Hinkley Point: New hitch for UK nuclear plant deal

LONDON: -- Plans to build the first new UK nuclear plant in 20 years have suffered an unexpected delay after the government postponed a final decision until the early autumn.

French firm EDF, which is financing most of the £18bn Hinkley Point project in Somerset, approved the funding at a board meeting.

Contracts were to be signed on Friday.

But Business Secretary Greg Clark has said the government will "consider carefully" before backing it.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36903904


-- BBC 2016-07-29

That'll put the wind up the French.

The construction will provide 25,000 jobs. At its peak, 5,600 people will work on site. The finished power plant will employ 900 people. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36897180

Does the UK really need that kind of economic boost?

Yes, after the Brexit retrograde actions are necessary.

I read the phrase somewhere that she (Mrs. May) doesn't want to be "bounced" into it, which I found an encouraging sign in our new leader, given the difficult negotiations that lie ahead.

We tend to think backhanders only exist in Thailand but a nuke plant costs billions and makes a lot of fatcats fatter.

Guess they haven't heard of Chernobyl...or Fukushima!

Good. Scrap it. Limiting energy supply is a way to put a lid on growth.

I realise I am entirely alone in using that rationale.

Good. Scrap it. Limiting energy supply is a way to put a lid on growth.

I realise I am entirely alone in using that rationale.

What are your plans for limiting the supply of energy?

Good. Scrap it. Limiting energy supply is a way to put a lid on growth.

I realise I am entirely alone in using that rationale.

What are your plans for limiting the supply of energy?

First, stopping major new projects like nuclear power stations, hydroelectric dams, and fracking - which suddenly pump huge energy capacity into the economic system (as well as jeopardising the environment).

Transition to new forms of energy is all very well, as is moderate degree of growth - the problem is in growing too much too fast.

Energy puts a natural limit on economic growth, just as food puts a natural limit on population growth.

And if anyone asks why put a limit on growth at all? - the answer is because there's more to the earth than people. There's nature. And if they still demand an anthropocentric perspective, I would claim that people need nature for its own sake. Human life on earth is meaningless without it.

Good. Scrap it. Limiting energy supply is a way to put a lid on growth.

I realise I am entirely alone in using that rationale.

What are your plans for limiting the supply of energy?

First, stopping major new projects like nuclear power stations, hydroelectric dams, and fracking - which suddenly pump huge energy capacity into the economic system (as well as jeopardising the environment).

Transition to new forms of energy is all very well, as is moderate degree of growth - the problem is in growing too much too fast.

Energy puts a natural limit on economic growth, just as food puts a natural limit on population growth.

And if anyone asks why put a limit on growth at all? - the answer is because there's more to the earth than people. There's nature. And if they still demand an anthropocentric perspective, I would claim that people need nature for its own sake. Human life on earth is meaningless without it.

Fair enough, but how do you deal with the energy required by households and businesses? How do we cater for those needs?

On 7/30/2016 at 7:19 AM, ddavidovsky said:

First, stopping major new projects like nuclear power stations, hydroelectric dams, and fracking - which suddenly pump huge energy capacity into the economic system (as well as jeopardising the environment).

Transition to new forms of energy is all very well, as is moderate degree of growth - the problem is in growing too much too fast.

Energy puts a natural limit on economic growth, just as food puts a natural limit on population growth.

And if anyone asks why put a limit on growth at all? - the answer is because there's more to the earth than people. There's nature. And if they still demand an anthropocentric perspective, I would claim that people need nature for its own sake. Human life on earth is meaningless without it.

Human life for the rich.  Will that be the future of mankind.  That is one way, for sure.

Limiting a resource increases the price, restricting it's availability to those wealthy enough to pay.

Maybe that is the way the world will go, who knows.  

Anyway,why shouldn't the rich inherit the earth ?

To answer the above two posts, first, I would say that economies and households currently have enough energy, having expanded to use whatever there is. If there's enough for the world as it is now, then there's enough. The whole point is not to cater to unreasonable demand, but rather to grow the supply only at a manageable rate. That avoids the boom and bust system of growth (that seems ingrained in human nature) and replaces it with slow-but-sure growth that doesn't trash the planet in the space of a few years.

Not to say that energy should be rationed like there's a war on, but just to avoid pumping extra quantities into the system. Not sure if that would create an 'energy elite', but there's nothing to be done about poverty anyway. There'll always be poor people - it's part of the human condition. If you gave all the poor people in the world nice suburban houses, apart from the fact that that would bankrupt the earth, a new set of shanties would immediately spring up - because some life is better than no life, and I think that rule will hold as long as humans are human (though that may not be forever).

Suggesting putting a cap on growth by limiting energy supply probably makes me the next Bond villain to most people because growth is the new religion. However, I'm thinking of the long term.

Edited August 2, 20169 yr by ddavidovsky
typo