Council welcomes report endorsing nuclear community benefits (From Bridgwater Mercury)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting MERCURY NEWS to 80360 or email us
Council welcomes report endorsing nuclear community benefits
11:14am Monday 4th March 2013 in News By Kirsty James
Hinkley Point C
COUNCIL bosses have welcomed a report endorsing benefits for communities hosting nuclear power projects.
A report published this week by MPs on the Energy and Climate Change Committee recommended Community Benefits should be extended to new nuclear power projects, such as Hinkley Point C.
The benefits are currently only available to renewable energy projects, but this could be extended to nuclear projects through retention of business rates.
Councillor Duncan McGinty, leader of Sedgemoor District Council, said: “Sedgemoor has championed Community Benefit Contributions as an important mechanism to ensure communities around Hinkley Point receive fair and reasonable benefits in recognition of the burden of hosting nationally beneficial energy infrastructure.”
MPs on the Energy and Climate Change Committee visited the Hinkley site last November and communities who will be affected.
Speaking about the report, Tim Yeo MP, chair of the committee, said: “Communities hosting renewable energy projects have been promised benefits. Those hosting new nuclear should also be entitled to benefits.”
The committee called on the Government to consider providing additional forms of community benefit during the construction period of a nuclear project, on top of the standard section 106 planning funding.
Comments(20)
windswept and interesting
says...
9:20pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Bridgy old Boy
says...
7:37am Tue 5 Mar 13
Samej1
says...
8:06am Tue 5 Mar 13
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/business-21654
697
(Yes, lots of people have told him it's not in Leicestershire!)
PCAH
says...
2:13pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Samej1
says...
2:47pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Or are we more important than the birds, animals and aquatic life?
A great quote from Grey Owl:
"Remember, you belong to nature
not it to you."
Blue Owl
says...
3:02pm Tue 5 Mar 13
PCAH wrote:There are several inaccuracies in this
There would be no community benefits from Hinkley C. If it went ahead spent fuel would be stored on site for thousands of years at risk of overheating and explosion. Somerset councillors need to understand that all our coastal communities have been paying the price for Hinkley A and B since 1965. Routine and accidental discharges of poisonous radioactive gases have caused premature deaths and widespread cancers since 1965. Currently the installation of vents into the Magnox reactors is causing premature deaths from heart attacks, strokes and brain tumours. Heritable genetic mutations are now causing a huge increase in perinatal mortality and birth defects into second and third generations. Another reason for government pushing Hinkley C is that they want the proposed two experimental French EPR reactors to burn MOX fuel to reduce the plutonium stocks at Sellafield. MOX spent fuel and waste is even more radioactive than the legacy waste. If councillors could make the time to go to the Stop Hinkley website they could read all the published epidemiological studies confirming that nuclear is a total disaster from first build to last waste. Hinkley C would destroy what is left of Somerset tourism. Councillors have one last chance to understand that they must rule out Hinkley C and encourage wind and solar farms on the Hinkley site and support building the Severn Barrage. This would provide safe jobs for Somerset workers, not kill anyone and provide more electricity for twice the lifetime of three nuclear sites, with no waste.
Posted Comment.
The first being the storage for thousands of years @ Hinkley ....
There are plans to store the Decommisioned spent Station B fuel rods on the site in newly constructed tanks, whilst the Long Term Solution to Build A Nuclear Repository somewhere, either in this Country or elsewhere, this is still on the Drawing board @ this stage.This announce ment from the Government, will hopefully give similar settlement figures to the Community. As Sellafield received some 15 years ago, which was in the Region of a one off lump sum, £10 Million, and a further 1 1/2m
Annually......since BNF Operated the Nuclear Industry then.
So with inflation, today that could be
£25 million, with an Annual payment of a further £2.5 Million, to the Community for the future storage of Fuel rods on Hinkley Site.....This is what SDC Officers and indeed Leader,
Cllr Duncan Mc Ginty and Chief Exec Kerry Richards, have been fighting for along with West Somerset District Council, and SCC. Supported by Crossparty Members on all Council.
Then there is the Statement, referring to early premature deaths, and widespread cancers, brain Tumours and heart attacks and strokes. Non of which can be attributed to Nuclear Production @ Hinkley Site. A , B, or
Any other Site around the Country.
I do not agree with PCAH that wind farms, and the Severn Barrage would be an alternative supply to Nuclear Energy, They can contribute, and will only produce up to 10% Energy Production. At the Best Output ratings.
The only thing that would put the icing on this News, re the Community Benefit fund, would be a re-think on the Bridgwater By-Pass, which was deemed to be a requirement 15- 20 years ago, when Hinkley C was first proposed. How can it not be a requirement Now, with the increased
Traffic around the Region now.. Now that would be welcomed by all.
The Barrage will if ever built be 20 years before being implemented, if the Greenies, who are more concerned about the rise in water level by 4-6 inches, effecting water beetles and sand larvae, bird habitat etc.
What about the residents of Somerset, the Human Population being considered ahead of insects. You really are not in touch with the real world.
We need nuclear reactors, if the consent is'nt given shortly, we will not have enough electricity generation for the future......
Do we really want to go back to the Power Cuts of the 1950's &1960 s, I remember them well as a child, Candle, sitting in the dark, for hours.
On a regular basis.
Do we really want to go back there !!
Regards David L Preece
Blue-Owl
.
Blue Owl
says...
3:13pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Samej1 wrote:Samje1
I find it highly amusing that the anti-HPC brigade are fully in favour of a scheme that would irrecoverably damage a unique natural environment, namely the Severn estuary and proposed barrage.
Or are we more important than the birds, animals and aquatic life?
A great quote from Grey Owl:
"Remember, you belong to nature
not it to you."
Me thinks you misquote Blue-Owl, but hey that's ok, we all are fallable, unless " Grey Owl" is another contributor, not a jibe at myself, I apologised for an error attributing a rebuff to V1234 last week.
But I'm sure BaldCarl will be straight in , like a rat up the perverbial drainpipe, with a response. Slagging off my posts
Today in response to the Scare Mongering Post by PCAH, which probably are associated to Bridgwater ( Backward ) Forward Members, they must be against Hinkley, as they oppose everything else, that is positive, for our Region and Town of Bridgwater.
Blue- Owl
Alex@SDA
says...
8:29pm Tue 5 Mar 13
united wrote:Hinkley C would happen to come within the West Somerset Council jurisdiction.
Hinkley point is in West Somerset, so surely all business rates go there and not Sedgemoor?
However in the case of Commercial or "extreme business rates" the money goes to central Government, than a grant is paid to the appropriate authority. in the Case of WSC, Hinkley & Butlins. Watchet paper mill is inconsequential by comparison.
Of course as per the norm in these cases, not all the money goes back to the relevant authority. This was a new regime introduced several years ago, can't remember who by, but I'm sure someone will update me.
Re the Traffic and a potential by-pass from Dunball to the Hinkley Road, as per Bridgy old Boy. Well documented, and advocated by the Barnes report in 1989. Yet EdF remain in denial. They built a nice one in Flamanville though.
Now Sizewell are pushing for a by-pass, and they will no doubt get nowhere as well.
Now.... to some it may appear to pain me to say this, but thanks to Blue Owl for his letter in last weeks Mercury re the potential gridlock. Also well done that man for:- 1) Getting it published. 2) For managing to get a letter in print that didn't seem to be heavily reduced by the letters editor (I use that term loosely)
Alex
BaldCarl2
says...
11:49pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Look out for a government U turn on they nuclear policy in the next couple of weeks.
Only me 123!
says...
5:35pm Wed 6 Mar 13
BaldCarl2 wrote:Well let’s just hope they don't U-turn on this one or you'll shortly (relatively) be adding your comments by candle light.
We can't even afford to build Hinkley C.
Look out for a government U turn on they nuclear policy in the next couple of weeks.
Dr. Lewis Beltgun
says...
12:01pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Only me 123!
says...
12:39pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Dr. Lewis Beltgun wrote:Do grow up.You sound like the type of campaigner who's done very little and rarely travels anywhere let alone Three mile island(I have) so your comments will do very little to help your anti-everything campaign.
Having recently completed an international fact-finding tour of Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, I can confidently state that the building of Hinkley C poses no health risks whatsoever. And, while I cannot comment community benefits, my newly-developed healthy green glow and three extra arms are proving most useful.
Dr. Lewis Beltgun
says...
4:09pm Thu 7 Mar 13
BaldCarl2
says...
7:48pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Dr. Lewis Beltgun wrote:Funny
Why, on the contrary -- I couldn't be more pro-nuclear! I long for the day when all Sedgemoor writhes beneath the plutonium hooves of the atomic supermen!
Deep Sea Isopod
says...
7:03am Fri 8 Mar 13
So, how many deaths have been caused by accidents at nuclear power plants in the past 60 years?
NONE!
How many deaths have been caused by the wind turbines in the past 15 years? 133 fatalities involving wind turbines.
There have been many reports of structural and blade failure. And in the U.S. alone, there have been 110 incidents of fire.
In Germany there have been nearly 1,000 reports of ice being thrown from the blades.
Now look at Fukushima. It wasn't designed to withstand an earthquake of that magnitude and tsunami of that size.
When the earthquake hit, and the building suffered damage, the back up systems kicked in. Everything worked perfectly. However, the backup generators, which had been built in an elevated position to protect it from tsunami's, wasn't built high enough for such a huge wave. Had it been built a few feet higher, it may have survived, and there would have been no meltdown.
But still no one died. The back up system survived long enough for the people to be evacuated.
But the greenies are using this incident for their anti-nuclear campaign.
Germany has now shelved plans for nuclear power. Yeah, like an earthquake and tsunami of that size are going to hit central Europe.
Instead Germany are now going to build gas and coal powered stations instead.
Well done green lobbyists.
BaldCarl2
says...
2:44am Sat 9 Mar 13
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Nuclear_and
_radiation_accidents
Still, lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story eh?
v1234
says...
10:37pm Sat 9 Mar 13
Blue Owl wrote:Yes you did apologise,but the content was deleted before others could see.i did reply and was hoping your aunt would pull through.
Samej1 wrote:Samje1
I find it highly amusing that the anti-HPC brigade are fully in favour of a scheme that would irrecoverably damage a unique natural environment, namely the Severn estuary and proposed barrage.
Or are we more important than the birds, animals and aquatic life?
A great quote from Grey Owl:
"Remember, you belong to nature
not it to you."
Me thinks you misquote Blue-Owl, but hey that's ok, we all are fallable, unless " Grey Owl" is another contributor, not a jibe at myself, I apologised for an error attributing a rebuff to V1234 last week.
But I'm sure BaldCarl will be straight in , like a rat up the perverbial drainpipe, with a response. Slagging off my posts
Today in response to the Scare Mongering Post by PCAH, which probably are associated to Bridgwater ( Backward ) Forward Members, they must be against Hinkley, as they oppose everything else, that is positive, for our Region and Town of Bridgwater.
Blue- Owl
regards
Deep Sea Isopod
says...
1:46pm Sun 10 Mar 13
I've read the link you provided. You obviously missed the sentence which reads "there have been many accidents with varying impacts as well near misses and incidents".
However, you may have just been looking at the table below showing a total 13 deaths (Not including Chernobyl. See my comment above)
Let's look at these deaths.....
This is a nuclear testing lab.
Another plant based on bad Soviet design.
This is a nuclear reprocessing plant.
A steam explosion. No radiation leaks.
One guy died of a heart attack. No radiation found in his body.
Deep Sea Isopod
says...
1:51pm Sun 10 Mar 13
In order......
January 3, 1961
January 5, 1976
September 30, 1999
August 9, 2004
March 11, 2011
Discount the bad Russian designs there's still only 9 death at nuclear power plants since 1961.
united says...
7:07pm Mon 4 Mar 13