Can we get one of these?

Waiheke Island would be a good place for a Nuclear power plant.

A landmark deal to build Britain’s first nuclear plant in a generation is set to be signed tomorrow, bringing to an end two years of wrangling over subsidies for the project.

Ministers are expected to announce an agreement with EDF Energy to guarantee the French energy giant tens of billions of pounds of revenue for the proposed £14bn Hinkley Point plant in Somerset.

Leaders of rival energy firms warned this weekend that the deal will lead to increases in consumer bills to fund subsidies for the plant.  

The Sunday Telegraph understands that two Chinese nuclear power giants will both take stakes in the project – China National Nuclear Corporation and China General Nuclear Power Corporation. Their stakes could total 30pc, while Areva, the French company that will supply the reactors for the plant, may also take a 10pc stake.

The Government will hail the subsidy agreement, which follows a long period of intense negotiations, as triggering the revival of Britain’s nuclear industry. Ministers want Hinkley, which could generate 7pc of Britain’s energy needs, to be the first of a series of plants to replace the existing nuclear network.

Subsidies are wrong, but nuclear is a better deal than wind power.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • So the French are producing more plutonium ?
    (NASA will be pleased)

    I wonder if Iran will be allowed to participate in this burgeoning “Free Market”

  • Erwin
    • OhopeBeachBugger

      Yeah mate read the comments below that alarmist nonsense.

  • Andy

    Coal fired power stations emit about 100 times as much radioactive material into the atmosphere compared with a nuclear power station running at normal operation.

  • James

    To be fair on the subsidies the only reason that they are required is the stupendous amounts of regulation and costs involved in building these in the EU means that the cost of building them is 3 times greater than the cost of the exact same reactors they are building in China.

  • Toryboy

    As the only person in NZ who has always been totally opposed to the anti-nuclear laws, I think not only should we build a power station, but also get ourselves some bombs; the yanks would sell us a few cheaply.
    That would solve energy and defence problems in 5 minutes flat.

    • drummerboy

      Power station no , but nukes could be a good idea, as well as purchasing some of the Israel airforce that is been sold off. New Zealand’s physical isolation doesn’t count for as much as it used to.

      • Vlad

        It would help if we had some aircraft to deliver them, it might get a bit dangerous just chucking them at the enemy (whoever they might be).

        • Toryboy

          The other thing about having a nuclear arsenal, apart from no longer having to actually worry about enemies – is it would make negotiating free trade agreements a lot easier haha!

  • drummerboy

    You would have to be an idiot to build a nuclear power plant in New Zealand. I like the cheap energy factor but the risk is enormous. Look at fukushima still melting down and leaking tones of radioactive water into the ocean every day. The Radiation is worse than Chernobyl was…. Yet MSM doesn’t seem to care. Japanese govt has increased acceptable radiation safety level from 1 to 20 millisieverts per year.

    • James

      Bugger all radioactivity is making its way into the water in Fukushima – there is water leaking in that has, at some point, had radioactive material in it but the half-life is such that by the time it has leaked in you would have to be a homeopath to be able to link it to any damage.

      And safe radiation safety level is significantly higher than 20 millisieverts a year; pilots get exposed to about 2 mSv and living in some parts of the world would naturally expose you to over 100mSv/a.

      • drummerboy

        sorry missed out *safe rate for children. If the water was no big deal, south Korean wouldn’t have banned Japanese fish imports over it.

        • James

          Bollocks – every country will happily find restrictions to protect its workers – and more so if they are in the primary industries.

      • slade52

        bonus points for the homeopathy reference

    • philbest

      “Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power”

      By George Moonbat in a rare moment of enlightenment and honesty

  • Tiberius

    I used to be pro nuclear power, but if the Japenese can F*** it up, then I don’t rate our chances.

    • James

      How did the Japanese fuck it up? They had an old reactor that got hit by one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded and a tsunami that killed tens of thousands of people and destroyed vast areas. And yet nobody died as a result of the nuclear reactors getting destroyed (and nobody will die), To me that is the opposite of fucked it up and shows just how safe these things are!

      Furthermore, the sister plant in Fukushima (Daini), of newer build, is now back to operating as normal, and the only reason that Daiichi is not back in operation is political as most of the reactors are fine.

      • drummerboy

        you seriously don’t know what you are talking about. Fukashima is a ghost town. just what a few years for the birth defects to start appearing.

      • pidge

        The fuel rods are presumed to have melted, but this is yet to be confirmed. If they have, the reactor is pretty much radioactive scrap.

        TEPCO “fucked up” by not being prepared for a (somewhat) improbable disaster, and hindsight is 20/20 when looking for people to blame.

        More people have died in the Fukushima Prefecture directly as a result of the tsunami (est. 1,600 in Fukushima out of est. 18,500 total) or as a result of living conditions of the evacuees after the tsumani (another est. 1,600). The estimated excess deaths due to cancer as a result of the radiation leaks is 180. (see the wikipedia article, Very neutrally worded, which is a remarkable outcome in of itself).

        Edit – Spelling

        • James

          There are 6 reactors at the site. A couple of them are destroyed – but the others are fine.

          And the estimated cancer deaths are an irrelevance – the estimated number of cancer deaths for Chernobyl was in the high thousands and ended up being in the tens.

          • Tiberius

            Auckland is overdue for a quake/volcano, the area of contamination would be large, even if not fatal. Plus would you trust Hone Simpson with your safety?

          • philbest

            People completely fail to understand how safe a reactor containment shield and cooling system can be made. A natural disaster big enough to breach it, would have already killed us all.

            Really it is like a hemispherical version of the Pyramids, with a nuclear core the size of the crypt in the middle.

            What happened at Fukushima was not a cost sufficient to make nuclear energy anything other than the safest form of energy, and furthermore, improvement can be made to avoid the failure that caused the meltdown (which still did not crack the containment shield).

  • CheesyEarWax

    No nuclear is needed, just fire up Huntly using cheap coal from the west coast. No need for subsidies or splitting atoms.

  • Gobe1

    Is it really cheap energy?? they always said back in the 60s in England power would be basically free….. yeah right!! We have heaps of areas for hydro just too many greenies

  • Andy

    I am pro-nuclear for countries where it is economic, but I don’t think the size of NZ justifies nukes. There may be some time on the future when a small modular design can be plugged into the grid. Right now we have plenty of hydro, no increase in demand, and the possibility that Tiwai Pt will shut at some point leaving the power from that for other consumers.

    The main problem we face is a dumbed down population who have been fed environmental propaganda since they were out of nappies, and see any development as too awful to contemplate