In the news

Six weeks kept on file, FFS.

No, after phasing out nuclear power plants in Germany, the vast majority of cost lies still ahead. Demolishing those reactors and storing the nuclear waste will cost billions. The main players like RWE in Germany are already trying to get out of their contractual obligations to bear these costs.

Moreover, if you criticize the dependence on Russian gas, you must also criticize the same dependence on uranium. More than 20 per cent of uranium came from Russia and another 20 per cent from Putin's then ally Kazakhstan. With Rosatom Russia is also one of the leading suppliers of nuclear power plants worldwide. Phasing out nuclear power therefore means reducing dependence on Russia.

Kazakstan is no.1 globally, Russia is 6th.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/top-10-uranium-producing-countries-updated-2024

the point here is whether the marginal costs (both financial and environmental costs) of running an already constructed and in service nuclear power station to end of life vs retiring it early are positive or negative - i don't know the answer but would be interested if anyone does.

Running the plants longer is, when you look at setup and closedown, a tiny incremental cost. You don’t escape the shutdown costs by closing the plant 6 years early (or whatever).

And unlike gas you can buy uranium from the Aussies.

unlike gas you can buy uranium from the Aussies

Who's buying all our gas then? We're bloody giving it away for fuck-all, shitloads of it.

What if the front falls off?

It seems logical that the worst thing you can do is build then not fully use them. All the capital expense, most of the issues and risks, but less power output that has to be filled by another source.

I also find it hard to believe that the world would be in a worst place in 50 years time if nuclear power replaced coal power 50 years ago. Not that I think nuclear is without it's major issues, just that we are looking pretty fucked as it is.

I guess it depends if say there had been some even more catastrophic accident than Chernobyl, or a whole load more Chernobyls and Daiichis, and your faith in the 'fuckedness' of our situation due to fossil fuel burning.

I guess the worst with nuclear is very, very, very bad and easy to picture, the climate effects of fossil fuel burning, less so.

That's not typical though.

Yes, impossible to say, esp 50 years ago.

I mean, maybe we will tech ourselves out of the climate cri......roflcopter

What if the front falls off?

It always does; Clarke & Dawe tried to teach us that no amount of cynicism is enough

.

1 Attachment

Pretty damning report on Grenfell. Apparently the police are going through it line by line looking at who they can charge. Hopefully this guy gets done for perjury at least:

Eric Pickles, Cameron’s housing secretary until 2015, had “enthusiastically supported” the prime minister’s drive to slash regulations.
Pickles also failed to act on a coroner’s 2013 recommendation to tighten up fire safety regulations after a cladding fire at Lakanal House, another London council block, killed six people.
In cross-examination under oath, Pickles vehemently insisted the anti-red tape drive had not covered building regulations. But the inquiry said this evidence was “flatly contradicted by that of his officials and by the contemporaneous documents”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-report-blames-decades-of-government-failure-and-companies-systematic-dishonesty

Pickles is a vile man.

Hopefully this guy gets charged for gross negligence manslaughter:

The TMO chief executive, Robert Black, established a “pattern of concealment … in relation to fire safety matters” and the TMO “treated the demands of managing fire safety as an inconvenience” in “a betrayal of its statutory obligations to its tenants”, the report said.

or this woman:

the inquiry concluded financial considerations drove a decision by Laura Johnson, the director of housing, to slow down installation of self-closing mechanisms on fire doors despite warnings from the London fire brigade that their absence compromised fire escape routes. She also opposed a new inspection regime.
She did so “without having taken any advice about the consequences for the safety of residents”.

Utter scum.

Let's hope Building Control returns to statutory control.

I don't suppose the inquiry is going to do anything to help residents in buildings where the freeholders found themselves having to upgrade after Grenfell and passed the cost on.

There are the government-sponsored Cladding Remediation Funds and a Building Safety Fund valued at £1.6bn (per the most recent source I can find). So the cost has been passed on to the taxpayer at best, and currently remains with leaseholders in non-qualifying cases.

I'm not sure this is fully true. My brother lives in a flat that had cladding issue and has suffered personally.

Edit. Sorry I see you say "at best".

Why are the tax payer funding this?

Shouldn't the companies that profited pay for it?

My wife works for the Building Safety Fund so I'm sure that it exists, but also hear a lot of stories about the crushing Orwellian nightmare of being a leaseholder in one of these flats. I feel so bad for everyone in that situation right now.

@lynx I agree but I assume the approach is fix the problems now and (theoretically) recoup the money later. Obviously it will never be recouped, though

Isn't it part of owning property too.

Feels like a free handout for some. As right to buy was.