/ NEWS: New Nuclear Dump for The Lake District?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
UKC News - on 20 Dec 2012
Ennerdale - Suitable site for a massive industrial development?, 3 kbEnnerdale is one of three possible locations for a high-level nuclear waste repository, says Cath Flitcroft of the BMC. The proposal includes a huge ground-level facility east of Ennerdale Water, within a stone's throw of Pillar and High Stile, and well inside the National Park boundary.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=67690
abarro81 - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News:
"So far the National Park Authority has not taken a definitive position on a below ground repository as they do not know the facts and risks in detail" - sounds like a sensible stance, perhaps the BMC should do the same. Or at least provide links to more details, preferably from both sides of the argument/proposals.
lukerockwalker on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to abarro81:
I couldn't agree with you more as there is a lot of unfounded NIMBY attitudes surrounding this issue.
Richard Baynes - on 20 Dec 2012
I agree that we need the full facts before deciding what to do rather than having a knee-jerk reaction.
However a Cumbria-based Sellafield worker of my acquaintance once carefully explained to me that the best, safest geology in Britain for an underground waste repository was somewhere in the South-East, Hertfordshire I think. Now, any guesses for why that isn't happening there?
neuromancer - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News:

ewww ewww ewww ewww ewww
Simon Caldwell - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to lukerockwalker:
> there is a lot of unfounded NIMBY attitudes surrounding this issue

You mean from the people who want it putting somewhere almost nobody lives (like Ennerdale) rather than somewhere close to their home?
mkean - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Richard Baynes:
However a Cumbria-based Sellafield worker of my acquaintance once carefully explained to me that the best, safest geology in Britain for an underground waste repository was somewhere in the South-East, Hertfordshire I think. Now, any guesses for why that isn't happening there?

I suspect he was pulling your leg but anyway...

Because there is sod all solid ground within 100 miles of Hertfordshire?

Because it is near to the most densely populated part of the country?

Because Hertfordshire doesn't produce much high level waste?

Because routing large quantities of high level waste through Hertfordshire would be a logistical nightmare?

...

;-)

a lakeland climber on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Toreador:

As a Cumbrian my attitude has always been that if nuclear power is as safe as we are being told then there should be no problem converting somewhere like the Battersea power station site to nuclear.

ALC
mkean - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber:
As a Cumbrian my attitude has always been that if nuclear power is as safe as we are being told then there should be no problem converting somewhere like the Battersea power station site to nuclear.


Just because the chances of something going pear shaped are small why would you maximise the impact of it? The chances of me dropping dead in the next five minutes are pretty low but out of courtesy to the other people in my office I won't be putting on a suicide vest linked to an ECG.

Good risk management implies managing the rate of occurance AND the severity, not OR.
Monk - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News:

Can someone explain to me why a huge underground facility accessed directly by tunnel from Sellafield (as stated in the article) requires roads and buildings being constructed in Ennerdale itself? It doesn't seem to make sense to me.
pebbles - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News: should combine well with current plans to permit fracking in lancashire....
ChrisJD on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News:

OK they are from Wiki, but a few links to give some general background to the issue.

Deep geological repository
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

High-level radioactive waste management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management
ablackett - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News: Puts the plans for a zip line in Honnister into perspective doesn't it.
ScraggyGoat on 20 Dec 2012
Successive governments over decades have failed to grasp the 'nettle' of where to store high level nuclear waste, because its such an emmotive issue.

There are a limited number of geologically viable ares to store it underground, particularly when coupled with the logistics of transport (rail being preffered). Hence why the same general locations have been short-listed time and again.

But the sad fact is we have to put it some where, and be responsible about where we put it.

This means given Sellafields proximity to the Lakes and the geology, the Lake district, is always going to be a strong candidate, whether we like it or not.

The bigger question is once we put the legacy waste somewhere, do we keep adding to it? Are we going to continue to generate and worse still accept other peoples waste as well.........


Other candidate areas are ???
Ridge - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Monk:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Can someone explain to me why a huge underground facility accessed directly by tunnel from Sellafield (as stated in the article) requires roads and buildings being constructed in Ennerdale itself? It doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Nor me. It does sound far more horrific than 'they'll dig a tunnel from Sellafield to an invisible cave under Ennerdale' though.
Ridge - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to ablackett:
> (In reply to UKC News) Puts the plans for a zip line in Honnister into perspective doesn't it.

Ssshhh!
That's phase 2 of the project, the Iron Crag to Fox and Hounds zip line.
MonkeyPuzzle - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News:

The mind turns to the 2010 documentary Into Eternity, which is about a similar project in Finland. Think it's up in parts on YouTube and is well worth a watch.
Lord_ash2000 - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News: I don't see a problem with it myself, it's under 400m - 1000m of rock and will be as safe as it's possible to be. The fact is nuclear waste exists and it isn't going to go away so it has to be kept safe and secure, I can't see any realistic way of storing it safer. For those who kick up a fuss about some infinitesimally small risk of it somehow leaking out and getting to a concentration anywhere near what could actually do anyone any harm, I suspect they are actually just desperately trying to find an excuse to be against it as the actual motivation is they just don't like the idea of nasty stuff they don't understand being near where they live.

But for the people who worry about risks, do they know where it's kept now? Most of it is dumped in an open air pond at sellafield with a little fence around it and has been for years, so don't those think it might be a little less risky 1km under the ground?
NottsRich on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber: My thoughts exactly. If it's safe then why bury it? If it's safe to bury it out of site, then why not bury it somewhere where the impact to the local aesthetics will be minimal? i.e. under the sea or where industrialed areas already exist? (Rhetorical question...)
Simon Caldwell - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
> I don't see a problem with it myself, it's under 400m - 1000m of rock and will be as safe as it's possible to be

My only objection would be if it involves large scale above-ground developments within Ennerdale itself, as suggested by the BMC article. But as someone pointed out in the other thread, there doesn't seem to be any obvious factual basis for that suggestion.
Robert Durran - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber:
> (In reply to Toreador)
>
> As a Cumbrian my attitude has always been that if nuclear power is as safe as we are being told then there should be no problem converting somewhere like the Battersea power station site to nuclear.

Because there are more people's ignorance to overcome in London than in Cumbria.
Robert Durran - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to NottsRich:
> My thoughts exactly. If it's safe then why bury it?

It's not safe. Nor is your poo. That is why both need disposing of carefully.

Irk the Purist - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber:

Bradwell is only 50 miles from Battersea (admittedly now being decomissioned) and Dungeoness not much further.

You can see all these details on a map.

neuromancer - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber:

> if nuclear power is as safe as we are being told

That's a big if.
Robert Durran - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> The mind turns to the 2010 documentary Into Eternity, which is about a similar project in Finland.

Yes, a very interesting film; as usual, the Scandinavians ahead of the game. However it is perhaps most interesting for its ponderings on how to communicate with whatever civilisation might be around in 100000 years time.
MJH - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber: As another Cumbrian my attitude is that your argument is pretty flawed.

Just because there is low risk of an accident why seek to maximise input by putting it in the most built up part of the UK?
iccy - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News:

There would almost certainly be some sort of facility in the Ennerdale valley. Practically you would want to bore the tunnels from both ends, which would involve infrastructure upgrades in the valley to remove the extracted material. I'd imagine you would then have a permenant facility there for monitoring etc, but I wouldn't like to guess at the scale of it.
RankAmateur on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News:
Declaration of interests: I work in the nuclear industry, and the people I work for will probably make some money out of this.

The safest place in the UK is in the large clay basin around London. Geologically very stable and non porous.
Ignoring nimbyism for the time being, the major issue is that of transporting all that waste 350 miles.

Cumbria has been exhaustively surveyed for this sort of thing, so presumably there are no safety concerns.
Fracking will have a grand total of f*ck all impact. Complete red herring.

As for the size of the overground facility, the article sort of implies the tunnel will run from Sellafield. Arguing that the entrance facility will be the size of Sellafield is a bit of a recursive argument.

I could go on, but work beckons. All in all, a shoddy article.
mockerkin on 20 Dec 2012
mkean - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to RankAmateur:
The safest place in the UK is in the large clay basin around London. Geologically very stable and non porous.

Very true but surely sticking it under a large mass of rock is better from a structural standpoint? Also if you stick it under granite you can explain away all those leaks as natural background ;-)
Monk - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to iccy:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> There would almost certainly be some sort of facility in the Ennerdale valley. Practically you would want to bore the tunnels from both ends, which would involve infrastructure upgrades in the valley to remove the extracted material. I'd imagine you would then have a permenant facility there for monitoring etc, but I wouldn't like to guess at the scale of it.

But starting at Ennerdale end would mean that you would have to dig down 300-1000m before you start going horizontally, plus that would leave you with a hole above where you are storing the waste - doesn't that negate the whole point of burying it under the mountain in the first place? It still makes no sense to me.

I believe that this is a very important question - I would oppose industrialisation of Ennerdale (which would also defeat the point of a national park, surely) and would sign the petition. However, if there was no impact on the surface, I can't really see any cause for major concern so would not sign or protest.
sheep - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to mockerkin:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> I believe the Silloth area is now considered the joint favourite site.

http://www.spand.org.uk/

..and they're not happy about it either.

Thye issue at the moment is whether or not to support Copeland (and Allerdale) Council, should they decide to volunteer to host the repository.



mockerkin on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to sheep:

This is the bit that makes you wonder if the authorities know what they are doing.

Edinburgh University-based Professor Stuart Haszeldine, who has warned that west Cumbria’s geology is too fractured to be suitable for an underground high level radioactive waste repository, said the idea pointed to an “incoherence” within the Department for Energy and Climate Change.

He said: “If you fracture rock you make it more unstable. There would be a strong conflict of interest [with the desire to have an underground waste repository].

“We have a patch of ground which one part of the Government says is suitable to licence for shale gas extraction, producing fractures which would go right through the zone where another part of Government is proposing radioactive waste should be buried.
unclesamsauntibess - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News: Frack the hell out of Blackpool, let it disappear into the resulting hole, ship the spoil from the Ennerdale tunnel to fill the hole artistically. We get new fossil fuel supplies, a safe nuclear waste dump and Blackpool wiped out. Three projects, one all encompassing solution and loads and loads of jobs!
henwardian - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News: Pah! What a waste of time and money. Why not just package it up nicely and bury it in a subduction zone at a plate boundary? Give a few hundred years and it'll be drawn down into the mantle and problems solved.
ChrisJD on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to mockerkin:

Link to Haszeldine's response to West Cumbria MRWS Consultation on Geological Disposal of radioactive waste in west Cumbria. 22 March2012

http://tinyurl.com/bwnxcot
Lord_ash2000 - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to unclesamsauntibess: Nothing wrong with Blackpool, Born and raised there :)
itsThere on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to henwardian: there isnt any in the uk and i think they are all under the sea which would take more time and money. also 0/10
mockerkin on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to ChrisJD: I like that guy Professor R Stuart Haszeldine OBE FRSE C.Geol. He now has other eminent geologists backing him.
andyb211 - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
> (In reply to UKC News) Frack the hell out of Blackpool, let it disappear into the resulting hole, ship the spoil from the Ennerdale tunnel to fill the hole artistically. We get new fossil fuel supplies, a safe nuclear waste dump and Blackpool wiped out. Three projects, one all encompassing solution and loads and loads of jobs!

Just a wild guess, not too keen on Blackpool then? ;)
Misha - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to mkean:
But if there's a concern about the potential risk, however small, and given the impact if it does go wrong, isn't the answer not to have it at all?
Misha - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Robert Durran:
We can't not go to the toilet but we can not use nuclear power. It might be more expensive and involve lots of wind turbines etc etc but it's possible.
Blunderbuss - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Misha:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> We can't not go to the toilet but we can not use nuclear power. It might be more expensive and involve lots of wind turbines etc etc but it's possible.


Yeah, stick em on top of Helvellyn and Great End.
cuppatea on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News:

Blackpool gets my vote. There must be plenty of rock there.

I bet that one falls on stoney ground.

Leave Emmerdale alone. They have enough problems.
FrankW on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to ChrisJD: The approach suggested by Hazeldine is exactly why the Nirex plan of the 1990s and the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada Failed It is essential to ensure that the Local community wants the thing. To tell someone they have to have it purely because they are on a particular rock type will lead to failure. We do after all live in a democracy.
ScraggyGoat on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to FrankW:
The stark fact is due geological factors it should come down to a toss up between a few locations, then exclude a few on the basis of transportation difficulties/risks, one or two because of surface flooding risk....you get the idea.

In a democracy the few have to accept the decision of the majority. The majority will happily accept the location proposed simply because its not on their doorstep, others out of fear that if they refuse it, the next suggestion may be closer to home............a cynic would point out democracy can be regarded ias legitimised collective bullying.

What I don't want is the government to choose a geologically and technically riskier location because it is politically expedient.....which is unfortunately what is most likely to happen.

The government has talked about volunteer communities......which in practice means something near thurso, or near sellafield i.e. those with a significant population employed by the nuclear industry, resulting in less resistance. With the independance vote in two years time and an anti-nuclear SNP, the Tories are not going to suggest Thurso anytime soon.
Frogger - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News:

The BMC is right to oppose this.

I've signed the petition. Others should do so too, if they want to preserve this important natural environment.
FrankW on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

I like your points regarding democracy. Since it is possible to provide an engineered solution to the repository I am more in favour of those who want it or are prepared to accept it having the repository. My opinion regarding the issues is as follows.

The radioactive inventory currently stored at Sellafield in decaying and vulnerable conditions represents one of the highest hazards in Western Europe. Political indecision regarding the fate of this waste since the 1950s has led to a backlog which threatens the entire nuclear decommissioning process. Independent of political opinions regarding the building or use of nuclear power this is the situation in which we find ourselves and it is the situation with which we have to deal with. The risk of not doing so is the potential release of part of this radioactive inventory over north western England and Southern Scotland. It is the democratic responsibility of UK citizens and thier representitives to ensure that this issue is addressed as soon as reasonably possible. It is our responsibility to ensure this issue is addressed and not left as a legacy to future generations as it was to us - to block the construction of appropriate disposal facilities is to doe exactly that.

The incumbent Democratically Elected Government (in 2007) authorised the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management conducted a review of potential disposal options that concluded that deep geological disposal was the most appropriate option for disposal (there was consultation). Rather than the Nirex Policy of foisting this of a community there has been a call for voulenteer communities to come forward. This has been by the democratically elected representatives of those communities. This process is ongoing though a recent MORI poll has indicted a 68% approval to continue the search in West Cumbria (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/Cumbria%20Managing%20Radioactive%20Waste%20Presentation%... There are pros and cons to all the preffered disposal lithologies. There are also a lot of people who have invested their careers in defining particular options and will therefore have strong differing opinions, ultimately as has been proved in the US it is impartant that the rock type is considred in tandem with an engineered solution. There is a great deal of data, there has been 40 years of debate WE MUST ACT.

The issue of building a repository in the Lake District National Park will always be emotive, however if (and it can be demonstrated) it is in the best interests of safeguarding the health of our and future generations by putting radioactive waste out of harms way it must be considered. We're not talking about mineral exploitation, or commercial gain, this is about doing what is right for ourselves, future generations and other inhabitants of this planet. To block or rule out such an option which will have only temporary impact to Lake District Scenery on the basis of our leisure requirements is selfish beyond belief, surely it is better to work with the orgaisations to make sure that the impact to landscape is minimised.

Interestingly there was talk of Romney Marsh volenteering, but Kent county council seemed to disagree with them. The Scottish govenment has recently licensed two radioactive disposal facilites, one at Dounreay near Thurso and one at Stoneyhill near Peterhead. It is likely that there will be a further requirement for a geologcial disposal facility to deal with the higher level radioactive waste associated with decommissioning of the offshore oil and gas prodcution facilities. This will be in Scotland.

Ulimately this is a debate to be had though informed channels, and in my opinionis not the remit of the BMC.

Frank

RKernan - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to Misha:
(full disclosure - I too work in the nuclear industry, though not for Sellafield)

THe vagaries of the UK grid don't really allow for wind power to be rolled out in big quantities unless you've got something to back it up, which makes it a bit pointless anyway.



Finland are proud of their facility. So should the UK, whenever a suitable place is found. I wouldn't rush into putting it in the Lakes just because its near Sellafield but if the geology fits, and it isn't going to have have a big footprint, then go for it. The only detrimental effects will be from the scaremongering of calling it a 'nuclear dump'. Typical FoE scaremongering and NIMBYism.

Besides... we'll probably need most of the waste in 50-100 years time to power fast breeder reactors. The only reason that spent fuel is classified as waste is because its not yet economical to use it in FBRs.
RKernan - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to RKernan:
Also, this whole article seems to be intent on scaremongering based on what is only a rumour ('Although the council denies any area has been identified yet, Ennerdale Valley is rumoured to be favourite'). Perhaps the author wants a job at the Daily Express?

UKC and BMC should be ashamed of themselves.
subalpine - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News: can anyone posting involved in the energy sector fess up so we know where we are?
FrankW on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to subalpine:

Should be obvious that I do though not for either government or NGOs. The opinions I expressed are my own and not those of my employer.
subalpine - on 20 Dec 2012
In reply to FrankW:
> (In reply to subalpine)
>
> Should be obvious that I do though not for either government or NGOs. The opinions I expressed are my own and not those of my employer.

don't tell me, you're into fracking as well?
Si dH - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to abarro81:
> (In reply to UKC News)
> "So far the National Park Authority has not taken a definitive position on a below ground repository as they do not know the facts and risks in detail" - sounds like a sensible stance, perhaps the BMC should do the same. Or at least provide links to more details, preferably from both sides of the argument/proposals.



Couldnt agree more.

I will applaud the government who has the balls to see a national waste depository through, but im not sure when it will eventually be, its such a difficult topic as it is essential in the long term but non-essential and very divisive in the term of a parliament. I dont want to see ennerdale spoilt but if it is the best possible site and they keep overground impact as low as they can, then in the interests of the uk as a whole id like to see it happen.

To answer someone elses question about why nuclear sites are placed away from population areas despite being essentially safe, it essentially come down to the principle of making both risk and dose ALARP - as low as reasonably practicable - this is what has driven the improved safett stabdards we see today and will continue to drive future improvements; it is important to have that culture in the industry. If you want your risks to be ALARP then since it is clearly 'practicable' to position your site away from population centres, you would be risking regulatory sanctions or closure by not doing so. Hope this helps.
andrewc2495 - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News:
The scale of the facility needs to be put into perspective. The Onkalo facility in Finland is designed to store the waste from the five nuclear reactors operating there. This is at a projected cost of Euros 3 billion The UK has approx. 50 reactors requiring waste storage - a straight line extrapolation would give a cost of Euros 30 billion (say GBP 25 billion). Work on the concept behind the Onkalo facility commenced in 1970s and the repository is expected to be backfilled and decommissioned in the 2100s.
A similar project in the UK will impact the selected area for 150 years.
ScraggyGoat on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to FrankW:

Disagree, it is the remit of the BMC to represent the interest of thier members, they thus have to balance the increase in safety of thier members as a result of the waste being finally put somewhere sensible, versus the loss of recreational ammenity. They have choosen the later, and thier grounds for objection are thus perfectly reasonable.

It is up to the our representatives, the government, to weigh up the technical evidence and the representations from groups like the BMC, and judge most appropriate solution....hopefully without political horse trading...h'mmm.


But it is disingenious of you to suggest that storing this waste is not a matter of commercial gain. Yes it is in the greater good, but once the long term storage solution is 'solved' probably mostly at Tax-payer expense, it removes a significant impediment to continued nuclear generation, which in itself means gaining a repository is a commercial success.

This is why FoE object. Consequently I want the decision on the repository to be linked with the decison of continued nuclear power....are we going to continue making generating, are we going to accept other countries waste for reprocessing and then end up storing the by-products ect. I don't think 'we've got a repository' thus we can now carry on tra la la is an appropriate decision making process.........

Who-ever thought that Romney marsh was even appropriate to short list let alone go to the extent to consult with the local community, demonstrates how desparate the need for storage is, and why the nuclear industry still can not be regarded as 'responsible'.

FYI: No connection with the Nuclear industry, and its radioactive sludge puddle.
jkarran - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to Misha:

> We can't not go to the toilet but we can not use nuclear power. It might be more expensive and involve lots of wind turbines etc etc but it's possible.

Possible? Just maybe if we bought in power from north Africa (or more gas). Realistic? Not even close at our current levels of consumption.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get there though but doing so is realistically going to involve at least another generation of nuclear plants and a hell of a lot of gas.

jk
Richard Baynes - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to RankAmateur:

>
> The safest place in the UK is in the large clay basin around London. Geologically very stable and non porous.


Thank you, so what I said earlier - and was rounded on by mkean for being ridiculous - is apparently true. Stick it under London for safety's sake.
DaveAtkinson - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to FrankW:

As someone living in Ennerdale I actaully support the proposals for an underground repository. West Cumbrian's have lived with Sellafield for over 50 years. They have benefited from it and at times, sufferred from it. The waste exists now, in and around Sellafield, sitting above ground or in tanks of water which have from time to time leaked into the Irish Sea. It is is vital that a safer storage area is found and as West Cumbria prodcues the waste then so it must store it (think the polluter should pay).

Where it is finally sited still needs major investigation. The plans suggested in this forum are a suprise to me and certainly sound like scaremongering to whip up the anti campaign. They certainly don't sound realistic. If they are being developed then it is likely to be a proposal which is designed to be dropped in favour of a less intrusive one where they wanted it all along. There has been a host of these types of proposals for nuclear development.

So please before signing any NO campaign ask yourself, do you want the waste next to you? It has to go somewhere safe and soon. The fact is that the residents of West Cumbria are prepared to live with it and no one else in the country is.

biscuit - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to Misha:

Do you have a dry waste self composting toilet ?

If not then i suggest you think again.

We don't 'need' mains sewage but we have it despite its cost ( monetarily and environmentally ) because it is convenient and we haven't come up with a better solution yet that everyone would adapt to.

Wind farms are not advanced enough yet to provide steady electricity or to deal with peaks in demand. Neither is hydro. Can you tell me a single existing power station that has been closed in the UK due to renewable energy being brought in ?

Where would all the wind farms go ? Ennerdale is pretty windy. How about there ? The areas we like to play in tend to also be the windiest.

Despite the nuclear accidents there have been how many people have they killed compared to pollution from oil/coal/gas power stations ? Do we have vast areas of the world roaming with mutants where we would all fry in seconds ? I saw a program last year ( forget which channel now ) where they re-visited Chernobyl and found it's pretty much a nature reserve now and the surrounding areas that were evacuated would now be safe to live in.

Obviously nobody wants another Chernobyl type incident but at the moment we either stick with slowly killing thousands of people every year across the world with pollution from oil/goal/gas ( and the whole gloal warming issue depending on which side of the fence you're on with that ) or go for more nuclear.

The Finnish system people are talking about is the one we are using ( copying ) in the UK involving local councils etc. to volunteer their areas first. That way Govt. don't spend millins surveying sites all over the country and then having to have a public enquiry costing millions, and lots of time, to fight to put it somewhere.

The vast majority of West Cumbrians i know ( not incomers like i was but real ones with no jobs or money ) would welcome it. However it would be nice if there were some sort of guarantee about local jobs in the plan and of course a minimisation of above ground disruption.

Lets not forget that Ennerdale is already massively managed. It's a dammed reservoir with fake farmhouses that are actually pumping stations. Forestry land all over it etc. The only reason people think it's wild is because the road doesn't go down it ( although it does really there is just a chain across it ) and they have chopped a lot of the pine trees down and got rid of the sheep recently.

Rant over ;0)
Ridge - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to DaveAtkinson:
Been in the Fox and Hounds lately? I was in last night and they've got No to the Dump beermats..
biscuit - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:

Is it still a cutting edge bistro charging £15 for a burger and chips or has it gone back to being a decent local ?

If i was worried about my tourist trade and trying to compete against the likes of the Kirkstile i too would have no to the dump beermats.

If i wanted local trade and an influx of workers i'd have yes to the dump beermats.

It might even bring in enough trade to make the Lamplugh Tip viable again, but again they probably wouldn't want that.
Ridge - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to biscuit:
> (In reply to Misha)

> Where would all the wind farms go ? Ennerdale is pretty windy. How about there ? The areas we like to play in tend to also be the windiest.

In addition you'd need a dam wall across from Anglers Crag to Bowness Knott, plus turbine houses, for the hydro scheme to act as pumped storage from the windfarm, (and do the same in every other Lake District valley).
Ridge - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to biscuit:

Wasn't too bad. Food service a bit slow, £10 for steak pie & chips, handpulled beers were a couple of Ennerdale brewery beers plus a Jennings and something else.

We were just glad to be in the warm after 10 miles of running, er staggering and wading, over Cold Fell..
biscuit - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:

Before i left it had been taken over by the couple from the Shepherds and they took the pool table and dart board out bunged in some comfy seats and started charging a fortune for mediocre food served with a 'jus'.

Anyway back on topic i guess.
Pursued by a bear - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to DaveAtkinson: I had difficulty getting to sleep last night and so thought about this. Somewhat surprisingly, it kept me awake for some time...

What I eventually thought was:

1. The Lake District is one of England's most beautiful areas of countryside. It attracts a large number of different types of visitors each year, some who want to walk, climb or cycle on its hills, some to sail on its lakes, others who want to spend time in its valleys visitng different venues. The value of tourism to the area is immense.

2. It is also a National Park.

3. There have been many different types of industrial activity in the area throughout its history. From stone axe factories in Langdale in prehistoric times through mining of minerals and slate and latterly harnessing of its water. Without these activities much of the area would not now look as it does.

4. That is not a reason to allow free-form development of further activity without full and detailed scrutiny.

5. West Cumbria is a site of national importance in the nuclear industry. The environmental agenda has to balance the need for cleaner, 'greener' power sources of which nuclear power in some form will be a part with the need to both ensure this is as environmentally friendly as possible and deal with the legacy of waste left by historical activity.

6. There aren't a great many other activities offering large-scale employment in the region.

7. Ennerdale is an iconic valley because of the difficulty in reaching it; it is more frequently looked down on than looked up from. However, it isn't completely inaccessible. It has also been the site of significant forestry activity which for many years radically altered the appearance of the valley. This is a precedent of a kind, but not one that presupposes it can be used for other types of development at will.

8. Nevertheless, the 'wildness' of the valley is something to treasure.

9. All of this means, coupled with the willingness of the residents of West Cumbria to live and deal with a problem that many other regions of the country would reject out of hand, that West Cumbria will be the site of a repository to deal with nuclear waste.

10. Whether this should be Ennerdale needs to be closely examined by all the due processes necessary.

11. But if it is to be Ennerdale, then the outline plans need further close scrutiny to ensure not only that the have the minimum impact on the valley, but also that they serve as a national feature development espousing the best of environmentally friendly development too.

12. This should include plans to support increased access to the valley for walkers and others seeking to reach the head of the valley and the hills and crags therein, in an environmentally friendly manner. Many national parks in the USA offer such models - Zion canyon has a fleet of electric buses, I think - and something like this must be an essential part of the plans.

13. All of this will take time to put in place. Inevitably there will be disruption of access. Making access easier will help dispel the grumbles a little; they won't go away, but giving this early on as a quid pro quo will help a great deal.

14. As a consequence, the Lake District will eventually become a little less wild; Ennerdale will see more activity and a once remote and difficult to access valley will become more familiar.

15. There is much to be said for maintaining wildness in a world that becomes ever smaller. The Lake District National Park should seek to balance the loss of one of its wilder areas with the development of another.

16. The demands of the north west (and indeed the country) for water will increase over the coming years.

17. These two points could both be addressed by resurrecting plans made in the 1960s (or possibly 70s) to raise the level of the dam at the end of Haweswater, preventing access to the head of the valley except by foot or boat.

18. In addition, the feasibility of using the Haweswater dam to generate hydroelectric power should be investigated.

At this point, I fell asleep. Whilst much of the above is speculative and generated by a tired mind seeking the balm of sleep, I thought it worth getting down and sharing.

T.

T.
Ridge - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
Some really thought-provoking ideas there!
Ridge - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to biscuit:
<hijack>
Was bought out last year by a consortium of villagers, currently being run by a manager </hijack>
Pursued by a bear - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge: That was before I went to sleep. My dreams are just plain weird...

T.
Pursued by a bear - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge: Now that I'm sat at a PC rather than using my phone...

I think this is a national issue and transcends any one body or interest group. Beyond never having investigated nuclear power in the first place, there is no ideal solution; whatever gets done, someone, somewhere will object. So when considering a solution we as a nation need to look beyond the lobbies and short-termism to the longer term and accept that while we fix this problem there is going to be some mess and discomfort but that the end result will be worth it.

To pick up on this year's highpoint, this has to be like an environmental Olympic stadium, with a solution that everyone can see and works towards, is determined to make happen and believes will be worth it. It goes beyond the local councils, beyond the Lake District National Park, beyond the north west region and beyond climbing, walking and the environmental groups. It needs a champion, though who that might be I have no idea.

T.
Ridge - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
There might be a parallel with Haweswater here, the needs of the many outweighing the few?
dixmarra - on 21 Dec 2012
FrankW on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to DaveAtkinson: I whole heartedly agree with you.
FrankW on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to ScraggyGoat:
> (In reply to FrankW)

Thank you for your reasoned resposne. After giving up on these forums a couple of years ago from more typical UKC responses I was hesitant before posting my thoughts on here.

> Disagree, it is the remit of the BMC to represent the interest of thier members, they thus have to balance the increase in safety of thier members as a result of the waste being finally put somewhere sensible, versus the loss of recreational ammenity. They have choosen the later, and thier grounds for objection are thus perfectly reasonable.

I don't disagree with your argument, however given that in my opinion we need to look beyond the temproary loss of recreational amenity to address the nucear waste legacy which we have been left. In addition such an issue will always have divergent opinions within the BMCs membership it will be impossible for the BMC to represent the wishes of thier members. I fully support the role of constructive debate regarding the exact location, however I consider that the article published by the BMC on thier website is not in keeping with this. If the BMC feel that there is remit they should ballot thier members on this (as was done recently on windfarms).

> It is up to the our representatives, the government, to weigh up the technical evidence and the representations from groups like the BMC, and judge most appropriate solution....hopefully without political horse trading...h'mmm.

I agree. We should bear in mind that the solution needs to be "good enough" and that expediancy and transportation of the waste are heavy factors to consider in the siting of a disposal facility. For the record I sincerely hope that another site is more suitable.

>
> But it is disingenious of you to suggest that storing this waste is not a matter of commercial gain. Yes it is in the greater good, but once the long term storage solution is 'solved' probably mostly at Tax-payer expense, it removes a significant impediment to continued nuclear generation, which in itself means gaining a repository is a commercial success.


> This is why FoE object. Consequently I want the decision on the repository to be linked with the decison of continued nuclear power....are we going to continue making generating, are we going to accept other countries waste for reprocessing and then end up storing the by-products ect. I don't think 'we've got a repository' thus we can now carry on tra la la is an appropriate decision making process.........

Current plans are for a disposal facility. Plans for "retreivability" or storage were shelved as they would increase the cost of management several fold. It is likely that there will be commercial aspects to the management of the disposal facility though it will be the job of the govenment to ensure that the Taxpayer gets value from this (!!!!)

I absolutly agree that there is an urgent need for clarity regarding the fate and liability associated with waste from any future nuclear power generation. It is a linked debate and in my opinion any commercial organisation which whished to constrcut and operate future nuclear facilites must demonstrate how they are going to manage and pay for disposal of future waste. Hoever given the urgency of a reository to deal with the waste from the Existing decommissioning programme this debate should not be used to stall the current repository. (Incidentily most of the current waste is likned with the UK's Cold War nuclear weapons' programme of the 50s - 80s which included the generation of Plutonium in the Magnox reactors) Again I totally agree that there is requirement for greater clarity that there will be no change to the existing policy of return of reprocessed waste and that current international law regarding transfrontier shipment of radioactive waste needs to be made clearer. The UK are signatories to the EURATOM treaty which currently places heavy limitations on accepting radioactive waste for disposal or exporting it. This has led to some dificulties with the treatment of radioactively contaminated materials from North Sea Oil rigs and would possibly (though unlikley) mean the return of Scotland's Legacy waste in the event of independence

> Who-ever thought that Romney marsh was even appropriate to short list let alone go to the extent to consult with the local community, demonstrates how desparate the need for storage is, and why the nuclear industry still can not be regarded as 'responsible'.

This was actually the other way around. Romney Council put forward a bid based on the investment and infrastructure which would be brought to the area by hosting the repository on the basis that ther is no industry (beyond Dungeness) and the farmland is poor. There disposal lithology tey put forward was the same Clay bands that are being considered by the Belgians for thier National repository. It was rejected by Kent County Council.

You are absolutly right to raise the level to which the nculear industry can be trusted. The reputation is terrible and based on many of the attitudes from the old BNFL days much of it is deserved. Since the formation of the NDA in 2004 I belive much has changed. It's not perfect, but it is more open and most impartantly it is now accountable.

> FYI: No connection with the Nuclear industry, and its radioactive sludge puddle.

I have now spent nearly 15 years working to clean up the radioacitve sludge puddle in the UK and abroad, on nuclear and non nuclear sites. It's a slow process but there is definate progress. It needs to continue to gain momentum. We must also heed that the worst thing that was done by our predecessors was 40 years of dithering and inaction - it has made our job so much harder.
Dauphin - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to Robert Durran:

Skull & Crossbones with 3 eye sockets?

D
oli bon-jon - on 21 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News:
If I remember rightly there was talk in the past of developing an old anhydride mine on teeside.

I'm not saying this is the best site, but it's interesting. Given that we have a massive industrial past with holes in the ground in nearly every county. Surely it's worth pursuing old sites for development?


Nigel Modern on 23 Dec 2012
In reply to FrankW: A friend of mine retired from Sellafield a number of years ago and the nuclear waste holding tanks were a real concern for him.

Something has to be done to reduce the risk and some difficult decisions will need to be taken. It seems obvious doing nothing is not an option.
floss_81 on 24 Dec 2012
For starters we all need energy and at present nuclear is the best cleanest option unless of course you want to cover every blade of grass in wind farms, go back to fossil fuels or live in the dark.

No one wants to live near nuclear plants but are happy to have the benefits it give us all.

Its got to be somewhere and in the country side is better than in the city.

This industry is so highly regulated safety concerns are really only just concerns and not a real issue. Ive worked in this industry for over 15year and see this first hand on a day to day basis. The public dont realise the processes that are in place to protect us all and that the true risks are minuscule. This is an education issue!

As for the radiation aspect. No one would have a second thought of going for a walk over Dartmoor, Mountaineering high altitude or having a long haul flight. All for these will get you a far greater dose. Just sitting on a beach in brazil will get you 5x the dose of being in the uk not taking into account you flight. I wouldnt think twice of a two week holiday there.

Plus lets think of the economical impact. The jobs created with the construction and the on going jobs within the plant when its running. This isnt remember just for the people first hand, the money filters though to all area. They buy cars, houses, shop ect.

Look what happened to wales when the mines closed or the north with the decline of ship building. It effected every aspect of communities.

Every one has a right to there opinion whether its the right place or the morals but in my case I believe it a reasonable price to pay for the benefits we receive.
Simon Caldwell - on 24 Dec 2012
In reply to floss_81:
> in the country side is better than in the city.

Why? As you say, safety isn't an issue.

mockerkin on 24 Dec 2012
In reply to Toreador:
> (In reply to floss_81)
> [...]
>
> Why? As you say, safety isn't an issue.

>> Good point to pick up. Obviously it is an issue as a deep repository has never been built in the UK yet, so new safety measures must be formulated.
Many posters seem to ignore the main issue in Cumbria. It's not the depository per se that makes people anxious, it's the GEOLOGY of the area.
See previous posts dealing with geological issues, e.g. from Chrisjd.

ads.ukclimbing.com
Darren Jackson - on 24 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News:

If they can propose building this repository under Ennerdale, then why can't they build it under the sea instead?
mockerkin on 24 Dec 2012
In reply to mockerkin:

Nuclear energy is still a new science, insofar as we still don't know how to control/depose of it properly. OK, it was designed for military use firstly.(Don't start on about Hiroshima etc, that was Japan's own fault, they should have thought twice before attacking a neutral USA, and murdering POW's) It has since become a source of domestic and industrial energy, but the site now called Sellafield was specifically built to enrich nuclear material for bombs.
But it is still not fully understood in the long term. Now we have reached the stage, perhaps never considered 50 years ago, where we don't know what to do with the waste. Hence this deep depository idea.
This new depository idea is a leap in the dark for our nuclear industry, they have never done it before. Just as they were unable to predict the Windscale fire in the 1950's which caused almost as much damage to UK farmland as Chernobyl did.( Milk was banned and replaced with orange juice.) The name Windscale was changed to Sellafield. They cannot yet predict the safety of a deep depository as it is also a new idea. There have been some dodgy "surveys" in Cumbria. One said that 51% of Cumbrians surveyed supported the depository, but that survey has now been ridiculed as having been a preloaded telephone survey with tick box questions that were designed not to give a negative response, the number of people surveyed was also small. There are also political pressures in Cumbria lead by the tory leader of Cumbrian County Council and the labour MP for Copeland, Sellafield area, to accept the depository. The first because he is tory and kisses the party's bum, the second because he is so shortsighted that he looks only at the provision of jobs. HMG is also offering incentives to the county if they will accept the depository, such as fast broadband, free wall and loft insulation for the whole county etc.
But it still comes down to the geology.
Ridge - on 24 Dec 2012
In reply to floss_81:
> For starters we all need energy and at present nuclear is the best cleanest option unless of course you want to cover every blade of grass in wind farms, go back to fossil fuels or live in the dark.

I'd agree with that. There's certainly a need for the next generation of nuclear plants, but they'll only be a stopgap. Nuclear fuel is again finite. Yes you can breed Plutonium but reprocessing of fuel is currently a very nasty business, and it chucks out one hell of a lot of waste. We also need to think about conserving energy, and realise cheap abundant energy is a thing of the past.

> No one wants to live near nuclear plants but are happy to have the benefits it give us all.

I'm more than happy to live near one.

> This industry is so highly regulated safety concerns are really only just concerns and not a real issue. Ive worked in this industry for over 15year and see this first hand on a day to day basis. The public dont realise the processes that are in place to protect us all and that the true risks are minuscule. This is an education issue!

Agree and disagree on that. I've been working in the nuclear industry for the last 5 years, and I wouldn't class the risks as miniscule. The nuclear industry is massively over-regulated in some respects, and that means money is wasted on relatively trivial risks, whilst the bigger issues aren't addressed as well as they could be. Whilst they can spend a phenominal amoount of money protecting against trivial risk and drowning everyone in reams of paperwork, there is a somewhat blase "We're really safe and the best in the world" attitude at senior levels, which needs knocking on the head. (Disclaimer: These are of course Ridge's own views and in no way reflect the views of his employer. Your home may be at risk if you let him cook chips etc, etc.)

It's also important to understand that Sellafield is a unique site with unique issues, and that can't be used as justification to say that modern nuclear plants will have the same hazards.

As mockerkin said, it was bomb factory built at the end of WWII to churn out plutonium for bombs to stop the Soviet 3rd Shock Army from rolling across Europe. The yanks had passed the McMahon act that made all nuclear technology the property of Uncle Sam and told their wartime allies to f*ck off. The Windscale piles were built from scratch by a bankrupt nation using whatever was left in the very bare cupboard after the war. Likewise Calder Hall, despite talk of 'electricity too cheap to meter', was a continuation of the weapons program with a few turbines tacked on. Despite that the Magnox fleet did a sterling job with no safety issues, and some are still running today. Fantastic innovation and engineering all done from first principles.

But, and it's a big but, it had never been done before. No one had any real concept of the dangers they were storing up for the future. I'm sure someone at the time realised that encasing uranium, which is pyrophoric, in a magnesium alloy fuel rod would make a really good incendiary device, but it was the only material they had to work with. Also running the reactors far too long during the winter of discontent in the 1970s led to huge build ups in waste with no where to store it. Then there were all sorts of other projects developing isotopes for medical use on an industrial scale, experimental reactors etc, but no-one though about how you'd go about decommissioning them. It cannot be compared with modern nuclear power plants.

> As for the radiation aspect. No one would have a second thought of going for a walk over Dartmoor, Mountaineering high altitude or having a long haul flight. All for these will get you a far greater dose. Just sitting on a beach in brazil will get you 5x the dose of being in the uk not taking into account you flight. I wouldnt think twice of a two week holiday there.

Agree with that. Despite all the issues outlined above, the coal industry in the UK has killed more workers and members of the public than the nuclear industry has worldwide. Even when we have 'nuclear disasters' like Fukashima, the radiological aspects are negligible compared with the effects from the tsunami. On the other hand, the nuclear industry could stop claiming somewhat optimistic failure probabilities for their reactors and recognise if you have a thousand reactors in operation worldwide the risk will also go up by orders of magnitude. A bit of realism and understanding of what 'risk' actually means is needed on both sides, rather than a propaganda war.

> Plus lets think of the economical impact. The jobs created with the construction and the on going jobs within the plant when its running. This isnt remember just for the people first hand, the money filters though to all area. They buy cars, houses, shop ect.

No argument with that. The nuclear industry and it's suppliers provide far more jobs in Cumbria than Beatrix Potter teashops ever will.
Ridge - on 24 Dec 2012
In reply to mockerkin:
> (In reply to mockerkin)The name Windscale was changed to Sellafield.

Actually it wasn't but it was a good joke when Lenny Henry made it in the 80's.

It's always been Sellafield, even when it was a munitions depot in the war. Windscale was a separate licenced site, as was Calder Hall, within the boundaries of Sellafield. Windscale is still there, the name was never changed. Sellafield Ltd came into being at some point after the fire, but Windscale was never renamed :-)
mockerkin on 24 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to mockerkin)
> [...]
>
> Actually it wasn't but it was a good joke when Lenny Henry made it in the 80's.
>
> It's always been Sellafield, even when it was a munitions depot in the war. Windscale was a separate licenced site, as was Calder Hall, within the boundaries of Sellafield. Windscale is stiaall there, the name was never changed. Sellafield Ltd came into being at some point after the fire, but Windscale was never renamed :-)

>> So what? Semantics when Cumbria is facing this rubbish.

Ridge - on 24 Dec 2012
In reply to mockerkin:
> (In reply to Ridge)
> [...]
>
> >> So what? Semantics when Cumbria is facing this rubbish.

Tough day?
As you're aware, Cumbria isn't facing this, it's been here for years. The question is how to deak with it safely.
mockerkin on 24 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to mockerkin)

> As you're aware, Cumbria isn't facing this, it's been here for years. The question is how to deak with it safely.

>> Cumbria is facing a new situation. It is not the fact that nuclear waste has been kept here in open pools for years, we've known that for decades. It's how we get rid of/store it safely. Cumbrian GEOLOGY is too complex & so too "untrustworthy" for this nuclear waste site.

mockerkin on 24 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:

Anyway, Merry Xmas & Happy New Year
Ridge - on 24 Dec 2012
In reply to mockerkin:
Indeed. Cheers !
Marianne Birkby - on 28 Dec 2012
In reply to abarro81:
What more do the National Park need to know ...why are they faffing about with meaningless and pathetic concern for the ''brand' of Cumbria when the only sane option is to Oppose the government plan. .... To do something Search Radiation Free Lakeland and sign the petiton to Cumbria County Council...they have the right of veto to stop this plan.
Marianne Birkby - on 28 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:
It is a Myth that the nuclear 'industry' is the main employer ... 10,000 people are employed at the taxpayers expense by the nuclear 'industry' in Cumbria. This contrasts to 33'000 in tourism, all real jobs not paid for by the largesse of the taxpayer. Sellafield stopped producing electricity in 2003 and has spent over £30M every year since on fossil fuel to cool the wastes. not to mention the 4 million gallons of water from Wastw*ter every day to cool the wastes ...they won,t magically cool down underground ...hot steaming rock!
cuppatea on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to UKC News:


Popcorn!
Robert Durran - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Marianne Birkby:
> Sellafield stopped producing electricity in 2003 and has spent over £30M every year since on fossil fuel to cool the wastes. not to mention the 4 million gallons of water from Wastw*ter every day to cool the wastes.

Yes, so best put it underground.

> They won't magically cool down underground.

No, nor anywhere else, so best put it underground.
biscuit - on 29 Dec 2012
In reply to Marianne Birkby: how many of those tourism jobs are in workington, maryport and whitehaven ?
FrankW on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Marianne Birkby:

I see you are the Leader of the "Radiation Free Lakeland Campagain”. At lest you could have had the courtesy of declaring your interest. I see you are new to these forums are you actually a climber or are you using UKC solely for the dissemination of your political message?.

It is my opinion you are disingenuous with your employment figures. 10,000 is an approximation of those employed directly by Sellafield Ltd. There is a similar number employ by contractors. There are also large number who have businesses supporting that industry. I wouldn’t be surprised if this wasn’t more than 30,000 you quote for the tourism industry. A mentioned by others, how many of those tourism jobs are on the cost between Ravenglass and Maryport.

You complain bout government and tax payers paying to clan up the mess. Since this was a government induced mess ( from the Cold War Weapons programme) who do you consider should be liable for paying for it. It is a legacy left to us to deal with. Do you think it is right for us to do nothing and pass that on to future generations? You complain about water being taken from Wast Water and in your letter call for improved storage – this will require water for cooling. Where do you propose this comes from. Incidentally the NAO call for better storage is until final disposal can be achieved

You make some valid points in your letter to the council regarding the out of sight and out of mind mentality, and these are issues which require debate and action. However I would favour putting these materials well beyond d the reach of future generations as we can have no idea how they will be used. Most people would agree that the world would be a better place if the materials had never existed. They do. Decisions leading to this were made by other people, don’t blame those who are actually trying to do something about the problem. Rather than blocking and complaining why don’t you put that energy into leading the search for somewhere better.
PATTISON Bill - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to UKC News: Lets have the dump under Scafell Pike then we could have a shute from the summit so all the three peakers rubbish could go down it instead of fouling up the fells .Seriously it has to go somewhere but I doubt we will get an acceptable solution,a bit like the bolts argument really.Incidently I live midway between The Pike and Sellafield so have a vested interest.As for local employment how many employed at Sellafield are born and bred Cumbrians and is there any promise of jobs for locals ? I dont want a job ,been retired for over 20 years . A Happy New Year and great days on the fells everyone
Ridge - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Marianne Birkby:
> (In reply to Ridge)
> It is a Myth that the nuclear 'industry' is the main employer ... 10,000 people are employed at the taxpayers expense by the nuclear 'industry' in Cumbria.

10,000 directly by Sellafied. Then add the small engineering firms, the sub-contractors, the hotels, pubs and butty shops that house and feed the subcontractors, the equipment and clothing suppliers, the teaching jobs in the new academies, the construction jobs, the redevelopment of Whitehaven and the Workington docks, the 'trickle down' of money spent in the supermarkets, corner shops, garages, fitted kitchen suppliers etc. I'd even dare to suggest a lot of the money spent in the genteel lake district tea shoppes comes from people directly or indirectly involved in the nuclear industry.

> This contrasts to 33'000 in tourism, all real jobs not paid for by the largesse of the taxpayer.

As biscuit pointed out, could you tell me how many of these real jobs are in the west of the county? I've not noticed the tourist hoardes clogging Flimby and Frizington recently, although I have seen a few whizzing past the area as fast as they can on the various bypasses built to accommodate Sellafield construction traffic. As for taxpayers 'largesse', perhaps the solution is to padlock the gates and leave it? The few remaining West Cumbrians could then huddle inside their Peter Rabbit costumes, (real jobs to entertain the few tourists who make it west of Cockermouth), and watch the 70 year old buildings fall down, the fuel ponds boil dry and the highly active storage tanks leak into the sea. It's not like the taxpayers actually funding anything, is it?

> Sellafield stopped producing electricity in 2003 and has spent over £30M every year since on fossil fuel to cool the wastes.

Calder Hall was never about cheap electricity. It was a cold war bomb factory. There's an argument to be made that that wasn't a good idea, and it might havebeen better never built in the first place, but that's academic now. It needs dealing with, and that might well include a repository. The could always build a new reaxtor to save on fossil fuel though.

> not to mention the 4 million gallons of water from Wastw*ter every day to cool the wastes ...they won,t magically cool down underground ...hot steaming rock!

To be fair, water is the one natural resource that Cumbria has, if you pardon the pun, in bucketloads. I've not noticed a huge dry lake bed in Wasdale whenever I've been there, it always seems full to me. (Other sources of water for Sellafield are available). As for the waste magically cooling down, no it won't, that's why it has to be cooled first. By the time the repository finally, (if ever), gets built the first wastes will have cooled down and then it'll be a rolling programme of shipping it all out of Sellafield in the coming years. (Assuming a new method of disposal doesn't come along).
dixmarra - on 09 Jan 2013
woody5 - on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to UKC News: many years enjoying a weekend at Buttermere,met an old friend of mine from my RAF days ,he was a local lad and told me and I quote "folk round here are more afraid of Sellafield closing down than melting down"
hard to put forward any argument with folk who think like that

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.