Hinkley Point protest: Blockade at nuclear power station

Hinkley Point protest: Blockade at nuclear power station

www.bbc.co.uk

More than 100 protesters are blockading the entrance to Hinkley Point power station in Somerset.

Protesters say this will the first of a number of protests if the government pushes ahead with its plans for a new nuclear power station on the site.

BBC reporter Ruth Bradley said the protesters were sitting in the road outside the main gate which is padlocked.

She said: "All but essential staff have been asked to stay away.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.google.com
www.thisissomerset.co.uk
www.walesonline.co.uk
www.jackbristol.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
UK Next...? Tsunami Threat & Nuclear Reactor Meltdown

Well there are apparently more people arriving by the hour and coming from far and wide.

This is of real concern in light of recent events.

The Severn Estuary where this Power station lies has the worlds second highest tidal rise and fall anyhow twice a day, and on its banks, and within close proximity are are major cities such as Cardiff & Bristol many more. Millions of people live very close to it, and a Tsunami has hit here before, now they want to build more wtf?

I Quote from a Cited Referenced Peer Reviewed Source

On January 30, 1607, a massive wave from the ocean surged up Bristol Channel in the United Kingdom,flooding more than 500 km2 of lowland along 570 km of coast. It killed 2000 people and is considered
Britain’s worst natural disaster on land

The Journal of Geology, 115, 2007, 253–269

As Einstein said doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity.

How can they even consider this, hey if anyone goes there good folk music and free flapjacks and hugs.

Kind Regards,

Elf

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

This would be worse than Fukishima,

as the position of the reactor :

“When the Fukushima nuclear power station failed so disastrously in Japan earlier this year, President Obama ordered the evacuation of all US citizens within a 50-mile radius of the disaster site.

“A similar exclusion zone as a result of an explosion at Hinkley would mean the evacuation of more than one million people in Wales. Everyone in the Vale of Glamorgan, Cardiff, Newport, Monmouthshire, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Bridgend, Torfaen, Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr Tydfil, Caerphilly, Neath Port Talbot and the city of Swansea would have to leave their homes.

“What this would mean for Wales is the unthinkable – a total breakdown of governance, irrecoverable economic and environmental damage, and social collapse.”

Wales Online

The results would be so big all of Europe would be hugely affected never mind just locally.

Mother Earth and recent disasters has taught us not to take these sorts of risks we dont have a full grip on the dangers and potentials....

Kind Regards,

Elf

Although I generaly tend to disagree with these hippys and there protests i do like good folk music and flapjacks. I might chin the drive down.

reply to post by MischeviousElf


Nuclear power is one of the most cost effective and efficient methods of generating energy. Until someone comes up with an efficient, cost effective alternative and as long as our population and need for electricity increases nuclear power will eventually become a nescessity if we are to ensure we have an adequate and affordable energy supply.

reply to post by lifeissacred

Yes no one is saying this isnt the case, only build the reactor somewhere alot safer. To be building it on a site thats already known to have had this happen is plain crazy.

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
This would be worse than Fukishima,

Why would it be worse than Fukishima?

The anti-nuclear crowd are keen to promote the cataclysm-death-we’re-all-doomed argument at every turn. Fukushima has been God send for them because every time they want to emphasise a point they will cite that disaster.

The fact is that Fukushima Daiichi was a disaster waiting to happen. The plant was of a poor design.

Onagawa, the nuclear power station nearest the epicenter was comparatively unscathed. It was of a more modern design.

If the anti-nuclear crowd were to be honest then this is what they would say. “Don’t build nuclear because it’s unsafe just look to Fukushima! Unless you design the plant better, then it’s safe, just look at Onagawa”!

Regards

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by MischeviousElf

 

Nuclear power is one of the most cost effective and efficient methods of generating energy.

Sources please that are not government or industry financed?

Its an Urban Myth and has no I mean basis at all in reality.

A Meme

A Lie

used to keep people prepared to allow it, lets listen to those who actually know shall we:

[4] Nuclear [5] Coal [6] Gas
$/kW $4,000 2,300 850

MIT Interdisciplinary Study Update on Nuclear Power PDF

For the full long term costs how about these facts from the American only point of view:

Since its beginning, nuclear power has cost this country over $492,000,000,000 -- nearly twice the cost of the Viet Nam War and the Apollo Moon Missions combined.

In return for this investment, we have an energy source that, until the mid-1980's, gave us less energy in this country than did the burning of firewood! In the U.S., nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity, and only 8-10% of our total energy consumption. In Illinois these percentages are much greater due to Commonwealth Edison's over-reliance on nuclear power.

Since 1950, nuclear power has received over $97,000,000,000 in direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government, such as deferred taxes, artificially low limits on liability in case of nuclear accidents, and fuel fabrication write-offs. No other industry has enjoyed such privilege.

According to a recent study conducted by the Citizens Utility Board, Commonwealth Edison's customers now pay the highest electric bills in the Midwest, due primarily to the over-reliance on nuclear power plants.

Many costs for nuclear power have been deliberately underestimated by government and industry such as the costs for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes, the "decommissioning" (shutting-down and cleaning-up) of retired nuclear power plants, and nuclear accident consequences. In January, 1994, Commonwealth Edison acknowledged that it had to nearly double its estimate for reactor decommissioning -- from $2.3 billion to as much as $4.1 billion!

Nuclear energy Information Serevice

Also as Physicians for Social Responsibility clearly show the costs are maintained by government:

Nuclear is Expensive

In 1954, then Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Lewis Strauss promised that the nuclear industry would one day provide energy “too cheap to meter.”(5)

More than 50 years and tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies later, nuclear power remains prohibitively expensive.

Even among the business and financial communities, it is widely accepted that nuclear power would not be economically viable without government support.(11) Despite this poor economic performance, the federal government has continued to pour money into the nuclear industry the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included more than $13 billion in production subsidies, tax breaks and other incentives for nuclear power.

The most important subsidy for the nuclear industry and the most expensive for U.S. taxpayers comes in the form of loan guarantees, which are promises that taxpayers will bail out the nuclear utilities by paying back their loans when the projects fail.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the failure rate for nuclear projects is “very high well above 50 percent.”(12) The nuclear industry is demanding $122 billion in federal loan guarantees for 21 reactors. If these guarantees were authorized, taxpayers would be on the hook for at least $61 billion.

PSR

It is cheap for companies to make money, it is expensive for the Taxpayers, expensive for the country and also very expensive environmentally with risks that are to unacceptable.

Kind Regards,

Elf

reply to post by paraphi


No the anti nuclear crowd never wanted Fukishima to happen they have just been warning that this sort of thing would happen.

They wanted to make the possibility impossible and not to revel in it, and to propose otherwise is trolling imho.

This would be worse than Fukishima as pointed out there have been Tsunamis here before, it has the Highest Tidal Rise and Fall every day in the world with any civilization near by, a Capital City is only a few miles away.

This is not Doomsaying this is the fact that historically a Tsunami has been here before, it is the most likely place to have one in the UK due to the geography, and just like in Japan Nuclear reactors (of older design!) are siting on the estuary next to millions of people.

Its History, Fact and being wise enough to not want most of the west coast of the UK to become abandoned.

Elf

reply to post by lifeissacred

I have posted this on another thread a while back, but it fits here as well.

Myth of cheap nuclear power

Press Release 29 January 2008 Landau

The elimination of the former nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Karlsruhe (WAK) is considerably more expensive than previously estimated.
According to information from members of the southern Palatinate Heinz Schmitt (SPD) and his SPD Colleagues Klaus Hagemann, housekeeper for research in the Bundestag , there costs for the vitrification of radioactive waste are rising by a further € 239 million.
"We get a feel for the first time, how expensive nuclear power really is." Schmitt.
The cost of decommissioning of the Karlsruhe plant increased from an originally planned one billion euros to the sum of 2.2 billion euros now.
Furthermore the cost of over 430 million euros for final disposal would have to be added.
These numbers are not the final word, because there are still some uncertainties and risks in the estimate of the costs.
According to Schmitt especially outrageous is the fact that the public sector and not the energy industry had to bear these additional costs.
Responsible for this is the former Federal Minister of Research Prof. Dr. Heinz Riesenhuber (CDU).
He released 15 years ago the energy industry out of their financial responsibility for the nuclear legacy of the CTE, and guaranteed business share of the costs of disposal.
"We have the totally unacceptable situation that the energy industry put away billions in profits while the taxpayer must pay for the backlog." Schmitt said.
The consumer pays twice!
Once again, the myth of cheap nuclear electricity was debunked.

Source

This is just for one effing plant. And it's not very big.

This issue is of deep concern to me as I live on the Bristol channel coast. about 20 miles along from hinkley point. The channel has a history of severe floods and the 2nd fastest/highest tidal range in the world. There is even evidence that tsunami have struck the area many times in history. The Bristol Channel floods, which occurred on 30 January 1607, resulted in the drowning of a large number of people and the destruction of a large amount of farmland and livestock. Recent research has suggested that the cause may have been a tsunami.

On 30 January 1607 floods resulted in the drowning of an estimated 3,000 or more people, with houses and villages swept away, an estimated 200 square miles (518 km2) of farmland inundated and livestock destroyed, wrecking the local economy along the coasts of the Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary, in what was then the Kingdom of England.The devastation was particularly severe on the Welsh side, extending from Laugharne in Carmarthenshire to above Chepstow in Monmouthshire. Cardiff was the most badly affected town. The coasts of Devon and the Somerset Levels as far inland as Glastonbury Tor, 14 miles (23 km) from the coast, were also affected. The sea wall at Burnham-on-Sea gave way, and the water flowed over the low lying levels and moors. Thirty villages in Somerset were affected, including Brean which was "swallowed up" and where seven out the nine houses were destroyed with 26 of the inhabitants dying. For ten days the Church of All Saints at Kingston Seymour, near Weston-super-Mare, was filled with water to a depth of 5 feet (1.5 m). A chiselled mark remains showing that the maximum height of the water was 8 metres above sea level.

The operators of Hinkley Point claim they would be safe even if they were hit by the worst earthquake, tsunami or flood that could be expected in the UK in 10,000 years. But after whats happened in Japan people are not reassured by such talk these days. Hinkley is almost a twin of fukushima and sits right on the coast. I know a repeat of the 1607 event is quite remote, but you can't take that for granted in my opinion, especially considering seismic magnitude and frequecy seem to be on the increase worldwide.

Im only 20 miles away from Hinkley on the coast to. I realize that nuclear stations have to be near large water sources in case of an accident but the place worries me. I stopped swimming in the Bristol channel a long time ago due to pollution.

reply to post by derpif


Great Link Thanks,

This is so possible its never worth the risk of whats currently there never mind more reactors.

This Reactor is a MOX one to!!

reply to post by Atzil321


Good Point, this has happened before and the Wave was 10 metres high or more, never mind at high tide or spring tide, god theres a bore on it anyhow due to the amount of water a type of mini tsunami already....

The last event both sides of the estuary, why oh why would they consider it eh, stupid imho

reply to post by PhoenixOD

I am on the other side of the channel but can see the Hinkley Point from near Cardiff.
Dont go anywhere near the severn anymore, to think used to swim off Barry Island as a kid, no way now myself unless by the Gower or further towards west wales, is OK there I think.


Some Info Vids from the site for all:




Kind Regards,

Elf

reply to post by Atzil321


just wanted to say i love your dark tower avatar.... =)

reply to post by moosevernel


It is nice,

Any thoughts on the story?
Nuclear Power in general?
Positions of such things?

For /against?

Kind Regards,

Elf

reply to post by MischeviousElf


dont think they should be building any new nuclear power plants the risks outweigh the benefits for me so i would be there protesting too if i could.

and thats all i have to say about that

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
No the anti nuclear crowd never wanted Fukishima to happen they have just been warning that this sort of thing would happen.

Agreed, I would not suggest that they wanted a nuclear disaster per se, but it now gives their arguments an "I told you so" doomsday song. In that way, the Fukushima disaster is definitely a God send to them. There are already “studies” with fancy charts which are stating that the whole of the South of England will be “uninhabitable” if blah, blah, blah....

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
This would be worse than Fukishima as pointed out there have been Tsunamis here before, it has the Highest Tidal Rise and Fall every day in the world with any civilization near by, a Capital City is only a few miles away.

Firstly, why would a tsunami hitting Hinkley Point / Bristol Channel / UK be “worse than Fukushima"? Large numbers of nuclear power stations are positioned near – or on – the coast. Plus the fact that the Bristol Channel has significant tidal rise/fall is merely coincidental to a tsunami. There have been very few tsunami recorded in the UK, but many tidal surges. In fact, some people think the 1607 tsunami was a tidal surge.

It is incumbent on the designers of the Hinckley Point to make sure it can contend with tsunami. In fact, there’s quite a lot of literature about stating Hinckley Point is positioned and designed to contend with a tsunami. I am sure the public will be able to review the designs for any new build.

Regards

reply to post by moosevernel


And what you do have to say is important and I think most of the normal men women and youth out there dont want anymore of these things, and want the current ones closed.

We should not mess with it as the dangers until we are 100% sure of safety.

Thanks for your reply indeed.

Kind Regards,

Elf

Originally posted by moosevernel
and thats all i have to say about that

Gump!!

As far as the topic, it's my belief that anything built right on the ocean is doomed to fall.
The ocean always wins. Always. Ask anyone who tries to make a living on it. You wouldn't believe the money they spend here in Florida just to keep a beach built on the edge of the ocean, let alone all the houses/hotels.

Putting potentially dangerous installations (like nuke plants) in a spot where they're doomed to fall, well, that's got to be a bad idea. Maybe not this year, or even in 20 or 50 years, but it's going to be a problem at some point. You'd think people would be smarter.

...and that's all I have to say about that.

Putting potentially dangerous installations (like nuke plants) in a spot where they're doomed to fall, well, that's got to be a bad idea. Maybe not this year, or even in 20 or 50 years, but it's going to be a problem at some point. You'd think people would be smarter..

you would think but you know what they say


sh!t happens =)