"Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing radioactive
waste produced by Britain's newest nuclear power station soar, according
to confidential documents which the government has battled to keep
secret for more than a year"

"The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy - in its
previous incarnation as the Department for Energy and Climate Change -
resisted repeated requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the
release of the documents which were submitted to the European
commission"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...point-nuclear-
waste-storage-costs

And in related news:

"The French and Chinese companies that are to build the £18bn Hinkley
Point C nuclear power station will have to pay up to £7.2bn to dismantle
and clean it up"

"Documents published yesterday reveal for the first time how much the
developers, EDF and China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), will have
to pay to decommission the plant, beginning in 2083"

"The new reactors in Somerset will be unique in British nuclear history,
as they are the first for which the operator will have to pay to make
good the site afterwards"

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nkley-point-c-
developers-face-72bn-cleanup-bill-at-end-of-nuclear-plants-life

You can bet they'll wriggle out of that somehow.

Hinkley C, Heathrow runway 3: massive white elephants that will turn out
as well as Berlin's new airport did.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 30/10/16 10:22, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

"Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing radioactive
waste produced by Britain's newest nuclear power station soar, according
to confidential documents which the government has battled to keep
secret for more than a year"

"The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy - in its
previous incarnation as the Department for Energy and Climate Change -
resisted repeated requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the
release of the documents which were submitted to the European
commission"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...point-nuclear-
waste-storage-costs

And in related news:

"The French and Chinese companies that are to build the £18bn Hinkley
Point C nuclear power station will have to pay up to £7.2bn to dismantle
and clean it up"

"Documents published yesterday reveal for the first time how much the
developers, EDF and China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), will have
to pay to decommission the plant, beginning in 2083"

"The new reactors in Somerset will be unique in British nuclear history,
as they are the first for which the operator will have to pay to make
good the site afterwards"

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nkley-point-c-
developers-face-72bn-cleanup-bill-at-end-of-nuclear-plants-life

You can bet they'll wriggle out of that somehow.

Hinkley C, Heathrow runway 3: massive white elephants that will turn out
as well as Berlin's new airport did.

More guardian 'should' 'could' 'might' anti nuclear ********.



--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
"Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing radioactive
waste produced by Britain's newest nuclear power station soar, according
to confidential documents which the government has battled to keep
secret for more than a year"

Of course. It's a bad idea to be in the EU because we must have control
over our own destiny. So let's just leave one of the largest projects in
our history in charge of foreigners.

--
*If you don't like the news, go out and make some.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
"Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing radioactive
waste produced by Britain's newest nuclear power station soar, according
to confidential documents which the government has battled to keep
secret for more than a year"

Of course. It's a bad idea to be in the EU because we must have control
over our own destiny. So let's just leave one of the largest projects in
our history in charge of foreigners.

****ing xenophobe.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:36:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
"Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing radioactive
waste produced by Britain's newest nuclear power station soar, according
to confidential documents which the government has battled to keep
secret for more than a year"

Of course. It's a bad idea to be in the EU because we must have control
over our own destiny. So let's just leave one of the largest projects in
our history in charge of foreigners.

People can be very negative regarding nuclear power, papers whingeing
on about taxpayer liability for what are remote chance events should
be outlawed.

Just because the British public have to cough up, people are apt to
lose sight of the benefits to the many people gaining from the fiasco.

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/201...nment-hinkley/


AB

En el artículo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

by any standard, £7.2bn for dismantling is no big
deal.

I'd bet my life savings that come 2083, EdF and CGNPG won't pay a penny
for dismantling and cleaning up. Pity I won't be around to collect

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 30/10/16 12:48, Richard wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
"Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing radioactive
waste produced by Britain's newest nuclear power station soar, according
to confidential documents which the government has battled to keep
secret for more than a year"

Of course. It's a bad idea to be in the EU because we must have control
over our own destiny. So let's just leave one of the largest projects in
our history in charge of foreigners.

****ing xenophobe.

Probablu a racist and a swivel eyed loon as well.

It was the Blair/Brown/EU fiasco that got us into this energy mess.
--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 30/10/16 13:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 10:22:34 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:


"Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing radioactive
waste produced by Britain's newest nuclear power station soar, according
to confidential documents which the government has battled to keep
secret for more than a year"

"The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy - in its
previous incarnation as the Department for Energy and Climate Change -
resisted repeated requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the
release of the documents which were submitted to the European
commission"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...point-nuclear-
waste-storage-costs

And in related news:

"The French and Chinese companies that are to build the £18bn Hinkley
Point C nuclear power station will have to pay up to £7.2bn to dismantle
and clean it up"

"Documents published yesterday reveal for the first time how much the
developers, EDF and China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), will have
to pay to decommission the plant, beginning in 2083"

"The new reactors in Somerset will be unique in British nuclear history,
as they are the first for which the operator will have to pay to make
good the site afterwards"

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nkley-point-c-
developers-face-72bn-cleanup-bill-at-end-of-nuclear-plants-life

You can bet they'll wriggle out of that somehow.

Hinkley C, Heathrow runway 3: massive white elephants that will turn out
as well as Berlin's new airport did.

But £7.2bn is peanuts compared to the money they'll make over 60
years. Do the calculation (I'll try here, but I always lose track of
the naughts in going from squillions to gazillions, so no guarantees
and someone had better check the result!)

HPC is rated at 3200MW. Assume 90% capacity factor, so 2880MW in
reality. We know they'll get paid £92.5 per MWh for the first 35
years, but beyond that the figure is unknown, so calculate for just
the first 35 years. In that time they'll earn 2880x24x365x35x92.5 =
£8.16 x 10^10 = £81.6bn (I think!). Take off say £25bn for
construction and finance cost and £7.2bn for dismantling, and you're
still left with £49.4bn. And that doesn't include the profit they'll
make for the remaining 25+ years of life after the CFD finishes. OK,
so it's a simple calculation and doesn't account for the running cost,
refueling etc., but by any standard, £7.2bn for dismantling is no big
deal.

AND is utter ********, because decommissioning costs are reckoned to be
at most 15% of construction.

Under the current regime.

Of course if the Gazprom funded Labia party gets in, the regulations
will ensure than anyone who even smiles going past a nuclear power
station will have the assets seized and their chidren's children sold
into slavery to pay for it.

It's the Labour Way.

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 30/10/2016 10:22, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

"Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing radioactive
waste produced by Britain's newest nuclear power station soar, according
to confidential documents which the government has battled to keep
secret for more than a year"

"The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy - in its
previous incarnation as the Department for Energy and Climate Change -
resisted repeated requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the
release of the documents which were submitted to the European
commission"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...point-nuclear-
waste-storage-costs

And in related news:

"The French and Chinese companies that are to build the £18bn Hinkley
Point C nuclear power station will have to pay up to £7.2bn to dismantle
and clean it up"

"Documents published yesterday reveal for the first time how much the
developers, EDF and China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), will have
to pay to decommission the plant, beginning in 2083"

"The new reactors in Somerset will be unique in British nuclear history,
as they are the first for which the operator will have to pay to make
good the site afterwards"

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nkley-point-c-
developers-face-72bn-cleanup-bill-at-end-of-nuclear-plants-life

You can bet they'll wriggle out of that somehow.


I doubt it's even factored in to any of the business planning.

How much would you pay now for the benefit of £7.2B in 70 years time? :-)


--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:36:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
"Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing
radioactive waste produced by Britain's newest nuclear power station
soar, according to confidential documents which the government has
battled to keep secret for more than a year"

Of course. It's a bad idea to be in the EU because we must have control
over our own destiny. So let's just leave one of the largest projects
in our history in charge of foreigners.

People can be very negative regarding nuclear power, papers whingeing on
about taxpayer liability for what are remote chance events should be
outlawed.

I'm not negative about nuclear power. But very negative about a 'deal'
with a couple of countries using untried and untested technology.

Just because the British public have to cough up, people are apt to
lose sight of the benefits to the many people gaining from the fiasco.

And those who benefit from any fiasco will be China and France. The usual
thing when it goes massively over budget 'well we've spent so much we
might as well just carry on regardless'

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/201...nment-hinkley/


AB

--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sunday, 30 October 2016 14:16:46 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:36:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
"Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing
radioactive waste produced by Britain's newest nuclear power station
soar, according to confidential documents which the government has
battled to keep secret for more than a year"

Of course. It's a bad idea to be in the EU because we must have control
over our own destiny. So let's just leave one of the largest projects
in our history in charge of foreigners.

People can be very negative regarding nuclear power, papers whingeing on
about taxpayer liability for what are remote chance events should be
outlawed.

I'm not negative about nuclear power. But very negative about a 'deal'
with a couple of countries using untried and untested technology.

Actually, technology already failed in Finland and France.
And EDS financial director resigned over the issue.

On Sunday, 30 October 2016 14:00:36 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/10/16 13:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 10:22:34 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:


"Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing radioactive
waste produced by Britain's newest nuclear power station soar, according
to confidential documents which the government has battled to keep
secret for more than a year"

"The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy - in its
previous incarnation as the Department for Energy and Climate Change -
resisted repeated requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the
release of the documents which were submitted to the European
commission"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...point-nuclear-
waste-storage-costs

And in related news:

"The French and Chinese companies that are to build the £18bn Hinkley
Point C nuclear power station will have to pay up to £7.2bn to dismantle
and clean it up"


AND is utter ********, because decommissioning costs are reckoned to be
at most 15% of construction.

Under the current regime.

Of course if the Gazprom funded Labia party gets in, the regulations
will ensure than anyone who even smiles going past a nuclear power
station will have the assets seized and their chidren's children sold
into slavery to pay for it.

It's the Labour Way.

Noboby knows how much a reactor costs to decommission.
It's never been done.
They take them apart and leave most to fester and store the rest away.
But not permanently dealt with.
No-one knows how.

On Sunday, 30 October 2016 14:29:14 UTC, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

by any standard, £7.2bn for dismantling is no big
deal.

I'd bet my life savings that come 2083, EdF and CGNPG won't pay a penny
for dismantling and cleaning up. Pity I won't be around to collect


They'll have gone bust long before that.
They should put the money up front.

On 30/10/2016 14:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:36:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
"Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing
radioactive waste produced by Britain's newest nuclear power station
soar, according to confidential documents which the government has
battled to keep secret for more than a year"

Of course. It's a bad idea to be in the EU because we must have control
over our own destiny. So let's just leave one of the largest projects
in our history in charge of foreigners.

People can be very negative regarding nuclear power, papers whingeing on
about taxpayer liability for what are remote chance events should be
outlawed.

I'm not negative about nuclear power. But very negative about a 'deal'
with a couple of countries using untried and untested technology.


Think about what was once untried and untested..

medicine
aeroplanes
cars
houses
farming
...

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I'm not negative about nuclear power. But very negative about a 'deal'
with a couple of countries using untried and untested technology.


Think about what was once untried and untested..

medicine
aeroplanes
cars
houses
farming

Ah. Of course. Silly me. Didn't realise it would be the very first nuclear
power station.

--
*Real men don't waste their hormones growing hair

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 13:28:35 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

En el artículo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

by any standard, £7.2bn for dismantling is no big
deal.

I'd bet my life savings that come 2083, EdF and CGNPG won't pay a penny
for dismantling and cleaning up. Pity I won't be around to collect

The way the world is going any contamination may be insignificant
from other open air nuclear reactions that have taken place anyway.
Probably written in the small print. "We won't be responsible for
dismantling and cleaning up if the site has already been rendered
unusable.

G.Harman

Hmm however, I do think we need to look at nuclear. The problems are not
insurmountable its just that nobody wants the non process radioactive waste
on their doorstep. It does show us though how little we know about the
geology of our planet that we cant say for certain that if you burry it
'here' for 10000 years it will be disturbed or cause issues.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...

"Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing radioactive
waste produced by Britain's newest nuclear power station soar, according
to confidential documents which the government has battled to keep
secret for more than a year"

"The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy - in its
previous incarnation as the Department for Energy and Climate Change -
resisted repeated requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the
release of the documents which were submitted to the European
commission"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...point-nuclear-
waste-storage-costs

And in related news:

"The French and Chinese companies that are to build the £18bn Hinkley
Point C nuclear power station will have to pay up to £7.2bn to dismantle
and clean it up"

"Documents published yesterday reveal for the first time how much the
developers, EDF and China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), will have
to pay to decommission the plant, beginning in 2083"

"The new reactors in Somerset will be unique in British nuclear history,
as they are the first for which the operator will have to pay to make
good the site afterwards"

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nkley-point-c-
developers-face-72bn-cleanup-bill-at-end-of-nuclear-plants-life

You can bet they'll wriggle out of that somehow.

Hinkley C, Heathrow runway 3: massive white elephants that will turn out
as well as Berlin's new airport did.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 31/10/16 07:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Hmm however, I do think we need to look at nuclear. The problems are not
insurmountable its just that nobody wants the non process radioactive waste
on their doorstep. It does show us though how little we know about the
geology of our planet that we cant say for certain that if you burry it
'here' for 10000 years it will be disturbed or cause issues.
Brian



1/. Nothing can be said for certain about the future. I cannot even
guarantee there will be a tomorrow.

2/. However, in the context of real science and technology, we can be a
damned sight more certain that nuclear waste can be safely disposed of
than we can that renewable energy is capable of running this country.

3/. The Pyramids are ~5,000 years old. For 5000 years old technology
they have done remarkably well at containing their contents.

4/. We know plenty about the geology. The problem is not with the
science or the technology, its with the lay persons inability to
understand even the basic principles of it. The whole crux of climate
change/Anti-nuclear/Lefty**** thinking depends on faux logic applied to
the philosophical problem of absolute certainty and the inductive nature
of science.

In short, science is a *model* that can never be proved to be *true*, it
is inductive logic, and depends for its validity on *never being proved
false*. The second string to the Anti-Science Lefty****'s bow, is the
'precautionary principle' which says that since we can't *guarantee*
things will be OK, we should not do things at all!

Armed with those two weapons anything can be opposed on seemingly
reasonable grounds.

Can you guarantee your offspring will not turn into something that makes
Hitler look like a pet poodle? No? Well then *you should not have
children at all*!

Only when you put it like that can you see how unbelievably disingenuous
and duplicitous is the position of the 'Eco Left'

And realise that you are not in rational scientific discourse, but in
the realms of propaganda and the emotional narrative, so beloved of the
BBC and the Guardian reading ******ati.

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 08:29 31 Oct 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

In short, science is a *model* that can never be proved to be
*true*, it is inductive logic, and depends for its validity on
*never being proved false*. The second string to the
Anti-Science Lefty****'s bow, is the 'precautionary principle'
which says that since we can't *guarantee* things will be OK, we
should not do things at all!


Turnip, there must be a cod-philosophy group where you can debate
such abstract and irrelevant ideas. Why don't you post that pap
there?

Soon you'll invoke Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to show climate
change can't be proven from climate change data alone. Sigh.

Wonder if he's a Jehovah's Witness? In that they seem to believe the ****e
they speak too? With the same passion?

--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 31 October 2016 08:29:06 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/10/16 07:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Hmm however, I do think we need to look at nuclear. The problems are not
insurmountable its just that nobody wants the non process radioactive waste
on their doorstep. It does show us though how little we know about the
geology of our planet that we cant say for certain that if you burry it
'here' for 10000 years it will be disturbed or cause issues.
Brian



1/. Nothing can be said for certain about the future. I cannot even
guarantee there will be a tomorrow.

2/. However, in the context of real science and technology, we can be a
damned sight more certain that nuclear waste can be safely disposed of
than we can that renewable energy is capable of running this country.

3/. The Pyramids are ~5,000 years old. For 5000 years old technology
they have done remarkably well at containing their contents.

4/. We know plenty about the geology. The problem is not with the
science or the technology, its with the lay persons inability to
understand even the basic principles of it. The whole crux of climate
change/Anti-nuclear/Lefty**** thinking depends on faux logic applied to
the philosophical problem of absolute certainty and the inductive nature
of science.

In short, science is a *model* that can never be proved to be *true*, it
is inductive logic, and depends for its validity on *never being proved
false*. The second string to the Anti-Science Lefty****'s bow, is the
'precautionary principle' which says that since we can't *guarantee*
things will be OK, we should not do things at all!

Armed with those two weapons anything can be opposed on seemingly
reasonable grounds.

Can you guarantee your offspring will not turn into something that makes
Hitler look like a pet poodle? No? Well then *you should not have
children at all*!

Only when you put it like that can you see how unbelievably disingenuous
and duplicitous is the position of the 'Eco Left'



There are two aspects about mishaps.
1. The likelyhood of it happening.
2. The consequences if it does.

You seem to have number one covered but not number two.

On Sunday, 30 October 2016 11:32:11 UTC, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
"Taxpayers will pick up the bill should the cost of storing radioactive
waste produced by Britain's newest nuclear power station soar, according
to confidential documents which the government has battled to keep
secret for more than a year"

Well, who else is there to cover it?


NT

En el artículo , Tim
Streater escribió:

A more pertinent question is to wonder why it should soar.

Yucca Mountain: $9 billion and counting. Unused (abandoned)

Construction started in 2002, project abandoned in 2009. "the federal
government owes utility companies somewhere between $300 and $500
million per year in compensation for failing to comply with the contract
it signed to take the spent nuclear fuel by 1998"

WIPP: $19 billion and counting. In use

"Deep geological repository" aka big hole in the ground. In 2014 a
barrel of waste from Los Alamos packed with the wrong kind of cat litter
exploded and contaminated part of the plant. Radioactive waste was
spread by the ventilation system and vented to the outside.

I think it would be safe to say that $9bn/$19bn is "soaring".

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 10/31/2016 4:10 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 08:29 31 Oct 2016, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

In short, science is a *model* that can never be proved to be
*true*, it is inductive logic, and depends for its validity on
*never being proved false*. The second string to the
Anti-Science Lefty****'s bow, is the 'precautionary principle'
which says that since we can't *guarantee* things will be OK, we
should not do things at all!


Turnip, there must be a cod-philosophy group where you can debate
such abstract and irrelevant ideas. Why don't you post that pap
there?

Soon you'll invoke Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to show climate
change can't be proven from climate change data alone. Sigh.

Wonder if he's a Jehovah's Witness? In that they seem to believe the ****e
they speak too? With the same passion?


TNP's politics and somewhat vulgar style are distracting you both from
the fact that his description of the scientific method is perfectly
correct, that we test theories by trying to find counter-examples. We
only need to find a single perpetual motion machine to show that our
current thinking on energy is wrong. Of course, no-one has managed it so
far.

The current fuss about the government cap on liability for disposal
costs rests on, essentially, the precautionary principle type of
argument. "You can't prove that costs will not end up higher". Which is
true. And in the extreme case, without a cap, they might put a
commercial operation into bankruptcy. At which point, who is left to
pick up the bill?

The "alternative" movement says "solar panels and storage are getting
cheaper and more efficient, and we can conserve energy with LEDs and
insulation so we don't need conventional power stations". Well, they
might be right, one day. You can only counter this by the David Mackay
method of doing the sums. But the sums are hard and most people don't
understand them, and then the critics just shift the argument to a new area.

On 10/30/2016 3:01 PM, harry wrote:


Noboby knows how much a reactor costs to decommission.
It's never been done.

We only need one counterexample to show that this statement is false.
Here's one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippi..._Power_Station

They take them apart and leave most to fester and store the rest away.
But not permanently dealt with.
No-one knows how.

On 31/10/16 20:37, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Tim
Streater escribió:

A more pertinent question is to wonder why it should soar.

Yucca Mountain: $9 billion and counting. Unused (abandoned)

Construction started in 2002, project abandoned in 2009. "the federal
government owes utility companies somewhere between $300 and $500
million per year in compensation for failing to comply with the contract
it signed to take the spent nuclear fuel by 1998"

WIPP: $19 billion and counting. In use

"Deep geological repository" aka big hole in the ground. In 2014 a
barrel of waste from Los Alamos packed with the wrong kind of cat litter
exploded and contaminated part of the plant. Radioactive waste was
spread by the ventilation system and vented to the outside.

I think it would be safe to say that $9bn/$19bn is "soaring".

Sigh. More guardian scare stories.
More received wisdom.
Zero original thought.

--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 31/10/16 21:37, newshound wrote:
On 10/30/2016 3:01 PM, harry wrote:


Noboby knows how much a reactor costs to decommission.
It's never been done.

We only need one counterexample to show that this statement is false.
Here's one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippi..._Power_Station

at least 3 UK reactors have been decommissioned fully.

They take them apart and leave most to fester and store the rest away.
But not permanently dealt with.
No-one knows how.




--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

In article ,
newshound wrote:
TNP's politics and somewhat vulgar style are distracting you both from
the fact that his description of the scientific method is perfectly
correct, that we test theories by trying to find counter-examples.

Even so, his view that to be left of centre means to also be
'anti-science' (whatever that means) is totally without foundation or
proof.

--
*I used up all my sick days so I called in dead

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 31 October 2016 21:37:18 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 10/30/2016 3:01 PM, harry wrote:


Noboby knows how much a reactor costs to decommission.
It's never been done.

We only need one counterexample to show that this statement is false.
Here's one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippi..._Power_Station

They take them apart and leave most to fester and store the rest away.
But not permanently dealt with.
No-one knows how.


Fiction.
What happened to the nuclear fuel?

On 01/11/16 07:52, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
newshound wrote:
TNP's politics and somewhat vulgar style are distracting you both
from the fact that his description of the scientific method is
perfectly correct, that we test theories by trying to find
counter-examples.

Even so, his view that to be left of centre means to also be
'anti-science' (whatever that means) is totally without foundation or
proof.

That may well be true, but you appear to lack the ability or interest
to look past that for the nub of the matter.

The truth of the matter is that Left of centre means ideology, not fact
based, and social justice oriented, not pragmatic.

People of the left are either emotionally attached to its narrative
(Plowperson), or cynically manipulating the narrative for their own ends
(Blair/Corbyn).

Science is not an emotional narrative, It is a logical and rational
narrative, therefore it is the enemy of those who promulgate emotional
narratives.

--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On 01/11/16 09:02, Chris Hogg wrote:
He's almost certainly referring to the final disposal of the
high-level waste from the cores of the reactors, as he so often does,
but as usual seems incapable of writing a succinct message that
accurately conveys what he means.

WEll in that case no one has ever successfully decommissioned a car
battery, because the toxic lead is in the environment forever. So its
worse than Nuclear waste, which doesn't last forever.;-)

Oh, except it mostly turns *into* lead ;-)


--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
newshound wrote:
TNP's politics and somewhat vulgar style are distracting you both from
the fact that his description of the scientific method is perfectly
correct, that we test theories by trying to find counter-examples.

Even so, his view that to be left of centre means to also be
'anti-science' (whatever that means) is totally without foundation or
proof.

That may well be true, but you appear to lack the ability or interest
to look past that for the nub of the matter.

Really? Turnip seems to lecture 'us' in an attempt to prove how clever he
is - probably to himself. And if one part of his 'essay' is an obvious lie
- why bother even checking if the rest has some substance.

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 11/1/2016 9:11 AM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 31 October 2016 21:37:18 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 10/30/2016 3:01 PM, harry wrote:


Noboby knows how much a reactor costs to decommission.
It's never been done.

We only need one counterexample to show that this statement is false.
Here's one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippi..._Power_Station

They take them apart and leave most to fester and store the rest away.
But not permanently dealt with.
No-one knows how.


Fiction.
What happened to the nuclear fuel?

You said decommission. That's what's been done.

The technology for transmuting the actinides from reprocessed fuel is
trivial.

On 11/1/2016 9:15 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/11/16 07:52, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
newshound wrote:
TNP's politics and somewhat vulgar style are distracting you both
from the fact that his description of the scientific method is
perfectly correct, that we test theories by trying to find
counter-examples.

Even so, his view that to be left of centre means to also be
'anti-science' (whatever that means) is totally without foundation or
proof.

That may well be true, but you appear to lack the ability or interest
to look past that for the nub of the matter.

The truth of the matter is that Left of centre means ideology, not fact
based, and social justice oriented, not pragmatic.


As you yourself demonstrate, ideology is not the exclusive preserve of
the left.

Maggie Thatcher and Harold Wilson were equally pro-science.

On 01/11/16 11:43, newshound wrote:
On 11/1/2016 9:11 AM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 31 October 2016 21:37:18 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 10/30/2016 3:01 PM, harry wrote:


Noboby knows how much a reactor costs to decommission.
It's never been done.

We only need one counterexample to show that this statement is false.
Here's one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippi..._Power_Station

They take them apart and leave most to fester and store the rest away.
But not permanently dealt with.
No-one knows how.


Fiction.
What happened to the nuclear fuel?

You said decommission. That's what's been done.

The technology for transmuting the actinides from reprocessed fuel is
trivial.

"Leave well alone for 10,000 years. Job done!"

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 01/11/16 11:46, newshound wrote:
On 11/1/2016 9:15 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/11/16 07:52, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
newshound wrote:
TNP's politics and somewhat vulgar style are distracting you both
from the fact that his description of the scientific method is
perfectly correct, that we test theories by trying to find
counter-examples.

Even so, his view that to be left of centre means to also be
'anti-science' (whatever that means) is totally without foundation or
proof.

That may well be true, but you appear to lack the ability or interest
to look past that for the nub of the matter.

The truth of the matter is that Left of centre means ideology, not fact
based, and social justice oriented, not pragmatic.


As you yourself demonstrate, ideology is not the exclusive preserve of
the left.

Maggie Thatcher and Harold Wilson were equally pro-science.

Haeold wilson wasn't a socialist of the modern sort.


--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

In article ,
newshound wrote:
On 11/1/2016 9:15 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/11/16 07:52, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
newshound wrote:
TNP's politics and somewhat vulgar style are distracting you both
from the fact that his description of the scientific method is
perfectly correct, that we test theories by trying to find
counter-examples.

Even so, his view that to be left of centre means to also be
'anti-science' (whatever that means) is totally without foundation or
proof.

That may well be true, but you appear to lack the ability or interest
to look past that for the nub of the matter.

The truth of the matter is that Left of centre means ideology, not fact
based, and social justice oriented, not pragmatic.


As you yourself demonstrate, ideology is not the exclusive preserve of
the left.

Maggie Thatcher and Harold Wilson were equally pro-science.

But those are both 'Lefty****s' to the likes of Turnip.

--
*Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 01/11/2016 09:02, Chris Hogg wrote:


He's almost certainly referring to the final disposal of the
high-level waste from the cores of the reactors, as he so often does,
but as usual seems incapable of writing a succinct message that
accurately conveys what he means.


He doesn't want accuracy as he then leaves his beliefs open to being
disproved.

On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 09:27:34 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/11/16 09:02, Chris Hogg wrote:
He's almost certainly referring to the final disposal of the
high-level waste from the cores of the reactors, as he so often does,
but as usual seems incapable of writing a succinct message that
accurately conveys what he means.

WEll in that case no one has ever successfully decommissioned a car
battery, because the toxic lead is in the environment forever. So its
worse than Nuclear waste, which doesn't last forever.;-)

Oh, except it mostly turns *into* lead ;-)

The toxic lead is a useful product, easily recycled.
There's the difference ****-fer-brains.

On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 11:43:07 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 11/1/2016 9:11 AM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 31 October 2016 21:37:18 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 10/30/2016 3:01 PM, harry wrote:


Noboby knows how much a reactor costs to decommission.
It's never been done.

We only need one counterexample to show that this statement is false.
Here's one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippi..._Power_Station

They take them apart and leave most to fester and store the rest away.
But not permanently dealt with.
No-one knows how.


Fiction.
What happened to the nuclear fuel?

You said decommission. That's what's been done.

The technology for transmuting the actinides from reprocessed fuel is
trivial.

If the technology is trivial why isn't it being done?
More bollix.
It's decommissioned when all components are permanently dealt with.
Which no-one has yet done. They just stash the award bits away.
Because they don't know how to deal with them.

harry wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

He's almost certainly referring to the final disposal of the
high-level waste from the cores of the reactors, as he so
often does, but as usual seems incapable of writing a
succinct message that accurately conveys what he means.

WEll in that case no one has ever successfully decommissioned
a car battery, because the toxic lead is in the environment forever.
So its worse than Nuclear waste, which doesn't last forever.;-)

Oh, except it mostly turns *into* lead ;-)

The toxic lead is a useful product, easily recycled.

Just as true of used fuel rods.