Nuclear energy deal

[bodsier]

Hooray Cameron has signed a nuclear deal with China, putting a shot to renewable energy growth in the UK. Well done! Marvellous, sod the environment lets frack and go nuclear, Brilliant. Still loving the Tories are we? They are doing a marvellous job bravo! Hoot hoot

[dogcatdog]

I am sure the wiki cru will be along soon to PUT YOU RIGHT.

[uncleglen]

Friends of the Earth worked out that the UK can sustain 30 million people....you do the maths re: energy ffs

[*Bob*]

How about Friends of Nuclear Energy? What figures have they come up with?

[????]

You're right and I can't wait to see just how well running, say, kidney dialysis machines and rebuilding our manufacturing base goes on some windfarms in Cornwall

[DulwichFox]

So we close all out Steel Works and buy Steel from China... (also kerb stones)

We have China investing in our Nuclear program.

David Cameron wants to do more deals with China despite China's record on human rights..

China is also an ally to North Korea who is threatening the West and especially the UK with Nuclear Weapons..

Don't worry Dave knows what he is doing..

DulwichFox

[Loz]

It's a pretty awful financial deal, but nuclear is currently the most reliable, low-carbon electricity generating system we have.

In fact, the financial side is so bad, it may actually open up an opportunity for renewables.

[????]

as a fan of google foxy I am surprised you didn't google "Range of North Korea's Nuclear Missiles" to back up your assertion that North Korea is especially threatening the UK with its Nuclear Weapons or are you just talking out of your ars*?

[dogcatdog]

Dear Foxy, As much as I am unimpressed with the keyboard warrior abuse and virtual bullying you get on here, you do set yourself up for it sometimes.

Luckily the money is from China and the Reactor is of French design rather than the other way round

[DulwichFox]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> as a fan of google foxy I am surprised you didn't

> google "Range of North Korea's Nuclear Missiles"

> to back up your assertion that North Korea is

> especially threatening the UK with its Nuclear

> Weapons or are you just talking out of your ars*?

Kim Jong-un has stated his intention to attack the West and the UK.

Whether he currently could or ever would is another matter.

I don't know the range of his missiles and Western powers are not sure so Googling would be futile.

Certainly China's weapons could reach most parts of the Globe, and that was the point of my post.

That being, why we are trading with a country who is an ally of North Korea..?

Sometimes More Wisdom comes out of some peoples ar**s than other peoples mouths..

DF.

[miga]

dogcatdog Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Luckily the money is from China and the Reactor is

> of French design rather than the other way round

Why?

[dogcatdog]

so lets look at this

you are perhaps 80/85% sure as to what the probable response would be

I am probabaly 75% sure what your follow up would be to any comment I make.

and so it goes

Do we really want to get into this ?

Say what you want and we will leave it at that

[JoeLeg]

>

> Kim Jong-un has stated his intention to attack the

> West and the UK.

Well, actually South Korea, Japan and the USA are the targets he repeatedly threatens. If you can provide a link to any direct threat to strike the UK I would be interested to see it.

> Whether he currently could or ever would is

> another matter.

Not if he wants to avoid North Korea being turned into a radioactive wasteland, and he knows it. It's all about leverage for sanctions being lifted and aid being sent to them. Dictators tend to want to preserve themselves and their reign more than anything, the latest in the succession being no exception.

> I don't know the range of his missiles and Western

> powers are not sure so Googling would be futile.

Actually that's not true - we have a fairly good idea of how far they can reach. Using purely conventional weapons they can flatten Seoul in minutes, cause havoc to the rest of the country and seriously threaten Japan. Past that is highly debatable, as they have very little luck with test launches of weapons such as the Taepong Do 2 which has a theoretical range of 6,000km.This is before we get to targeting capability and warhead miniaturisation (not much point sending a conventional warhead 6,000km). This indicates that they likely do not have the capability to launch on the US West Coast. They almost certainly can't hit Europe.

That said, there are dissenting voices, such as the Admiral running US Northern Command who reckons they can, but like so much reporting surrounding North Korean capability it's hard to separate rhetoric being used as part of diplomatic manoeuvring from hard fact.

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/north-korea/delivery-systems/

>

> Certainly China's weapons could reach most parts

> of the Globe, and that was the point of my post.

Actually that wasn't clear but fair enough. Yes, China have far greater capability,so do Russia, America, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and of course us. If we chose not to do business with those who possess nuclear weapons then it'd be tricky.

But if you think they're a military 'ally' of North Korea then you need to read between the lines. China is only obligated to go to war in support of them if they are attacked. If North Korea shoots first China won't do a damn thing to help them, beyond preventing North Korea becoming what it would see as an American ally right on it's border, which it won't tolerate. China doesn't want the massive refugee crisis which would result from North Korea losing a shooting war (and it would lose - the reason South Korean forces are under US command is as much to do with stopping them heading north to settle scores as anything else, plus after the initial terrible onslaught North Korea's supply train would be annihilated).

> That being, why we are trading with a country who

> is an ally of North Korea..?

In short, China is only an ally of North Korea because they don't want a Western leaning state on their border. The moment young Kim starts looking like he's actually going to start some shit on the peninsular the Chinese will reign him in, by force if necessary.

There are many arguments to be made for and against trade with China, but linking them to North Korea like this is naive at best.

>

> Sometimes More Wisdom comes out of some peoples

> ar**s than other peoples mouths..

>

> DF.

Indeed. There's a lot more to the situation on the Korean peninsula than your simplistic (I'm sorry but they are) points indicate. The situation with China and the West is scarily complex, and (personal opinion) anyone who says we're all too economically entangled to let things get bad needs to read some history.

Long time lurker, first time poster etc...

[Seabag]

Has North Korea implimented a sugar tax

Or a Kebab edict

Foxy, can you do your usual google trawl and copy and paste the info

TBH, I can't be bothered

Are the Chinese going to hide a war head in all our/their reactors ?

What's the best chinese takeaway

Do 'they' drink beer, eat on LSL

I'll try and think of someotherrandom kark

[miga]

dogcatdog Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> so lets look at this

>

> you are perhaps 80/85% sure as to what the

> probable response would be

>

> I am probabaly 75% sure what your follow up would

> be to any comment I make.

>

> and so it goes

>

> Do we really want to get into this ?

>

> Say what you want and we will leave it at that

I think you might be implying that their engineering/science isn't up to much, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. I think that may have been true 20 years ago, but not any more.

[JoeLeg]

>

> I think you might be implying that their

> engineering/science isn't up to much, but I don't

> want to put words in your mouth. I think that may

> have been true 20 years ago, but not any more.

Yes and no. They have made massive strides in engineering, but their nuclear submarines are still so unsafe that crews can get a lifetime dose of radiation in one six month cruise. Makes me glad it's not a Chinese built reactor we're getting, if that information is correct.

[miga]

Sure, and that's a clearly reasoned standpoint, and in this instance perhaps the right one. The attitude to health and safety is still very different, but that will come with time and money.

Meanwhile, they're being brought in to build roads, mines, civic infrastructure all over Eastern Europe, Africa etc. winning contracts that would have previously gone to American or European firms. Part of that is down to the fact that Chinese firms will often lend money cheaply for the projects they're running, but regardless of the financial motivations, it's fair to say they're becoming an exporter of knowledge.

[JoeLeg]

I agree with all of that. It goes to show how the Chinese truly understand long term thinking. They do things now which will benefit China long after the current leadership is gone, whereas most Western govts do things to benefit themselves straight away.

China has a lot of problems, but an inability to think ahead isn't one of them.

[Blah Blah]

Western governments are short-termist because the electorate are short-termist, i.e what can you do for ME now, rather what can you do for the country long term. It's been that way for the last 30 years.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of nuclear power, the reality is that a state owned French company is building this, with Chinese money and we will pay double the market rate for the energy it produces. However did we get into a place where we can not build things for ourselves anymore, where other nations profit from our essential needs at double the cost to us, the people?

Finally, when a nation causes a collapse in steel prices by illegally dumping subsidised steel, you don't reward them with contracts to build things like HS2. We are more than capable of building our own nuclear reactor or HS2, but of course, we have a government in power that doesn't believe in national borrowing for anything, yet wants us all to borrow to buy houses!

[Ridgley]

Joeleg wrote

I agree with all of that. It goes to show how the Chinese truly understand long term thinking. They do things now which will benefit China long after the current leadership is gone, whereas most Western govts do things to benefit themselves straight away.

China has a lot of problems, but an inability to think ahead isn't one of them.

also agree Dave and his minions cannot cast the first stone at Russia and their policy?s when he is quite happy to sleep with the Chinese.

[uncleglen]

This is true. UK politics works on 5 year cycles so they just plan for gaining the most votes in the next 5 years -re-bloody- diculous. Also the chinese nuclear deal includes a proviso that WE will make it financially viable for them..i.e. if they make a loss on the reactor and the electricity then the tax payer of the UK will make up the short fall. Ian Hislop referred to this as a bribe....

[Blah Blah]

I didn't know that. That's even worse then. Is there anything about this deal that is actually in the interests of Britain?

[malumbu]

Was going to add do any of you know anything about nuclear power and the energy markets?

Then I saw blahblah's post which suggests that at least one of you does.

Concept of nuclear generation aint a bad one but we screwed up

(a) in the late 60s for not standardising the design

(b) in the 80s for Thatcher not following through standardising the design, doing an about turn, the dash for gas, privitisation and the subsequent loss of nuclear generation and loss of 40 years of British engineering, innovation, research and expertise.

So we have wasted our North Sea gas burning it for electricity, with the carbon emissions that has led to and now quite happy to buy it in from any country, be they nice or not so nice (fortunately we are plugged into the Norweigian fields one way or another).

Nuclear aint eveyone's cup of tea but friggin short termism, the spread into the labour administration, has manisfested itself in loss of energy security and dependence on others.

Nuclear isn't everyone's cup of tea but at the same time 10,000 were involved in developing and delivering this source of energy just next door other British scientists were at the forefront of renewables. CEGB was a monolith, but it represented some form of national energy policy. We had a Department of Energy.

Yes the link to nucler weapons was rather close, and Smellyfield had its problems. But what a bloody waste, as Ian Dury may have said.

[JohnL]

When I was studying 'A' level physics - the teacher used to swear we'd

all have nuclear fusion fired boilers the size of a fridge "soon"

Maybe Chernobyl changed peoples minds.

[BrandNewGuy]

Nah, it was a technotopian dream. Nuclear is safer than most anti-nuclear greens imagine, but nowhere in the world does it happen without substantial public subsidies. It will never be 'too cheap to meter', as was also promised in the days when men in white coats were trusted and admired.