Let's hope the government are consistent on this one...

[Horwood Beer-Master]

The government has approved 10 sites in England and Wales for new nuclear power stations, most of them in locations where there are already plants.

It has rejected only one proposed site - in Dungeness, Kent - as being unsuitable on environmental grounds...

If they're opposing a new power plant there on 'environmental grounds', let's hope they use the same grounds to oppose any expansion of Lydd Airport (or 'London' Ashford Airport as it ludicrously likes to be known).

If I had my way I'd have the current airport shut down, just to punish the operators for having the nerve to dare suggest expansion!

[Rum]

This smacks of a panic measure. There is a genuine 'energy gap' because this government has dithered over its policy about nuclear energy. Personally I think nuclear is a terrible mistake, but so is the idea of the lights going out - in this day and age anyway. The UK is blessed with more alternative energy potential than nearly any other country, what with wind and wave, not to mention massive potential tidal and hydro potential. For more on the gap read:-

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=184802

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This smacks of a panic measure. There is a genuine 'energy gap' because this government has dithered over its policy about nuclear energy. Personally I think nuclear is a terrible mistake, but so is the idea of the lights going out - in this day and age anyway. The UK is blessed with more alternative energy potential than nearly any other country, what with wind and wave, not to mention massive potential tidal and hydro potential. For more on the gap read:-

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=184802

What's wrong with nuclear, Rummy?

[Trolldor]

Mainly the waste. Better to have things which don't create waste which require more land (Or giant cement thingies on the ocean floor).

[Rum]

This smacks of a panic measure. There is a genuine 'energy gap' because this government has dithered over its policy about nuclear energy. Personally I think nuclear is a terrible mistake, but so is the idea of the lights going out - in this day and age anyway. The UK is blessed with more alternative energy potential than nearly any other country, what with wind and wave, not to mention massive potential tidal and hydro potential. For more on the gap read:-

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=184802

What's wrong with nuclear, Rummy?

I live close to Sellafield nuclear power station and reprocessing plant. It makes plutonium. When I first moved up to the wilds of Cumbria I visited our office on the west coast about ten miles north of the plant. Someone had a local paper on a desk and I picked it up to get a sense of local issues. There was a panel on the front page with the weekly report on the levels of various rare and radioactive elements in the sea that week and the safety and amount of local seafood and in particular shellfish it was safe to eat that week. I expressed slight shock to one of the people in the office. They shrugged and responded that the town (Whitehaven) would be a ghost town without the plant.

In the new job I have at the moment I sit on a contingency planning group (well I did until I got rid of the task and got someone else to pick it up). That group plans for all sorts of eventualities, including the reaction to an accident at Sellafield. One of the first meetings I attended looked at the consequences of a 'medium scale' accident. It chilled me to the bone. I also learnt about the levels of security around the plant and its (and every other plant's) vulnerability to espionage.

On top of accidents and waste and the expansion of nuclear into other countries with less efficient infrastructure there is the legacy issue and what would happen if people were unable to maintain them properly - not to mention the decommissioning process, which actually adds to the cost and makes it extraordinarily expensive as a power source. This is currently being ignored and made a responsibility of future generations as politicians panic over an energy shortfall and we continue to walk towards a cliff with a blindfold over our eyes.

I mistrust them deeply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Mainly the waste. Better to have things which don't create waste which require more land (Or giant cement thingies on the ocean floor).

At least nuclear waste comes in a storeable form which gives us time to decide what to do with it. In this sense it's much better than CO2 which goes straight from power plant to atmosphere, and starts doing damage right away. In other words for most of the nuclear waste produced at the moment the environmental damage is potential not actual, for CO2 it is very much actual.

As for the nuclear waste which does currently get released into the environment through spillages, leaks or rare Chernobyl-type accidents, as concerned as we should be about this contamination, we also have to recognise that even if it were entering the environment at 9-times the current rate, the total damage it would be doing to the global environment would still be a drop-in-the-ocean compared to the effects of climate change.
So if it is true (and I must stress here that I don't know if it is) that we cannot meet our energy needs through renewables, and it comes to a choice between fossil-fuels or nuclear to make up the difference, then it's a no-brainer really.


But back to the main point I was trying to make. Lydd Airport expansion. - Shit idea, yes?

[The Dawktor]

Horwood- is Lydd the airport with the hooooge long runway- that was an emergency landing option for the Shuttle?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This smacks of a panic measure. There is a genuine 'energy gap' because this government has dithered over its policy about nuclear energy. Personally I think nuclear is a terrible mistake, but so is the idea of the lights going out - in this day and age anyway. The UK is blessed with more alternative energy potential than nearly any other country, what with wind and wave, not to mention massive potential tidal and hydro potential. For more on the gap read:-

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=184802

What's wrong with nuclear, Rummy?

I live close to Sellafield nuclear power station and reprocessing plant. It makes plutonium. When I first moved up to the wilds of Cumbria I visited our office on the west coast about ten miles north of the plant. Someone had a local paper on a desk and I picked it up to get a sense of local issues. There was a panel on the front page with the weekly report on the levels of various rare and radioactive elements in the sea that week and the safety and amount of local seafood and in particular shellfish it was safe to eat that week. I expressed slight shock to one of the people in the office. They shrugged and responded that the town (Whitehaven) would be a ghost town without the plant.

In the new job I have at the moment I sit on a contingency planning group (well I did until I got rid of the task and got someone else to pick it up). That group plans for all sorts of eventualities, including the reaction to an accident at Sellafield. One of the first meetings I attended looked at the consequences of a 'medium scale' accident. It chilled me to the bone. I also learnt about the levels of security around the plant and its (and every other plant's) vulnerability to espionage.

On top of accidents and waste and the expansion of nuclear into other countries with less efficient infrastructure there is the legacy issue and what would happen if people were unable to maintain them properly - not to mention the decommissioning process, which actually adds to the cost and makes it extraordinarily expensive as a power source. This is currently being ignored and made a responsibility of future generations as politicians panic over an energy shortfall and we continue to walk towards a cliff with a blindfold over our eyes.

I mistrust them deeply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

Safety concerns are good. It keeps them honest. But by any standard the safety record of the nuclear power plants is better than just about anything except Quantas. (Yes, Chernobyl, but that proves that the Russians should have technology, not that the technology doesn't work.)

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Horwood- is Lydd the airport with the hooooge long runway- that was an emergency landing option for the Shuttle?

I don't think so. Lydd currently mostly does short hops across to Europe, (mostly propeller-engined as far as I know). According to wiki, the runway at Lydd is 4,938ft long, so it seems extremely doubtful.

I vaguely recall my Dad telling me about a runway which was used during the war for large bombers whose brakes had been damaged, and was miles-long to allow them room to lose speed. I seem to recall he also said this runway was a back-up emergency runway for the Shuttle, so it's probably the one you're talking about, but I think it is in East Anglia, not Kent (I may be wrong).

My Dad has worked for the MoD, Rediffusion Simulation, GEC Marconi and BAE Systems - so he's great for this kind of information.



Interesting thing about Lydd Airport, despite styling itself as a London airport, it's actually closer to one of it's main destinations (Le Touquet in France) than it is to London.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I vaguely recall my Dad telling me about a runway which was used during the war for large bombers whose brakes had been damaged, and was miles-long to allow them room to lose speed. I seem to recall he also said this runway was a back-up emergency runway for the Shuttle, so it's probably the one you're talking about, but I think it is in East Anglia, not Kent (I may be wrong).

I know just the place to find the name and location. As soon as I can access it, anyway.

[The Dawktor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fairford

It says that it is this place in Gloucestershire- with a 9K ft long runway- my mishtake!

[Horwood Beer-Master]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fairford

It says that it is this place in Gloucestershire- with a 9K ft long runway- my mishtake!

Ah, neither Kent nor East Anglia then


Not sure if this was the runway built for planes who's brakes have failed though. Perhaps I was thinking of two separate places.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I vaguely recall my Dad telling me about a runway which was used during the war for large bombers whose brakes had been damaged, and was miles-long to allow them room to lose speed. I seem to recall he also said this runway was a back-up emergency runway for the Shuttle, so it's probably the one you're talking about, but I think it is in East Anglia, not Kent (I may be wrong).

I know just the place to find the name and location. As soon as I can access it, anyway.

Posted to WW2F.com. I'll let you know what they come up with.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fairford

It says that it is this place in Gloucestershire- with a 9K ft long runway- my mishtake!

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/About ... ouKnow.htm (Fairford was prepared for the Shuttle, evidently, so not a candidate for WWII use.)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There were several but the biggest and best known was
The RAF Manston History Museum

Also Woodbridge in Suffolk http://www.controltowers.co.uk/W-Z/Woodbridge.htm and Carnaby in Yorkshire.

One of the worst minutes at Woodbridge is recorded in "A Thousand Shall Fall" by Murray Peden.
" I consider it not only the best and most true to life 'war' book I've read about this war, but the best about all the wars of my lifetime."
- Marshall of the Royal Air Force, Sir Arthur Harris.