Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Policy development - Energy policy
#5
I totally agree Stone with the need to move to renewables. We were leading the world in renewable development until the slashing of the funding on R&D projects. Now a lot of the industry and research that was based in the UK is to be found in Denmark and Germany.

It is estimated that probably 2 to 3 billion pounds of R&D are required to build a fully working LA Reactor prototype - the Japanese already have a couple. New working reactors would probably cost about 1.5 billion each. All right they would only produce about a tenth of the output that Hinckley Point will produce but we can build 20 of them for the cost of Hinckley Point and have twice the power. They do not have a radioactive waste problem (they actually help solve it). Above all there is no risk of meltdown. The moment the Linear Accelerator is switched off the reaction stops, there is no chain reaction to run away.

It is going to be at least 2050, and the way this government is going probably a lot later, before we are in a position to fully power this country from renewable sources. We need something to fill the power gap. I agree that Hinckley Point is not the answer but there is no way I want to see coal or gas power stations stay in service one minute longer than necessary.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Policy development - Energy policy - by NigelGB - 10-31-2016, 08:07 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)