles put it, Brazil nuts are far, far more dangerous.

Yes, and we all know about the references to the NRC's over-zealous LNT shenanigans. A lot of us don't know what planet they're living on either.

The real point is the way the article uses a large number without giving it any context. I could say you weigh 70 million milligrams and convey, by gratuitous use of a large number, that you are vastly overweight. But when you consider the large number in context, the context of the tiny unit, it becomes apparent that you are pretty slim after all.

The media has always had a problem with context, particularly when it comes to the industrial scale. There's the liberal thrashing about of "tonnes and tonnes", even though one cubic metre of uranium alone weight 22 tonnes. Hundreds or even thousands of tonnes is not really a lot on the industrial scale.

The off quoted figure from the Beeb that the current stores of nuclear waste could fill five Albert Halls, fails to offers any context by which to judge how big that really is. Sure it sounds big to the average Joe, but they won't mention that it takes Britain less than a day to produce that amount of domestic rubbish. The nuclear waste in question is over fifty years worth of civil, military, industrial, medical and research waste.

Of course, the media credo is "Hype it for all its worth!" and if that means twisting words to make things sound worse, then that's what they'll do and no profession do it better than the profession of journalism.

'Urgency needed' on nuclear waste

So says the Beeb. Never say they pass up an opportunity to make nuclear sound difficult.

It's pretty usual stuff to most of us. A proper geological repository is necessary and we better get our finger out on this one.

They say it will take decades. That is probably because of all the annoying litigation involved, just like they say it will take over ten years to build a new reactor even though they can all be built in less than four.

The one thing that did strike me was this.

CoRWM's extensive three-year investigation of the issues has dismissed other
disposal options, such as putting the waste on the ocean floor or flying it into
the Sun.

It actually concerns me that three years was spent and the expense of the tax payer endulging such options as flying nuclear waste into the Sun. We knew it was geological disposal from the beginning. The waste volumes are so small it is a technically easy proposition. Sure the BBC make it look scary, but for fifty years, those figures are a pittance on the industrial scale. Yet they spent three years wondering if flying it into the Sun was a viable option?

This does not bode well for a professional handling of what should be an easy situation.

Red top investigative journalism

A Daily Mirror journalist planted a fake bomb on a nuclear train.

Good for him.

Had it been a real bomb, what did he think would have happened?

"A terrorist could have blown up the waste - sparking a vast toxic cloud that
would have killed hundreds."

Wrong! A terrorist could have blown up the train a left a few undamaged and intact transport casks lying in its wreckage.

If, by some contrived and exaggerated scenario, there was a release of radioactive material, the usual emergency response kicks in with cleanup crews decontaminating the affected area and distributing iodine pills and the damage is mitigated. With a great deal of luck, remembering that even the nuclear Armageddon event seemed to have trouble with mass destruction, the aerosolised radioisotopes are able to kill a handful of people.

But placing the bomb in a busy shopping mall could do that and more directly, without the need for a radioactive middle-man. Any explosive capable of breaching a transport cask could take down One Canada Square at Canary Wharf and the multiple thousands working there.

It is possible to conjure up some Hollywood James Bond style plot where significant release of nuclear materials results from a terrorist attack, but the same input of effort and resources by the terrorists and they could decimate half the City of London.

These scare tactics sound like they've been written by the writers of Star Trek, obsessed with notion than the more hi-tech and complicated, the better. Blowing up a plain old building with a conventional explosive may sound low tech, but it sure is effective. Blowing up a nuclear shipment may seem more 21st century, but you get far less return on your investment. Keeping it simple, keeps it deadly.

Nice try, Daily Mirror, but you haven't demonstrated anything which should particularly worry us.

The Groaniad

The Guardian and its columnists are not known for being the most reliable source of comment, but lately, they really seem to have lost it. First, we have Polly Toynbee's submission to the International How-Many-Political-Ad-Hominems-Can-You-Fit-Into-One-Article Tournament.

For some reason the old deniers, barely batting an eyelid, shifted over to
nuclear as the only salvation, though those who have been so wrong owe a little
humility when it comes to next steps. Many hail from a bizarre tradition of
right wing bad science: remember Andrew Neill as Sunday Times editor running a
dangerous campaign that denied HIV caused Aids, branding the latter as a disease
only of gays and the wildly promiscuous.

Her essential thesis is that only rabidly right-wing ex climate-deniers support nuclear power. We all know how long it took James Lovelock to get over his climate skepticism.

I don't know what about nuclear makes it right wing. As I pointed out in my swipe at the Tories, nuclear, with its large-scale power reactors feeding power into a monopolistic national grid is quintessentially socialist. The right wing approach taken by Dave, consistent though impractical, is for people to own their own power sources. Still, that doesn't stop ever rabid Polly from asserting beyond doubt that to be right wing is to be a fan of bad science, while to be left wing is to hold yourself to the highest of Popperian standards.

The science-based realos tend to be on the left, conviction fundis on the right.

So we'll ignore Lysenkoism, claims that Chernobyl will kill millions, incessant GM food scares, and worst of all, New Age "medicines" like homeopathy. It's Polly so we shouldn't get too worked up about what she says.

The wise will keep a hawk's eye on the money. Nuclear is not and never was
feasible without heavy subsidy. When the government swears there will be no
price guarantee or subsidy, none of the experts believes it - though the
industry naturally pretends. Investors will only build on a worldly-wise
understanding that the state will step in, one way or another. Always has,
always will.

The conspiracy theory nouveau rears its ugly head again. But even if she is right, didn't she just previously say this?

A ring of off-shore wind turbines round these blustery islands would give
permanent energy.

Renewables continue to receive far greater subsidies than anyone things the nuclear industry might need. Why all of a sudden are subsidies so wrong as soon as nuclear comes into the equation (particularly for Polly "Let's nationalise everything" Toynbee).

Even the CEO of the US nuclear power company Dominion said that, despite US
government wishes for new nuclear power stations, he would not build, to avoid
giving credit raters Standard & Poor's and his own chief financial officer
"a heart attack".

Then why are Dominion preparing applications for combined operating licences GE ESBWRs?

The eyes of would-be nuclear builders, meanwhile, are on Areva, the French
government- subsidised company building in Finland the first new nuclear station
anywhere in decades.

This of course was immediately caught by Polly's fan blog. It is rather typical for a chattering class European to completely forget that Asia too does have some role on the world stage. Between Asia and Eastern Europe, there is a fair amount of new construction going on.

Then there's a bunch of stuff where she assumes the economics for our old gas cooled reactors will still apply to Generation III+ reactors, which is again a double standard because she would only accept consideration of the newest and most advanced wind turbines. So enough of Polly's madness. What about a guest editorial from the science editor of the Ecologist (isn't that an oxymoron?)?

France's 60 operating PWRs emit a relatively benign 29 tonnes of carbon dioxide
per megawatt-hour; but that is for today's high-grade ores, which will last a
few years at best. Once we consider the next grade of uranium ore down, then
nuclear power burns up considerably more energy than it generates and its
emissions will exceed those even of coal.

That's even too much for SLS. High grade ores can last for at least another 50 years, and that's the known reserves. Further exploration yields more resources. Madness of the highest degree. Timmy can barely contain his frustration.

Horizon

This week's episode, "Nuclear Nightmares", was all about the LNT.

It was a truly excellent programme. Done with the trademark Horizon showmanship, it explored how the linear no-threshold hypothesis of radiation exposure, developed after the nuclear bombings of Japan, has been undermined.

It showed how the apocalyptic predictions of the aftermath of Chernobyl, based upon the LNT, failed to materialise. Animals in the exclusion zone show no signs of genetic damage, despite their higher radiation dosage.

Then there's the lack of correlation between natural background exposure worldwide and cancer incidence as well as the inconclusive evidence of harm coming to air crew, who have the highest radiation exposures of all of us.

It cleverly exposed, how not only the LNT may very have it wrong when it comes to low level radiation dosage, but may even have it backwards altogether.

A wonderful piece of work.

Newsnight roundup

A lively debate happened on Newsnight. I'm sure they'll put up the programme for viewing online soon.

They had four politicians from different parties, Labour (the energy minister Malcolm Wicks), Conservatives (Alan Duncan), Liberal Democrats (Ed Davy) and Greens (Caroline Lucas).

Here's the roundup.

Malcolm Wicks fought a reasonably good fight and talked the most sense.

Alan Duncan spouted incomprehensible crap that meant nothing.

Ed Davy made allegations about stealth taxes. He cited precedent that no nuclear power station has come in on budget and were built with subsidy (no surprise given they were built during the days of regulation in the energy industry). But of course, they were Generation II reactors that were a litigation nightmare to build. With proper licensing procedures, such problems should be reduced. First time problems sometimes occur, but the beauty of standardisation is that they get caught first time and not repeated. Besides, nuclear projects are hardly the only things to overrun. Scottish Parliament anyone?

He also said we needed more focus on other sectors among which he named geothermal. If only we had any geothermal resources his point might have been valid.

He also brought up the waste issue. He said it was different from other types of waste. That's right. It's contained unlike other forms of waste. It's also produced in manageably small quantities and throughout the lifetime of Generation III+, the volume of total radwaste will only increase 10% on what we currently have.

Caroline Lucas was full of bile. She said underwriting accidents was a large subsidy, obviously working on the explicit assumption that nuclear power stations are death traps, Chernobyl et al. Not only is she ignorant, but she is reprehensibly so.

There was also crap about renewables and nuclear being incompatible because they use a different kind of grid. Well large wind farms need the National Grid as much as anyone and I haven't heard her complaining about those. It is also the classic pie in the sky thinking that microgeneration will solve all of our energy problems alone so that large baseload generation will not be required.

Then there was this gem. She said it was uneconomic. She also said that by signalling to investors that nuclear is desired, they would no longer invest in renewables. But if nuclear was so uneconomic, why would they invest in it at all unless renewables were even more uneconomic to the point of ridiculous? It is a classic have your cake and eat it too fallacy. When it comes to renewables, Greens as a whole always insist that money should be no object, but as soon as nuclear is on the cards, suddenly economics leaps to the forefront. That's called not making a fair comparison.

So in conclusion usual fuddite and pie in the sky rubbish with a dash of conspiracy theory nouveau (the whole stealth tax business).

PS I originally said the Olkiluoto 3 delays were purely a litigation issue. In fact, it is due to planning and supply issues, which can partly be attributed to the regulatory framework and partly to some technical problems associated with prototypes.

Tony knows how to whip up a storm

He may not have long to go but he's sure going out true to form. His recent announcement that nuclear would be a serious consideration for the future energy mix in Britain has caused commentators all over the place to start the bashing.

Timmy deals with some of it.

It's all rather boring really. No-one seems to really be particularly well versed in nuclear technology. How can any talk about waste without mentioning the all-important process of vitrification even if just to dismiss it? How can anyone talk about uranium depletion without talking about thorium even if just to dismiss it?

Such ignorance can be seen on display on Question Time last night when the topic came up. I think we all knew it would, and I knew I would have reason to cringe when I found out Simon Hughes MP was also to be on the programme. He did not disappoint (after all since the LibDems are never going to be in power they can say whatever sounds good and never have it put the test). He regurgitated the same old tired dogma, blissfully unaware, or perhaps deliberately ignorant (vitrification, Simon?). Plus he made a big deal about cost and the alleged subsidies new reactors would receive. Nuclear requires no more subsidy than renewables do (double standard right there) and only in the form of a price floor. Certainly any new build will not be funded from taxpayers' money. So by actually saying that they would, he outright lied to the audience.

The problems with current decommissioning is due to the legacy of the Magnox program and the early nuclear development, which included weapons. Plus traditional graphite moderated reactors are a git to decommission anyway (VHTRs are a different story though). The advanced LWRs or HWRs that would be built are not the same as the reactors we have currently.

An amusing bit at the end as Frederic Forsyth, who seemed much more informed, mentioned how Finland was building its reactor, Simon Hughes went on the defensive mumbling like he was having a nervous breakdown about how they were the exception... Except for Japan, China, Russia, India, soon to be Canada, the US, perhaps even Australia (although I'll believe it when I see it) and of course very shortly France, the nuclear darling (curiously our nearest continental neighbour didn't get any mention).

Then there was the women with the flower who seemed to be very certain of her concerns despite confusing uranium and plutonium. Ken Clarke MP demonstrated a bit of knowledge by suggesting we could make plutonium from the uranium we have got (I'm hoping for an ACR win). Of course, fast reactors are the future. The answer to her question though in the short term is that importing uranium is not the same as importing natural gas. With uranium, we buy a shipment as we're set for some time. With natural gas, we require a constant supply.

But outside of Question Time, the question that keeps popping up is why no-one seems interested in investing.

The French seem rather keen to get into the nuclear act in Britain (they probably see more money in running reactors here rather than pumping it across the channel from reactors in France, which is what they will be doing in ever greater quantities if we allow our current fleet to go unreplaced).

The key issue is certainty. No investor is going to invest, no matter how profitable an idea in the right circumstances, if the environment does not look suitable. They are waiting for the government to say that they will support politically new reactors by streamlining procedures and by declaring what measures they will take to internalise the perceived external costs of emissions from the use of coal and gas. They also want some guarantees against binge gassing, which happened in the 90s destroying the economics of nuclear power then (although with Magnox and AGRs it doesn't take too much). Yes, it's no secret that low cost fossil fuels are cheaper than nuclear. At the moment though, fossil fuel prices are up and concerns over environmental effects means nuclear is competitive.

When and if the government says they do want new reactors, investors will be more enthusiastic.