Piper Alpha - 20 years on

Watch the memorial.

(Picture from geograph.org.uk until I get down to Hazlehead Park to get my own.)

Ali feeds the beast

Take a look at the latest budget. Here is what Alastair Tracy said about plastic bags. (pdf see page 18)

Legislation would come into force in 2009 and based on other countries'
experience, it could lead to a 90 percent reduction, with around 12 billion
fewer plastic bags in circulation.

The money raised should go to environmental charities.

Yes, the marionette gave the royal Thunderbirds are Go to shovelling a load of tax money into the pockets of the Usual Suspects, who, as they tend to do, will funnel it to their terrorism direct action division, where they will use it to further their brand of "non-violent" violence, including attacking the new nuclear power stations the government itself wants to build.

It's like giving money to Gerry Adams to organise the St. Patrick's Day celebrations.

Many environmental charities these days, particularly the more well known ones are nothing of the sort. They're political campaigning organisations masquerading as charitable organisations, who use donations made in good faith to fund illegal campaigning tactics.

And more to the point, a charity is supposed to be dependent on, you know, charity, not subsidy. A charity receiving state funding is no longer a charity, but is a QUANGO. Not only do we have enough in this country, but we certainly don't need ones which financially support criminal behaviour.

Still, it is a very effective policy by El Gordo and the marionette. By giving the revenues from the plastic bag tax to environmental charities, it means their profits are directly related to plastic bag use. I can think of nothing more likely to stop me from using plastic bags than the thought that it will be sending wads of cash straight into the pockets of Greenpeace.

Now where are resuable shopping bags my asset gave me?

The mystery of the final eleven

According to Reuters, the UK government has offered up another 18 sites as candidates for new power reactors in addition to the four originally outlines (Bradwell, Sizewell, Dungeness, Hinkley Point).

Only 14 sites have ever been used to house power reactors in the UK. If we assume that El Gordo is not going to pick a fight with the Exalted One and that none of the new sites are Scottish, then that eliminates Chapelcross, Hunterston and Torness. So that leaves only seven exiting nuclear power stations.

Where are the final eleven?

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.)

What to be done about Heathrow?

London Heathrow has consistently been voted the worst airport through which to travel. It's terminals are old, outdated and vastly overused, making them cramped and dingy (ever seen Terminal 1?). Decades of post hoc extensions of gate peers and new lounges have turned them in a labyrinthine dungeons, which snake their way across the property like cancerous lesions creating congestion prone cul-de-sacs and a hodge podge of architectural indecision. The airport looks like it was cobbled together from scraps of other countries disused ones.

Then there's the runway situation. The airport is the third busiest in the world. Yet it must operate with only two runways on a system of alternation where only one can be used for takeoffs and one landings at any one time, limiting movements to 480,000 a year. The runways operate at 98% so any hiccup, such as a bit of fog or a 777 belly landing at the threshold of one of them and the whole system comes crashing down. Then the media recommence their obligatory Heathrow travel misery stories, featuring delayed and angry passengers huddling in tents sleeping rough on benches. It's so familiar that it's become something of British tradition.

The problem for Heathrow is that there is no where to go. The airport is surrounded by housing practically up to the fence, which makes any attempt at expansion an operation in pulling teeth. Being situated to the West of London in the first place means that arriving aircraft must fly over large parts of the conurbation to make their approach, bringing with it a massively enlarged constituency of NIMBYs (all 8 million of them!).

There is some hope on the way though. After years of dirt grinding, the new Terminal 5 will be opening in March. I've seen it (although incomplete) and can say that, while it is hardly the Palace of Heaven that BAA and BA make it out to be, it is a phenomenal improvement over what has gone before. Tourists and foreign business travellers arriving in the UK through this terminal won't be greeted by such a dire first impression of the country. What this new terminal finally does is give a bit of overcapacity to the airport, which means that finally they can close terminal 2, which is half a century old, and rebuild it as Heathrow East, a modern terminal that can replace both terminal 2 and terminal 1 (good riddance to that one too!).

By 2012, with these two new terminals in full operation, the airport will be transformed into something completely unrecognisable. The dark days of the current Central Terminal Area, will be relegated to the status of legend told around the camp fire to scare the children.

However, ultimately what T5 and LHR-E offer is a much nicer place in which to be delayed. While the inefficient designs of the CTA, with its narrow cul-de-sacs causing each aircraft to have to take their turn maneuvering in them, do play a part in some delays, the biggest problem is runway capacity. T5 and LHR-E will have a much more sensible and useable ground layout, but they will do nothing to stem problems of congestion at the holds, both in the air and on the ground. The airport needs more capacity.

BAA and the government wants to be build a third runway to the North of the airport. But this solution is just too messy. Too many houses will have to be demolished. The airport's influence will extend up to the M4 bringing in a brand new generation of NIMBYs. It will also no doubt mean the extension to the North of the London Control Zone, which will consume Denham and Elstree aerodrome. AOPA are not going to like it either. The West of London it just too cramped. There is no room for Heathrow to expand any further.

The only solution left is to make better use of the current runways. That is the introduction of "mixed mode" whereby both runways can be used to take-off and landing at the same time. This would allow theoretically 550,000 movements a year. This is actually very useful for more than just capacity. It also means that taxiing becomes more efficient. Terminal 4 is located to the South of the South runway, which means that whenever the North runway is being used for departures, aircraft operating out of T4 must cross the active South runway to get to their departure runway. This is a source of ground congestion as well as a needlessly expending fuel on taxiing. With mixed mode, aircraft could use the most convenient runway reducing taxi times and with it, delays, noise and fuel consumption.

Ah but what about those NIMBYs? How would mixed mode help relieve congestion if that extra capacity was simply translated into more movements? The answers are of course as feared. The NIMBYs would be in a strop and allowing a rise to 550,000 movements will mean the extra capacity will be absorbed by increased traffic. The runways would remain congested and the terminals put under greater strain.

But the solution to that is already in place. Currently, the airport is already capped at 500,000 movements. Even with the extra capacity mixed mode would bring, Heathrow is not allowed to utilise it to its fullest. This type of approach would reduce runway utilisation factors giving more wiggle room in the system to allow for hiccups. It would also make ground movement more logical eliminating a source of congestion that way. And a limit on movements would keep the NIMBYs from being anymore irate than they already are. Job done. Oh and Gatwick should get a second runway too.

So how does this relate to nuclear power? Er... um... Heathrow is the largest consumer of electricity in Great Britain. This electricity should be generated on site with their own nuclear reactor.

Is Clegg on course for calamity?

Mike Smithson has got the scoop on public opinion to the government's green light to new nuclear reactors. Unsurprisingly, Conservative supporters are largely in favour. Labour supporters are fairly onboard too. But the funny bit is that among LibDem supporters, approval is much higher than disapproval.

Kind of goes to show how far away planet LibDem is from the real world and the people who would vote for them.

NB if you want a laugh, get a load of Tim13 in the comment thread trying to use Three Mile Island and Browns Ferry as an example of reactors polluting their surroundings.

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.

It's on

It's all going down on Iain Dale's Diary. Two anti-nuclear Tories and grumpy highlander.

And the lucky winner will be...

British Energy's reaction to the government statement reveals their main candidate sites for new reactors.

• Sizewell in Suffolk, already home to two Magnox and a PWR)
• Dungeness in Kent, already home to two Magnox (shut down) and two AGR
• Hinkley in Somerset, already home to two Magnox (shut down) and two AGR
• Bradwell in Essex, already home to two Magnox (shut down)

So which one is going to be first?

Somehow I think Hinkley will be last because Somerset is too close to LibDem territory. The fight might be tougher. Dungeness could be good. Robert Waller says people in Kent tend to vote in a more hard headed way and so might be pragmatic about it. Bradwell currently has nothing going which could present problems with dwindling infrastructure. Sizewell already has a large reactor, so starting there might be piling on the PWRs too much.

I'm going to bet on Dungeness.

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.

A few opening observations

Courtesy of the Guardian, we get this damning report from the Nuclear Consultation Group. It opens with a criticism of the handling of the energy review by the Government of All the Talentless, but then moves on to making their own case for why new nuclear power stations should not be allowed.

Here are some observations.

Health aspects

The entire Radiation Health Effects sections appeared to be an exercise in FUD. The COMARE reports have repeatedly given nuclear power a clean bill of health, yet they delighted in constantly raising doubts over whether that was enough. There was no sense of perspective added through acknowledging that if there is uncertainty as to the health effects of nuclear power, that puts it way ahead of coal, where there is no uncertainity: it is unhealthy.
The most damaging reference they had was to a Russian study, which they quoted as,

"As Prof Alexey Yablokov, Director of the RussianAcademy of Sciences, Moscow
concludes, ‘each year it has become clearerand clearer that the real
consequences of this catastrophe are much morewidespread and severe than has
been predicted’ (Yablokov, 2006, p. 34)."

This amused because the prediction told of millions dead and we know how valid that is. It also amused because put next to the extracts from UNSCEAR 2000, it looks rather shallow; a line of rhetoric rather than a line of facts.

Economics

I don't know what it is with this lot, but why is it so difficult to accept that new nuclear operators will have to operate in a market economy? The government has said repeatedly (and the opposition have agreed) that this is a private sector matter. The only job of the government is to lay the regulatory foundations for new nuclear build. The operators are meant to pay their way. If this looks unpalatable to investors, they won't come. Simple as that.

The pessimism is overbearing. Olkiluoto-3 and Flamanville-3 are currently under construction, but they talk as though this is already a withering wine. Does anyone seriously expect France is not going to build more? Even Fortum in Finland has not be deterred by the delays in Olkiluoto-3 and are studying the possibility of building a second EPR. Besides, while Olkiluoto-3 has run into some trouble, there are a host of recent projects in places like China, South Korea and Argentina that have come in on budget and on schedule.

Their perception of the past is also rather dodgy. Saying that Sizwell B did not have a consultation is totally untrue. The public enquiry took years and is partly responsible for the cost overruns. Their line about previous British efforts resulting in a "handful of unreliable and uneconomic units that supply less than 20 per centof our electricity" is also misleading since at its peak, the nuclear sector provided almost 30% of our electricity. It's only dwindling now because the older reactors are shutting down. On the other hand, it is fairly accurate to describe the Magnox and AGR designs as unreliable and uneconomic. That's why the technology is not being followed up and we are looking at LWRs and CANDUs now.

Safety

A vicious smear is laid upon the name of the AP-1000 by suggesting that it cannot take an aircraft strike or that it lacks safety systems required for Sizewell B, which incidentally was also built by Westinghouse. This is of course rubbish.

Waste

The figure that 60 years of operation of Generation III+ reactors will only add 10% to our current volume of nuclear waste (most of which isn't waste!) is a promising one. However, this lot insist on putting a negative spin on it by converting this into radioactivity, which in this case becomes a five fold increase from 78×10¹⁸ Bq to 360×10¹⁸ Bq (they actually said . Makes it look more scary, doesn't it?

Of course, this abuse of mathematics only proves what we already know; that radioactive material becomes less radioactive with time. Spent fuel straight out of reactors decays to 0.1% of its initial activity within a few decades. Naturally, the legacy wastes have had a lot of time to decay, while the new stuff will still be fresh and bubbly.

This figure work really proves nothing horrible. It's volume that matters. Radioactivity is such a fleeting thing.

Politics

They betray rather too much of their Lovinsite agenda with sporadic references to a decentralised grid and the innuendo about needing demand side reform (energy rationing I assume). It's not their job to put out a political vision. They're supposed to be reviewing the viability of allowing new nuclear build.

They also delight in partaking in the renewables vs nuclear straw man. Why is there not room for both? We do want to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, don't we?

It's a somewhat disappointing document. It looks well referenced, but it seems that in most cases, the writers looked at those references then made up their own conclusions.

Crunch time approaches

Thursday is the big day. El Gordo is expected to announce that the nuclear renaissance will at last be coming to these shores directly, (verses indirectly whereby we buy electricity from Flamanville-3 in France).

On the positive side, the BBC article hints that this green light will be entirely at market discretion, with the operators picking up the bill for decommissioning and for waste handling. That is of course as it should be.

On the negative side, it still doesn't stop this Government of All the Talentless from cocking up the second review. This is exactly the kind of ammunition needed to give the Usual Suspects a chance to cause more trouble.

Wow!

NEI has spied the Guardian.

Bob Geldof demands more nuclear

Am I being too harsh on him to have never expected that in a million years? He always struck me as one of those cliched Hollywood/rock types.

Now the question is, will the BBC give full coverage to a gala pro-nuclear concert?

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.

She said it, it must be true

This straight out of the Queen's speech.

My Government will introduce legislation to provide clean, secure and
affordable supplies of energy.

That proves it. El Gordo is going to see the construction of new nuclear power stations in Britain. That's certainly the BBC's conclusion from it. Either way, very good.

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.

Have the Tories just saved their immortal souls?

The Conservative's Quality of Life report is coming out soon, part of the blitz of reports launched by Cammy with policy ideas for the party to pick and choose as they please (essentially a smart way of testing the waters before commiting to anything). I don't know how it got that name because it seems to be more of a report on Greeniness.

The report was written by John Gummer (eww!) and Zac Goldsmith (triple eww!). Naturally, our hopes were not set high. However, latest leaks appear to suggest it isn't as bad as we think. If these leaks are true, Gummer managed to swing Goldsmith round to accepting nuclear power.

Gummer, whose constituency includes the Sizewell B nuclear power station, will
also signal Tory support for nuclear power. Tests will be set for the industry,
but Cameron will be given an escape route from his description of nuclear power
as an option of 'last resort'.

Signing up to nuclear power marks a major shift for Goldsmith. Only three months ago, he told The Observer that he would
'fight like hell' if the party declared that nuclear power was good.

Good news! I'll give Goldsmith credit for moderated, though I would still prefer if Susan Kramer held her seat (not often I want a LibDem hold).

EDIT: Whoops! Spoke too soon.

The group will also suggest scrapping Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a measure
of the nation's success in favour of a model that measures people's happiness
drawn up up by Friends of the Earth.

Never mind the twatological use of "happiness" as some kind of scientifically measureable quantity, if Cammy chooses to trust Friends of the Earth's assessment of the success of the nation, then the Conservatives are due for a 97ing. But let's give him the chance to reject this first. Iain Dale has suggested Cammy is rejecting large sections of the report anyway on the grounds that G&G are muppets (it's why I'd reject it).

Everyone's favourite whipping boy takes one more lashing

The Usual Suspects plan more terror ops.

The corollary to freedom of speech is the freedom of the rest of us to ignore anti-social narcissists. Yet the Usual Suspects do not appear to understand that. They vandalise power stations, occupy runways, destroy farmland and yet we're supposed to tolerate it under the umbrella of free speech. Inteferring with individual's freedom of movement is a crime and if any flight is delayed as a result of this protest, the lot should be thrown in jail to think about what they've done. They probably won't learn anything, but at the very least, that's fewer of them out there trying to disrupt people's lives.

Time to get tactical

I said before that the nuclear vote should rally behind the Conservatives as the best hope of getting new nuclear build in Britain. The situation may have changed. Teddy Bear Brown has bounced like a ping pong ball. The Conservatives have had a row over grammar schools and have had embarassingly disappointing results in two high profile by-elections. The knives are now out for Cammy.

Whether or not Cammy holds on, the very fact that the public see the Tory desire for self-destruction reappearing once more means the next election is now lost. Given the lead they need due to the Labour bias in the electoral system, it is unlikely they will emerge from the next general election as the largest party. Therefore a Conservative government, even a minority one, is no longer on the table.

So the credible choices are Labour majority government or Lab-Lib coalition. Therefore, the nuclear vote must now rally behind Labour to ensure they hold their majority at the next election. It's our best hope.

A side note on the possible confidence motion for Cammy: what planet are these MPs living on? Do they really believe for a moment that ousting a leader mid term for the second parliament in a row would actually do anything for the party other than damage it? If the election is lost with Cammy, changing the leader will not save it. It will simply make the humiliation of defeat even worse and damage the party's chances of rebuilding in the aftermath. Not only that, but rather than allowing Cammy to be the one to fall on his sword after the election, someone else will have to do it, meaning the Conservatives are wasting a potential talent in a no-hoper election.

Whatever have to the British stiff upper lip? I thought Conservatives of all people would be the ones to appreciate that. Take your defeat like men! You can either lose with dignity, or lose in disgrace.

I was wrong

I said before that Labour was a lame duck for new nuclear power stations as characters like Harriet Harman as well as the Lib Dems rise to power in government. Well in fact I spoke too soon, amid the unsteady performance of PM Gordo, at PMQs, he did shoot down Ming Campbell's ignorant dissing of Generation III+ by pledging a commitment to ensuring energy security through maintaining our nuclear sector.

Good for him. Maybe there's hope for this government after all. We shall see.