Chinese Seek Greater Say In UK Nuclear Plants 148
mdsolar writes in with news about negotiations between the Chinese and the UK over nuclear power plant investments. "The state-owned Chinese nuclear group that is in talks to invest in Britain's new nuclear program wants greater operational control of any new plants it finances, potentially creating a national security headache for the government. China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), is in talks with EDF of France on sharing the cost of building a new plant at Hinkley Point, Somerset, which has an estimated price tag of £14bn. But CGN has made it clear to EDF that it will only proceed if it is given more of a say in running other plants the two companies build together in the UK, according to people familiar with the talks."
Does the UK get any say? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does the UK get any say? (Score:5, Funny)
Does the UK get any say?
It's a time-honored tradition that the developing country gets screwed by the rich foreign investors. ;-) So no, that would be ridiculous and unprecedented.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the closeness of France and the prevailing wind direction I suspect the French wouldn't like a reactor in Britain to go bang.
I wouldn't trust the tiddlies with a firecracker.
Re: (Score:3)
You have to understand the British politician's mentality when it comes to foreign ownership and control. As long as there are "safeguards" of some kind, like an ineffective and puny regulator or a written promise not to be evil, everything is fine. In the short term some people in the City make loads of money and by the time it all goes wrong you will have long since retired to a nice board-level position in the industry and a maybe peerage on the side.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite. Just ask the Germans. Their eco-hippies persuaded their government about 10 years ago to begin the phase-out of nuclear power because it's "dirty, dangerous and expensive." The solution was more efficient turbines in conventional gas stations and lots of wind turbines.
I believe the French nuclear generator has done very well out of this arrangement...
Re: (Score:2)
And you forgot to add, buying electricity because they were unable to produce it themselves.Ecoenergy needs to be part of the energy matrix, along with nuclear and even fossil fuels depending on the situation. When fossil fuels do run out then you can decide what to do, but right now you can reduce your consumption, not just stop using them altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
And you forgot to add, buying electricity because they were unable to produce it themselves.
I thought that was obvious :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting to see that now the tables are reversed and the UK is now being exploited by Imperial China.
Re:Does the UK get any say? (Score:5, Insightful)
China does have a fair point here, and that's speaking as a UK citizen, and not trying to play the devil's advocate. The UK has had a history of terrible management in pseudo-private sector enterprises since the 1960s, from British Leyland to British Rail.
Nuclear power in the UK has, so far, been a loss-making enterprise, kept afloat only by government subsidies, and looks set to continue in this way. If I was any overseas investor looking to protect my money, China included, I'd want to make damn sure my investment wasn't just being used to reduce the UK's subsidy.
Re:Does the UK get any say? (Score:5, Insightful)
What reason exactly would China want to have control? To reduce costs, of course. There is no other reason. And this will logically lead to limiting the government's oversight ability. The UK would be fucking idiots if they agreed to this. It would be like letting the US set the safety standards for drilling in the North Sea because Exxon was financing a rig. Fuck that!
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just stand over here on the U.S. East coast praying for West winds. I do not want to be covered in radioactive melamine.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If China didn't have such an atrocious safety record:
http://inventorspot.com/articles/economic_boom_7_things_china_unexpectedly_explode
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2009/06/29/shanghai-building-collapses-nearly-intact/
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-bridge-collapses-2012-8?op=1 "Look At All The Major Chinese Bridges That Have Collapsed In The Recent Years"
http://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/safetyhealth/recallswithdrawals/ucm129575.htm (pet food tainted by melamine)
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/re
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But the previous poster does have a point. Things are getting better in China regarding quality, but still the culture is simply not there when it comes to ensuring the basic safety of some things. And the punishments are a joke when companies get caught, since they will always get this random guy instead of just making the company pay tons of money in damages.
Re:Does the UK get any say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you still want no say in operation when safety measure are cut to protect your 'investment'? Why is Chinese government* even allowed to operate a nuclear plant in the UK?
*Don't fool yourself, every Chinese corporation is a branch of the CCP. And this is not a 'racist' rant against China, I consider American corporation to also be a branch of the U.S. government. Ask Edward Snowden about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you still want no say in operation when safety measure are cut to protect your 'investment'?
I would like people with some understanding of the job at hand to have a say. However, the vast vast majority has _no_ understanding of this stuff, react to what the papers/environmentalists/whoever say, and their voices drown out those who know what they're talking about. So my only conclusion is that no, maybe the public shouldn't have a say - it should be down to the experts. The trick there, unfortunately, is how to ensure that decisions are made by neutral experts rather than people with a vested fi
Re: (Score:2)
Google 'Short Term Operating Reserve' , the lights will be kept on using thousands of back up diesel generators. Don Quiote must be spinning in his grave.
It is pretty easy to have a situation where the emergency diesels are insufficient. Connecticut has reached that point in 2 of the last 7 years due to very hot summers. No new power stations, several retirements, and the bulk of the power comes from Ontario/New Brunswick. When the high voltage lines from Canada get saturated, there isn't enough power to go around and large customers start getting calls telling them to shut down operations.
The emergency units have no emissions controls and are therefore
Re: (Score:2)
Have you considered incorporating then? If what you say is true, then doing so suddenly gets you a whole lot more power.
Unless, of course, corporations are neither the government nor any significant power - which is of course the case.
That said, money talks. So naturally if you have a lot of it, even if you aren't a corporation, you will have significant power.
Re:Does the UK get any say? (Score:5, Interesting)
yes. many people are unaware of the fact that these major power plants - coal, gas, oil, nuclear - are only efficient when they are at maximum capacity. if you shut them off for any reason (and this can be done fairly quickly), getting them back up to temperature can take *weeks*.
so any investor is going to want guarantees that the power plant in which they're to be investing billions will provide a guaranteed return on investment. even in cases where there's complete catastrophic failure [hey, what's insurance for, huh?]
btw as an off-topic aside, the reason why wind power is a failure even before it becomes popular [which it won't] is because its power provision is completely arbitrary. in fact, it's not very well-known but the wind systems in scotland where i used to live were heavily subsidised. the UK Govt pays them 25 thousand pounds A MONTH to NOT run them. in fact, as they're motors as well as generators, when it's not windy enough, from what i hear they're actually POWERED to make them LOOK like they're generating electricity, so that people don't wonder why they're not running.
wind turbines. only operational at between 8m/sec (about 24mph) and 24m/sec (about 70mph). below that there's not enough wind to make them turn. above that they're dangerous (one blew up in wind-speeds of 150mph last year - made a great photo in the local scottish paper). and yet people insist on commissioning wind-turbines based on a 100% operational capacity.
Re: (Score:3)
I have fun watching http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk, especially how the gas dial jumps up and down trying to follow the wind.
Re:Does the UK get any say? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, gas can be spun up in less than an hour. A lot of coal/oil plants have gas turbines on them that run during start-up for this very reason. Nuclear, on the other hand, basically can't be turned off. It's why your electricity is cheaper at night: stops the network becoming unstable from too much generation with no draw.
Strictly speaking the national grid, an independent private company who you would be perfectly free to set up a competitor to, pays them not to run. This is not unique to wind power, as balancing the load/generation across the network often requires plants of all varieties to be shut down at which point the plant owner is paid some proportion of the profits they would have expected to gain from running the plant to get them to turn it off.
That was a plot line from the sitcom "Twenty Twelve", not reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear, on the other hand, basically can't be turned off.
You can insert the control rods which will pretty quickly reduce or stop the fission. Of course you still have decay heat (iirc about 10%) so the plant isn't going to be completely "off" but it's certainly going to be producing a lot less than before you inserted them.
Of course just because you can turn something off doesn't mean you want to. The fuel is a pretty minor part of the cost of running a nuclear plant. So once you have paid for all those construction costs and paid for the salaries of those runni
Re: (Score:3)
The issue for nuclear is actually that you can't bring it back up for some time once you reduce power without the risk of unstable operation. After a full shutdown it will be 24 to 48 hours before you can bring it back up. The issue is build up of reaction poisons known as an "Iodine pit" [wikipedia.org]. In theory you can burn past it, but in practice, that can give you a Chernobyl.
Re: (Score:2)
It is worth mentioning that this issue is exclusive to solid fuel reactors. With fluid fuel, the problematic gasses just bubble out, and require no special attention. There are no safety issues with rapidly cycling a LFTR or other molten salt reactor. In practice, they will only be limited by how fast the turbine can spin up and down, and the reaction will follow suit.
Re: (Score:2)
yes. many people are unaware of the fact that these major power plants - coal, gas, oil, nuclear - are only efficient when they are at maximum capacity. if you shut them off for any reason (and this can be done fairly quickly), getting them back up to temperature can take *weeks*.
While I agree that operating base load plants such as nukes at max capacity is best; a nuke startup from cold shutdown to 100% can be done in a few days or less.
Re: (Score:2)
from what i hear they're actually POWERED to make them LOOK like they're generating electricity
That was a plot from a TV sitcom. You have discredited your entire argument by proving your ignorance of the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind power needs a good storage buffer, but that's rarely included.
Re: (Score:3)
How in hell does a power generation facility lose money? Is that even possible? You generate power and sell it at a rate that guarantees a profit. Where is the risk?
Re: (Score:2)
What happens if you can't sell electricity at a high enough rate to pay back your investment?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a monopoly. You just raise the rate. It's done all the time. Power companies are the safest investment ever. They don't make incredible profit but it's super stable.
Re:Does the UK get any say? (Score:4, Informative)
There are generating companies, retailing companies and consumers. There is some overlap. There is no monopoly here. Cartel - maybe.
Fucking DeVry grads... (Score:2)
Even a monopoly can't force you to buy. People will switch to alternative sources. They'll make their own. Where neither of those is feasible they'll be very frugal. In the last resort, the people can change the government.
In short, it's not guaranteed that at any price the monopolist sets the market demand will be sufficient for it to make a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
"In short, it's not guaranteed that at any price the monopolist sets the market demand will be sufficient for it to make a profit."
True there still a demand curve with a monopoly, but the profitability (and pain to the buyers) is susbstantially above a competitive market .
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear plants provide base load. They keep running and sell electricity at whatever the going rate is.
Re: (Score:2)
Electricity can't exactly be put in a warehouse.
Sure it can.
(you can pump water uphill, etc., during the periods of low demand...)
Re: (Score:2)
The really simplified answer is that they're very expensive to build, very expensive to knock down and ONR, the UK nuclear regulator, requires the plant operator to set aside some of the money they make to cover the knocking down costs.
In addition, most nuclear plants don't operate for their full life expectancy, so their turnover often doesn't cover the cost of building and decommissioning.
Re: (Score:2)
EDF were demanding guaranteed pricing even if the price of other forms of electricity became cheaper than nuclear and suddenly they were unable to sell their full capacity. It seems that they are anticipating renewables pricing them out of the market, which isn't unrealistic if Scotland reaches its 2020 goal.
I imagine the Chinese angle is that they want the ability to reduce costs in order to increase profits. That should be sounding alarm bells, but unfortunately what most politicians will be hearing is "i
Re:Does the UK get any say? (Score:4, Interesting)
To specifically address your first point, State run Chinese enterprises in the 1960s weren't doing much better. Many state run Chinese firms today still require state subsidies to operate.
What's more concerning is the current climate in which everything has to be privatised. There are some areas where the free-market performs sufficiently worse than than a controlled economy. Privatisation of rail in the UK, for example, privatised profits while the state still needs to subsidise the infrastructure. I'm sure if the current trends continue, this is exactly what's going to happen with the NHS. In the end, the public gets shafted.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh don't start me on the trains. I used to moan in disgust at the cost of train fares, only to add shock to insult when I heard the price would be double without subsidy. Private my arse.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the BBC [bbc.co.uk], the income would need to be twice the current price per megawatt-hour (£45/MWhr), so whoever runs it, it probably won't be cost effective.
Today, electricity sells on the wholesale market for about £45 per megawatt-hour (MwH). But anything under £90 a MwH would see Hinkley lose money
Don't get me wrong, I think we need some kind of reliable power production capability and I think nuclear meets that criteria without having to rely on fossil fuels. We just have to keep Australia on side for the fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
People thought British Rail was badly managed, but now they have seen just how poorly private companies run the system and how much they charge for using it that view has been re-evaluated.
Re: (Score:2)
Wheels are turning, China; wheels are turning. [smbc-comics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, I am British (English to be more specific).
Yup, that's unfortunate.
My comisserations.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for your sympathy - on the bright side, we get to put 'u' in random words (e.g. colour) and can use 's' instead of 'z' when we want to.
Re: (Score:3)
At least if it's China that causes a meltdown then we'll be free to discuss it without having terrorist laws used against us.
No, they'll just send you to prison when you see an infrastructure project collapse due to faulty materials [homelandse...wswire.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Oh get fucked, theres nothing technically inferior about the Chinese, most of the world could learn something from them.
Re:Does the UK get any say? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm from another European country. Our electricity used to be supplied by a State-owned company. A few decades ago, the neoliberals in the European Union told the neoliberals in my government that states shouldn't have a presence in the economy, because it goes against the Holy Dogmas of His Sanctity the Free Market. So the company was split in shares and privatised.
The pundits and politicians on TV always told us that the whole purpose was to create "competition". This would magically drop the costs to the consumer and bring better service, blah, blah, blah. 20 years gone by, and instead of buying electricity from a state company, we buy it from a bullyish private-owned monopolistic behemoth. The only "advantage" we got from the privatisation were skyrocketing prices. And a lot less money going into the State coffers to be reinvested in infrastructure, or education, or health care, whatever. Instead, it's being funnelled to private pockets, to be "reinvested" in yachts, whores and coke. Not only our state is not taking any money from the company, it pays it huge rents for all kinds of bullshit services, like "guaranteed power" and whatever.
It seems pretty obvious to any sane person what was going to happen. I mean, it's electricity. What competition can you get from that? I get home, I flick a switch, lights are on. I don't want to think about it, I don't even care who the fuck supplies my electricity. I don't even understand the business model. What happens if I change supplier? Does a guy come to my apartment with a huge reel of cable and sets up a direct connection to a power plant? My country is fucking tiny! What kind competition is possible?
Recently a Chinese company, detained 100% by the Chinese State, came and bought a big participation in the electricity company, getting to control it. And, voilà! According to the neoliberals, our State can't own our companies. But apparently, the Chinese State can! So, one of the most critical and strategic sectors in our economy is owned by a foreign country, and we're their bitches, now. I can't make up my mind if it's better or worse to be the bitch of private corporations but, at least, it would be less hypocritical.
Now they're seeking to privatise water. Go ahead. What can possibly go wrong?
Re:Does the UK get any say? (Score:4, Funny)
Yachts, whores and coke?
That's job creation, my friend. Do you know what kind of er, stimulus, those things you named gives to manufacturing, transportation and medicine?
Re: (Score:2)
You just described what's happening in New Zealand. Except that even when the government owned it, we got skyrocketing power prices (though the one private power company said "power needs to cost more. The state owned power companies are artificially keeping prices down").
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the people that it's responsible to, the shareholders.
It's not as if they lie about this.
Re: (Score:2)
No, China is buying those, not having the US invest in them. The Chinese government is not that stupid.
US AND NOW UK OWNED BY CHINA !! (Score:1)
All your power plants are belong to us ... belong to CN !!
Re: (Score:3)
Really. If I had to choose between the French and the Chinese I'm not sure which I'd pick.
Re: (Score:2)
Go with the French. De Gaulle is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
France and China surprisingly share some political attributes: old nations, with strong central government that are huge industrial actors and strategists. I guess it helps a lot for getting involved into expensive, long term, and danerous stuff such as nuclear power.
But the industrial-involved government trend has been declining in France, as EU rules forbid governments from doing anything with the economy, except perhaps using taxpayers money to save banks.
Re: (Score:2)
The strange bit is EDF is French... so the plants are already run by a foreign company, but the fact it's China makes it (seem?) much scarier.
Of course we've already handed off our telecoms infrastructure to them already (Huawei) so the process has already begun.
Because France has to care about a Nuclear disaster in the country right next to them. The UK is not right next door to China. Also, France has a better track record on such things.
And it begins.. (Score:1)
Bow down to your... fuck off China you'll only ever be given "cosmetic" control of such a vital asset, that applies to however much money you pour in.
Re: (Score:2)
You think ?
The UK was and is more than happy to give its vital infrastructure to outside interests, which seems a little odd. Meanwhile in Ireland Wind farms are being built not for the Irish Market but to sell to the UK.
So here we have two countries where electricity production is an asset to one country and a liability to the other.
which is the better course of action?
Re: (Score:2)
We can limit Chinese, or any other country's, influence or control over whatever we want and we'll pay a price for doing so. How much money are we really willing to spend, as a premium, to avoid Chinese involvement? Do we put all Chinese hardware and software on a banned list for British government or government contractors?
We've got American nuclear bombs on UK soil alongside American controls means to deploy them.
Re: (Score:2)
We've got American nuclear bombs on UK soil alongside American controls means to deploy them. Do we really trust them that much more given the crap they get up to these days? Including spying on us and the rest of the EU?
Trust Americans to what, not nuke somebody you don't want to nuke? Whatever you think of ill conceived foreign ventures (in which the UK has generally been a partner, for reasons that escape me), nukes aren't likely.
As for spying, don't get sanctimonious. Ever hear of ECHELON. not to mention more recent revelations?
Without animosity though, I'll say that if you don't want US nukes on your soil, complain to your government. Tell them to act like a sovereign country. New Zealand did, and I haven't heard of an
Re: (Score:2)
Punishment was swift in the form of no more pure NSA sigint. The other part of that was a hint that the US would become active in intelligence work in NZ as more punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. NZ is a member of Five Eyes and has just as much access as the US. Not that this is a good thing.
Now, NZ was excluded for quite some time from joint military activities, and to this day isn't allowed to berth warships (hah!) at Pearl Harbour during the few we're allowed to attend...
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10363782 [nzherald.co.nz]
"US would no longer feel any inhibition in conducting intelligence gathering operations against us. [NZ]""
UN diplomatic communications, Argentine naval intelligence, Egypt, Japan, the Philippines, Pacific Island nations, France, Vietnam, the Soviets, North Korea, East Germany, Laotia and South Africa are also listed.
Loss of "Joint military activities" was the pub
Re: (Score:2)
I licked my chops.
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to nuclear plants on your own soil, I suggest "whatever it takes".
Devious (Score:5, Funny)
So, China pretend to integrate themselves into the international community, then they want a say in how Hinkley Point "C" runs, then they start a meltdown which makes the surrounding area uninhabitable. The UK economy crumbles due to the loss of Cheddar, Somerset Cider and Glastonbury hippies doing face-painting. The Chinese buy up the rest of the UK, but due to their lack of economic know-how forget that the UK can't buy the stuff they produce, so they put down the whole episode as a bad learning experience.
The worst bit, I'm left drinking Suffolk cider and eating Wensleydale. I'm happy about the lack of face-painting facilities though.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK economy crumbles due to the loss of Cheddar [and} Somerset Cider
Don't be silly, that would imply the UK actually made something these days, These days we offer services
Glastonbury hippies doing face-painting
That's the thing, and "silicon roundabout" and "financial services".
(disclaimer) I work as an engineer in the UK so no need to shout at me
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly, that would imply the UK actually made something these days, These days we offer services
We do. Like the GP said, Cheddar and Cider.
Strangely, it seems our best cheese - and for that matter cider - is made by people who have a proud tradition - stretching back many generations - of marrying their cousins.
Re: (Score:2)
Something licked my chops.
It really depends. (Score:2)
Yes, I RTFA and they are nigh devoid of requisite detail.
No doubt there would be legitimate concerns if "greater operational control" meant something like "allow us to perform Chernobyl-like experiments with the reactor".
However, my guess is that they are demanding this control to protect their £billion investment. Nuclear power plant operators always have a political sword of Damocles over their heads. If anything, it is in their interest to operate safely to avoid having their license revoked and th
Re:It really depends. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too. I can't blame the Chinese here, if I was buying the plant I'd want to run it too.
Isn't that the same as saying no? (Score:2)
Re:Isn't that the same as saying no? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the kind of universe where the one who pays for something also gets a say in it. But of course, the UK is free to pick up the tab in their stead and pony up the needed investment.
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about the French, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the Civil Nuclear Constabulary [police.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Isn't that the same as saying no? (Score:5, Funny)
And who do you think the UK trusts more, France or China?
[Hacker and Sir Humphrey are taling about the bomb ...]
Hacker: Anyway, the Americans will always protect us from the Russians, won't they?
Sir Humphrey: Russians? Who's talking about the Russians?
Hacker: Well, the independent deterrent.
Sir Humphrey: It's to protect us against the French!
Hacker: The French?! But that's astounding!
Sir Humphrey: Why?
Hacker: Well they're our allies, our partners.
Sir Humphrey: Well, they are now, but they've been our enemies for the most of the past 900 years. If they've got the bomb, we must have the bomb!
Hacker: If it's for the French, of course, that's different. Makes a lot of sense.
Sir Humphrey: Yes. Can't trust the Frogs.
Hacker: You can say that again!
Thirty+ year old "secrets"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinshan_Nuclear_Power_Plant [wikipedia.org] seems to be ~95% domestic 1991 after "1970, China issued its first nuclear power plan".
Like the nuclear bomb in China they seem to have done it very smart - wait, watch, learn, build local when ready.
Now they have a global brand vision, banking and sales to back up the nuclear 'export' end.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yikes! (Score:2)
EPR's produce 1650 MWe, so this plant will produce 3.3 GWp. The price is put at "£14bn", that's 21.8 bU$, or about 6.6 USD a watt. And that's at *an existing site*. New sites would be much more expensive due to paperwork delays.
Clearly the nuclear renaissance estimates of $4.6 are too low, as this is the cheapest plant I've seen recently and it's still over $6. Darlington B was $8.25 (at least), Vogtle 3&4 are around $7.25, and Crystal River 6 came in around $11.
For those new to this, the price of
Re: (Score:2)
> Isn't the comparison a bit unfair though
No. The rest of the costs you mention are factored in through the OPEX lines, which add little on either the nuke or non-nuke side. In the case of nukes, the fuel costs are small but the decom costs are higher. In the case of NG the fuel costs are higher but the decom costs are low (not zero, as you seem to imply).
All estimates I've seen on real market costs for CO2 would not upset this balance much, NG would still be the lowest cost option, at least in the US. Y
Ah the Chinese (Score:3)
Brought to you by the John Kerry school of political history.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the Chinese and Prince Philip feel practically the same family.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure the Chinese and Prince Philip feel practically the same family.
Good point - after all he's a Greek who married into a German family with a lot of influence in the UK...
a lot to do with construction plans? (Score:3, Interesting)
I assume a lot of the kerfuffle is the Chinese investor wanting to have a say over how engineering, procurement, and construction is sourced--specifically they would want a good portion of the investment in services and jobs to go to China.
There is an easy solution (Score:1, Offtopic)
Invest in offshore wind power and water power.
It might sound silly, but it is much more cost effective than nuclear power.
Look at how much damage the Fukushima has already cost TEPCO and the Japanese government.
And it is not over yet: Fukushima's Radioactive Plume Could Reach U.S. Waters By 2014 [huffingtonpost.com]
Everybody get are "fair" share.
Just one of these accidents every twenty years and it is goodbye turnover.
Subsidies (Score:2, Troll)
No mention in the summary of the massive subsidies the British tax payer would have to pay to build maintain and close these costly Chinese made disasters waiting to happen.
Nuclear power: leaks show new EU push | Environment | The ... [google.com]
Ya think? (Score:2)
potentially creating a national security headache for the government.
The Chinese, having been unable to deliver nuclear weapons via ICBMs, have now cleared that hurdle --- place the nuclear weapons within the sovereign state of the enemy with a remote control capability to blow it up at any time. What more could China ask for?
Re: (Score:2)
do you realize how very low the yield of a nuclear explosion from a reactor is? My textbook "Nuclear Engineering - Theory and Technology of Commercial Nuclear Power, 2nd Edition" gives an answer for typical civilian reactor on page 157, about 0.25 kiloton. Meanwhile, the Chinese have five megaton thermonuclear weapons on their ICBM. Conclusion, your posited scenario is silly in the extreme.
This what the Renaissance looks like (Score:2)
Hem! (Score:2)
Some seem's
Re: (Score:2)
Addendum: Actor caloob : DoomImp