/ NEWS: Ennerdale Nuclear Debate Hots Up

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
UKC News - on 29 Jan 2013
Ennerdale montage pic, 4 kbA protest against a potential nuclear waste store beneath Lakeland's unspoilt Ennerdale valley was held on Saturday 26 January, in advance of a vote by local councils on whether to proceed with the process of finding a site for the huge facility

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=67772
Ice Nine - on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to UKC News: Well done Dan, a well balanced article. We'll see what tomorrow (30th January) brings with the councils decision.
biscuit - on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to UKC News:

Much more balanced article this time, thanks Dan. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it.

I love Ennerdale having lived there for nearly 4 yrs before i moved to Spain but saying it's unspoilt is taking it a bit far. Have you ever walked along the near end of the lake and seen how much concrete holds the water back from when the valley was flooded to make a reservoir ?

That along with the massive pine plantations, water pumping buildings and road ( albeit a gravel one ) running along it means it's hardly un touched by human hands.

If i still lived there i would want to see in detail what they propose and as long as it's not too intrusive i think i'd go for it.

I wonder what (has ?) will happen to the wild Ennerdale project. I used to really like that idea.

The tourism argument is a bit of a moot point really as there is not much doing in Ennerdale as far as that goes. 2 youth hostels and a field centre don't bring much into the local economy. Day walkers tend to be just that and the coast to coast walkers would still need to come through Ennerdale Bridge. The local pubs had enough trouble staying open as it was so it's not as if there is a thriving tourist trade there to start with.

Anyway just my 2p, lets see what happens.
Stuart Wood - on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to UKC News:

I've really not wanted to comment on this as it's a tricky one for me. As a lover of the Lakes in the bottom of my heart I'm opposed to it. But, because of the state of the economy, and the severe lack of jobs on the west coast this project could improve the standard of living of many people from a fairly deprived part of the country.
If you watch Border News virtually all of the locals interviewed are in favor of it as I'm sure the councils will be. One comment I would like to make about the article is about tourism supplying more jobs for the area. These jobs are often low payed and seasonal. Jobs in Industry pay better and tourism is not that huge on the west coast.
So to sum it up I would prefer it didn't happen but when it seems to be the only hope of a huge stimulus to the job market and economy of a large area ........... what do you do????
Woody
knowall - on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to biscuit: agree that the valley is not entirely unspoilt but it is in the process of changing for the better with the Wild Ennerdale project aiming to replace the ranks of conifers with native deciduous trees and allowing the river to find its own course. Cattle are also allowed to roam free in the woods.
The two pubs in Ennerdale Bridge are doing well. The Fox and Hounds is now run by the local community and received grants from Copeland Council (rather ironic if the same council votes tomorrow for the nuclear repository to proceed to the next stage).
Both pubs generate most of their income from Coast to Coast walkers during the summer. Any developments in the valley are sure to greatly reduce walkers numbers.
Tomorrow's vote is stage 4 of the process and if voted yes the next stage is a desktop geological survey (although all this information is already known, so a waste of time and money).
Stage 5 would be drilling boreholes in rock on the fells and would create huge disfigurement to the valley together with new roads and heavy vehicles.
Can only wait and see what tomorrow brings.
fmck - on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to UKC News:

If that's 500 people? 400 must be inside the cottage warming themselves round the fire : )
biscuit - on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to knowall:

That's why i mentioned Wild Ennerdale.

Is it really a waste of time and money ? From what the article said experts are undecided. Surely this can help them decide. It may need stage 5 before it can be final.

I've seen HGV's and low loaders going down the track already and they way it looked when i left was a right mess due to the large amount of log felling machinery. I hope any visual damage done by the drilling will be overgrown again in the same time as the massive scars left by the felling.

The fact that the fox and hounds opened and closed 3 times in the time i lived there, as well as other locals like the Lamplugh Tip, and then had to be bought by locals shows how little tourism really brings any benefits to the area. Will the pub(s) refuse to serve the workers who come to work there and may well need to stay locally ?

I can't see it reducing walker numbers. Scafell Pike is still popular despite being able to see Sellafiled most of the way up. The coast to coast path will still follow the same route and Ennerdale Bridge is the only place set up to deal with the walkers.

The only pub in the area i know that does ( did? ) well was the Kirkstile and that's in the next valley and close enough to get weekend trade from Cockermouth.
fmck - on 29 Jan 2013
In reply to UKC News:

Why say 500 people when its clear to say its at best 100! That's if you include all the small coloured objects in the picture like toddlers n pets!

This is a very biased view and to the point blatant lies! If otherwise proof?
dixmarra - on 29 Jan 2013
Spike - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to dixmarra:
Let's hope the councillors say "yes" to science and discovery of enough factual info to come a decision on whether Cumbria is suitable or not for a geological disposal facility, and "no" to bigoted nimbyism based on emotional and ill-informed attitudes which counsel no further scientific exploration.

There are arguments on both sides, let's get enough research to have the proper debate, some geologists state there isn't suitable geology and some state there is the possibility of it, no-one is saying that taking the decision to stay involved means anything re Ennerdale, this is scare mongering and not helpful.

S.
Ridge - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to biscuit:

+1 to your points.

Like you I love Ennerdale, but it's not unspoilt. Other than the Shepherds ripp.. erm, serving the Coast to Coast trade and the Youth Hostels there's very little in the way of tourism there. Would probably have a negative impact on Bradley's riding business, although that's mainly used by locals.

Sellafield hasn't scared off the Coast to Coast walkers, and Hadrians Cycleway runs right past the perimeter fence, so I can't see much impact there. The poplulation of Ennerdale Bridge has a very high proportion of people who work in the nuclear industry, so they're not necessarily as negative towards the GDF as suggested.

As you say a lot depends on how intrusive it is. There's already a significant vehicle access around the area due to the forestry operations, so I'm not sure how much more would be needed for the surveys.

Hijack - Didn't know you'd moved to Spain. You'll be pleased to know it was blowing a gale in Ennerdale last night, and waves were breaking over the footpath between the pumping station and Bowness Knott as I attempted to run on it. /hijack
biscuit - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to Ridge:

How i miss that beautiful weather ;0)

I considered having breakfast on the patio this morning as it's such a nice day. I may walk down to the coast this evening to walk the dog on the beach.

My only gripe is if it does happen how many local people will be employed. I know there was the apprentice 2000 scheme running a while ago but the vast majority of people i know who work in the nuclear industry locally are incomers - like i was.
matthew - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to UKC News:
Plenty of jobs going here if you want them :
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T130129004220.htm
Gordon Stainforth - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to UKC News:

A tweet about 2 minutes ago say councillors have turned down the site.
Gordon Stainforth - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to UKC News:

BREAKING NEWS: Cumbria County Council votes NOT to proceed with plans for an underground nuclear repository. http://bit.ly/WPhL1U
Jon Ratcliffe - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Good for CCC.
Stuart Wood - on 30 Jan 2013
Ice Nine - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Yes it was :

Copeland Yes, Allerdale No, Cumbria NO!
Frogger - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Excellent news, and the right decision

:D
Wainers44 - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to Stuart Wood: As per your earlier post, overall is this the right decision, it is tough to know??

I have a feeling the proposal wont die there, neither will the debate.
Stuart Wood - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to Wainers44:

I can honestly say I can see this from both perspectives. Tough one,

Woody
MargieB - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to UKC News: what do you think Rob Rocket since you climb in Cumbria a lot? Glad Scotland is going for greener options. Margie
In reply to MargieB: I'm afraid Scotland is going for wishful thinking, passing the buck and a fair bit of carbon. More greenwash, than genuinely green.
Ridge - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to MargieB:
> Glad Scotland is going for greener options.

You mean by shipping all the nuclear waste from Chaplecross, Dounreay, Hunterston and Torness down to England? That's one way to be green I suppose.
biscuit - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to Frogger:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> Excellent news, and the right decision
>
> :D

Why ?
Ridge - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to biscuit:
> (In reply to Ridge)
>
> I considered having breakfast on the patio this morning as it's such a nice day. I may walk down to the coast this evening to walk the dog on the beach.

No need to gloat :-(

> My only gripe is if it does happen how many local people will be employed.

Good point. In terms of local jobs, now it appears to be shelved, there'll have to be a rolling programme of shielded, secure, seismically qualified storage facilities plus all the filling and emptying equipment. Should be a fair few construction, operation, maintenance, decommissioning jobs, plus security and supply jobs. This might be better in terms of jobs, than the GDF, although a greater environmental and security risk.
MargieB - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to Ridge: Point taken, but what about future options in the face of CO2 reduction? Do we opt proportionately for more nuclear power stations as part of the energy solution or more renewables? These options can be proportionately changed depending on the pros and cons of each. Nuclear vested interests versus new avenues of energy production [and reduction]. The decisions are upon us.
Stuart Wood - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to MargieB:

I hope someone can prove me wrong on this, but isn't nuclear the only viable option?

Woody
Ridge - on 30 Jan 2013
In reply to Stuart Wood:
> (In reply to MargieB)
>
> I hope someone can prove me wrong on this, but isn't nuclear the only viable option?
>
> Woody

At present I believe so. With renewables, (except maybe tidal?), storage is the problem. Wind/Solar etc is just too intermittent to provide the baseload.
MargieB - on 31 Jan 2013
In reply to Ridge: Proportionately the reliance on nuclear to replace coal and gas is variable- we can factor in more renewable energy projects or less- and nuclear will fluctuate proportionately. I don't believe we can factor out nuclear altogther. And this decision about how much renewable we go for relative to nuclear is the hub of the debate. Its largely a technical argument based on efficiency. However, having the largest wind energy project on my own Loch Ness doorstep has forced me to consisder its relevance within whole energy provision. I've asked on forums and many believe it has a role to play. Others have said Deep Sea Wind energy isn't quite there technically, but could be, and would provide better performance than land based schemes. These are the taxing questions, I feel. As regards reduction of energy usage, for instance we have the worst housing stock in Europe as regards energy efficiency and could improve commercial building codes- my new Asda has no energy efficienct structures and it is placed in the windiest Strath!! Just one example.Margie
ads.ukclimbing.com
Dave Garnett - on 31 Jan 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to biscuit)
>
> Good point. In terms of local jobs, now it appears to be shelved, there'll have to be a rolling programme of shielded, secure, seismically qualified storage facilities plus all the filling and emptying equipment.

Yes, it seemed a bit odd to me that the council spokesman who announced the decision on R4 seemed quite happy to store nuclear waste on the surface, because apparently this didn't put people off the area, but didn't want any of it put underground since this would blight the area.

Couldn't help noticing that he didn't sound very local either.
summo on 31 Jan 2013
In reply to UKC News: logically if in the long term the underground storage area goes to another part of the country, part of the reprocessing could move etc. they are potential turning away employment for the next generation. I think they listened to a small local voice and ignored the more important issues. The problem isn't solved, it's not gone away... etc.
Spike - on 31 Jan 2013
In reply to Ice Nine:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> Yes it was :
>
> Copeland Yes, Allerdale No, Cumbria NO!

for accuracy both Allerdale and Copeland voted yes, it was only Cumbria County who votes No.

Both Allerdale and Copeland Council leaders are now seeking a meeting with Central Government for clarification on how they may continue in the process the reasons other posters identify : namely - the waste is currently stored above ground and the next stage of the process was to determine whether, based on evidence gathered, there was suitable geology (as suggested by British Geological Survey, but disagreed with by some other geologists).

This week Cumbria Toursim reported there was no evidence to indicate firmly whether any blight might arise from a potential repository - never mind a stage 4 survey. http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/impact-of-nuclear-dump-on-cumbria-s-tourism-inconclusive-1.1030972...

I don't know whether Cumbria is suitable or not for a repository but it would have been good to find out whether the geology was suited and whether it would be safe. I'd like to have based my "opinion" on facts rather than emotion.

People talk of other power suplies but please bear in mind that much of the waste we are talking about dealing with is a consequence of the nation's decision in the 30s and 40s to go for a nuclear bomb, to protect the UK. I don't agree or diagree with that decision because I wasn't there in times of the second World War, but people must understand that this was society's decision at that time (or government's decision at that time), the wastes from subsequent power generation are also there but if we hand't gone for the nuclear weapon we would very likely have taken some different science approaches to the type of nuclear reactors and fuels than we would have done in the light of the aim being generating material suitable for bombs.

For power stations now, the wastes to be generated are considered, quite rightly, even before they are built.

Will be interesting to see what our society decides to do with the existing wastes from its nuclear weapon (and power) heritage - leave in over ground facilities in West Cumbria (and carry on bringing waste in there from Scotland and Wales because they don't want it in their locations) or move it somewhere else, perhaps underground, safer for the longer term.

In Finland they are well on the way to building their respository, communities were happy to have the site located near them, in fact two communities vied to have the site in their location. We need to look at what they did and learn from it. This doesn't suggest Cumbria is the right location but it does mean that we, in society have to accept we need enough information to make the decision - not just over-react on the basis of poor knowledge and strong emotion.

Sorry for Wall of Text
S

PS I live, climb, run, bike, bring up a family in West Cumbria but do not work in the nuclear industry
terrarob on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to UKC News: West Cumbria in general is one of the worst places to build anything industrial that has the potential for harm if something leaks!

I am a geology graduate and one of my old lecturers was on the geological panel when the last major storage facility was upgraded/build at Sellafield. The panel said don't build in West Cumbria, there are still active fault systems in the area from the old Scafell Complex and this is underlain in areas by sandstones, shingles and gravels, i.e. if anything leaks it is straight out into the Irish Sea!

The best place to put radioactive waste is within naturally radioactive rock, e.g. a big solid granite! The major recommendations were areas of Scotland, Dartmoor or Exmoor, however, the political decision was taken to go with Sellafield as the government already own the site, so it would be cheaper, completely ignoring all advice given! This is also true of other sites along the South Coast that store radioactive waste!

So going forward...who knows, we need a nuclear storage facility, but the balancing act is between, cost, geological suitability, local opposition, etc...
MargieB - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to robric: That's interesting. So if a future energy policy were to go for a high proportion of nuclear as opposed to renewables, Scotland is right in line geologically for a nuclear dump. So, that confirms me in my views of going towards a higher proportion of renewables in our future energy mix. MCofS has objected to Stronelairg Wind Farm,{Largest contribution so far to renewable energy}. Is this wise?
terrarob on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to MargieB: That is the question! Renewables, particularly wind, wave and solar are not voluminous or reliable enough to supply all our power but no-one wants to deal with the waste from other fuel sources...who knows? Maybe the ministers in power who have no experience or background in the department which they work!
a13x - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to UKC News:

Why don't we bury all our nuclear waste somewhere in the South East, then we aren't spoiling anything anyway? Honestly though, why does it have to go somewhere nice when we have loads of places which are already ruined?
Dauphin - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to UKC News:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117

I know nothing about the nuclear industry but this does seem an absolutely staggering sum of money for cleaning stuff and stacking it away from other stuff. Anyone in the know care to explain how this has cost so much without getting completed. Is the nuclear industry yet another milk the public purse PPI deal of epic proportions albeit with state security non disclosure slapped all over it?

D
Radioactiveman - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Dauphin:

I guess your comment "I know nothing about the nuclear industry" sums up your next statement of "cleaning stuff and stacking it away" There is a little bit more to it than that.

The fuel is highly radioactive.(actually only the spent part which needs seperating from reusabel parts in a chemical process)

If you gave it a cuddle you would receive a fatal dose within a very short time, no idea of the exact time as I dont work at sellafield so dont know the doserates.

Hence anything highly radioactive has to be handled remotely usualy in sealed or contained facilities.

Plenty to be read about sellafield,the size of the site,the difficulties encountered etc. Most of the issued seems to come from the fact that when the nuclear arms race/early power generation they hadnt really considered fully what to do with the waste.

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

http://www.nda.gov.uk/sites/sellafield/


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