Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
19 October 2010
07:4575532#1
Despite a strong campaign by the Kent County Council and various local groups, the government in the guise of Libdem Chris Huhne said NO yesterday to a new generation power nuclear station at Dungeness.
KCC Chairman John Davies as seen in picture here with wife Christine was one of the driving forces behind the campaign as was the leader of KCC Paul Carter. " We want Nuclear Power" ..and "It could be of exceptional economic importance" were the catchphrases used . I myself attended a meeting or two and could see the benefits. As the KCC powerhouse are all Conservative, and with the new government being sortof Conservative, they always felt in with a chance. But no..alas. The campaign has hit the buffers with no chance now of a reprieve.
This is a seriously bad blow to the local economy which will see the end of power stations at Dungeness. Lots of lost jobs will follow and many spin off businesses even as far as here in Dover will also suffer. The term wasteland springs to mind now with regard to the area.
The reason given for turning down Dungeness was..."the environment" with risk of flooding being mentioned.
Eight sites across the UK have been chosen.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
19 October 2010
09:4675553#2
i don't understand the decision at all, a power station was there for decades and the environment abounded with wild life.
add to that an area with high unemployment and experienced staff available wanting to get back to work.
19 October 2010
10:0375555#3
And the toxic waste that will poison our environment for centuries to come. Yes, I can see the attractions.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
19 October 2010
10:2575556#4
"The environment" has to be considered now if a nature reserve or protected species are likely to be affected, probably wasn't the case when the original power stations were built.
Likewise flooding, we're much more likely to panic over potential rising sea levels now.
The other factor not mentioned is security, Dungeness is very exposed but also very easy to get close to.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
19 October 2010
12:0275568#5
Yes indeed it is always tricky weighing up the environment issues but somehow a real and sensible balance has to be struck, otherwise where are we to get our power from in the years ahead. If nuclear power stations are going to be built at all then it was a pity Dungeness didnt get one. They were very keen. A lot of jobs and prosperity for the area depends on it. Without it there will be nothing.
Im fairly green guy myself but somehow it has to be kept in check to a reasonable level. Take the Lydd Airport expansion. There's a huge campaign to stop this, mostly by NIMBYs but also by green guys who are worried about the flight path of the local duck population. I think the ducks would survive somehow. Theyve managed for a long time. It can get a bit nonsensical.
Only last week there was a report featured on highbrow R4's Today programme about painting all those coastal turbines purple because they were affecting the nocturnal bat. Flies are attracted to the current ones in pale white, the bats feed on the flies and get clobbered by the swirring blades. The flies dont like purple it seems so less bat feeding ensues...so the bat population are less in danger. But jeeeez....! These people were serious so as you can see a sensible line has to be drawn.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
19 October 2010
12:5375574#6
the unemployed in that part of our county will be mortified if the lydd airport expansion fails after the dungeness decision.
i always find that wildllife adapts to changes anyway, when the motorways came into being there were concerns about the effect on nature, it transpires that some of our best flora and fauna is found on the verges. very few people go along and pick something from them unlike most of our beauty spots.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
19 October 2010
13:1875579#7
I`ve no knowledge of why Dungeness was dropped, or whether it was the location, or any employment issue`s, I can only say that we can`t burn fossil fuel`s forever, and nuclear energy is the only alternative. One of the main issues, is the toxic waste as Bern states above, but nuclear power stations have been running for many years now. The media as usual will dredge up Chernobyl, but I`m sure they won`t give a mention to the successful one`s. There will be incident`s, hopefully not disaster`s, but what industries haven`t had them?
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
19 October 2010
13:3875588#8
Incidents are disasters with this stuff Colin. And there are so many safe and viable options that we don't need to have a dirty and dangerous option like nuclear power. Sadly it is, as always, because there is money invested by rich and powerful people in the nuclear industry. If those same people had invested in the safer but possibly less financially rewarding alternatives we wouldn't be having this conversation. Some things are more important than money.
19 October 2010
14:2275594#9
There are other options to nuclear power, a station of which has a life span of maybe 30 years, then a toxic waste problem of 100 of thousands of years. If this Government was serious about creating jobs and reducing our impact on the environment, the alternatives would be invested in. Wave power, wind power, solar power, tidal power, biomass generators; these are all alternatives that could stimulate the job market and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and destructive nuclear energy, and at the same time reduce our balance of payment deficit to the oil producing and exporting countries. I have heard nuclear described as a 'turd for future generations' and that is exactly what it is.
19 October 2010
14:3475601#10
I couldn't agree more, and it is good to hear someone else with the cohones to say so.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
19 October 2010
15:0875606#11
welcome lesley, you will find that philip on barry's blog is not on the same wavelength as you regarding wind and wave power.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
19 October 2010
15:4775608#12
"Wave power, wind power, solar power, tidal power, biomass generators" - none of these have the reliability, security or capacity that nuclear power has, as Chris Huhne has found since being responsible for decisions intead of posturing from the opposition benches.
Fossil fuels have a limited lifetime worldwide and in our position we are now needing to import more with the rundown of North Sea sources, so are not secure. So nuclear is the only viable option until a better technology is invented. It's not ideal but it's reality after Labour ignored repeated warnings that our power generation was being rundown to critical levels and did nothing about it.
19 October 2010
15:5575612#13
Yes Ray - we can reliably be poisoned along with our grandchildren and their grandchildren . Not ideal, but all we can expect given the amount invested by the powerful. Good idea: let's find a political party to blame and ignore the perilous consequences in the scrap that follows.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
19 October 2010
16:2475617#14
one thing i will miss when they shut dungeness down compleatly,.....glow in the fish with micro chips.
19 October 2010
16:4575623#15
The whole nuclear issue bothers me. Firstly, it is extremely destructive to the environment during extraction. Secondly, a power station only has a useable life of about 30 years, after which there are 100s of thousands of years of storage of extremely toxic nuclear waste. Thirdly, decommissioned nuclear finds its way into the war industry. All of these reasons are valid points against the nuclear industry. And yes, I get the argument that we might run out of power. But does the Labour governments failings really mean that our children and grandchildren need to live with the legacy of nuclear? I would hope that our generation is not quite that selfish.
The other problem with the electric industry is that the demand keeps increasing. If our usage could be curtailed (turn off at the plug, shower rather than bath, etc etc etc, you've heard it all before), then the problem is not quite so acute. Maybe this Government could invest a little in helping us to reduce our electricity dependence, by demanding that TVs no longer have stand by, all houses are sufficiently insulated, fridges are as efficient as they could be, phone chargers automatically switched off etc. If we were more careful with electricity, we would save money ourselves, and the grid could be powered to a greater extent by renewables. And I am no saint either, I leave my computer on all day, sometimes forget to switch chargers off etc. But I do buy my gas and electricity from Ecotricity, so I do not directly contribute to the nuclear, oil or coal industry. I pay a bit more, but so what, I would like a liveable world for my grandchildren and their grandchildren.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
19 October 2010
17:0175624#16
I am against a new nuclear station at Dungerness and for the Lydd airport.
To expand the topic slightly, I do not understand why we do not install solar panals and rain water recycling by law in all new build housing. There is a lot of talk by governments of any colour but that is all, apart from insulation measures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
19 October 2010
17:1675625#17
colin
the reason given was purely environmental.
jan
i don't know the reason why they do not make it compulsory to put solar panels in new houses, not much point in having them installed in an old one, takes about 25 years to pay for itself.
19 October 2010
17:2275629#18
On the subject of solar panels, I did write to the council to suggest that they put solar panels on their housing stock (if any left!). With the feed in tariff from central government showing a profit to householders after 9 years, with free daytime electricity along the way, this would be an income stream for the council, would give the council house tenants cheaper daytime electricity bills and do a positive thing for the environment. Birmingham council has done so. And there are companies springing up who put solar up for free to the householder, on the projection of outlay being repaid after 9 years, yet an income of 25 years. They wouldn't do it if there was not economic benefit.
I've not had a reply from DDC.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
19 October 2010
18:4075647#19
There's just under 5,000 or so council houses owned by DDC.
You could write to Christine Waterman, she is the Lady in charge of housing and will be able to advise you why they are/are not doing it (putting solar panels on their housing stock). Cost will probably be the first answer.
Roger
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
19 October 2010
19:3475660#20
Quite a debate there, nuclear does have its downside for generations to come, but we need energy from somewhere.
Have to say Mr Davies s quite a geniune person, worked closely with him on committee's whilst on KCC
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
