THE north west will be at the centre of a massive expansion in nuclear power.
Four of 10 sites for new nuclear power stations earmarked by the government are in the region - including three in Cumbria and one at Heysham in Lancashire.
The first is set to be operational by 2018, and by 2025 nuclear electricity generation could amount to around 40 per cent of new energy provision.
The plans were set out by Energy and Climate Secretary Ed Miliband, who confirmed targets for generating 30 per cent of electricity by renewable sources by 2020.
"While there are already proposals to build more energy infrastructure, more is needed to bring about the shift to a low-carbon future," he said.
The 10 sites identified by the government include, as well as Heysham, three places in Cumbria - Braystones, Sellafield and Kirksanton.
The other six are Hartlepool in County Durham, Sizewell in Suffolk, Bradwell in Essex, Hinkley Point in Somerset, Oldbury in Gloucestershire and Wylfa in Anglesey.
Steven Broomhead, chief executive of the North West Development Agency (NWDA), said: "The NWDA is delighted with the draft National Policy Statement, and the inclusion of sites in the region is further testimony to the region's high calibre nuclear facilities, technical expertise and research ability.
"The potential for economic growth as a result of new nuclear is considerable and, with over 300 companies in the north west's nuclear supply chain, it is expected our businesses will play a leading role in the design, construction and operation of new nuclear power plants."
But Liberal Democrat energy and climate change spokesman Simon Hughes said: "New plants in the UK have never been built without massive cost to the taxpayer and a lethal legacy of toxic waste."
There are currently 10 nuclear power stations in Britain, providing around 13 per cent of electricity supply, but all except one will close by 2023.
Tweet
Region to lead way in nuclear expansion
November 10, 2009
Showing comments 1 to 15 and replies | View All
Sticky Middle Finger (10/11/2009 at 17:32)
Whenever there is any dangerous filthy industries that this country needs to survive they are always tend to be located well away from London.
In contrast to the fact that if a company has to close one of it's two factories, the one furthest from London always gets the axe. Funny thing politics !
Local lad, outsidethebox (10/11/2009 at 18:25)
Local lad, outsidethebox (10/11/2009 at 18:37)
Manchester City Council first carried a resolution declaring the City a nuclear free zone in November 1980. Many local authorities followed Manchester's example and a national nuclear free local authorities (NFLA) organisation, under the City's leadership, was set up.
Andanotherthing, Mcr (10/11/2009 at 19:05)
C.O. Jones (11/11/2009 at 08:36)
Local lad, outsidethebox
10/11/2009 at 18:37
What exactly does the tag line "nuclear free city" mean anyway? Mancunians take electricity from the national grid, a % of which is generated from nuclear power stations. The UK purchases cheaper electricity from the French via the cross channel connector and the French are generating something like 60% of their power from nuclear plants..
Is it a nuclear free city because we do not have a nuclear power station within the M60? Or perhaps because we do not have missile silos inside the M60?
Get used to the concept of next generation nuclear power plants or get used to cooking your tea by candlelight as that is the stark reality of the power provision for the next generation..
Crumpsall-Lass, Crumpsall (11/11/2009 at 11:04)
C.O. Jones (11/11/2009 at 13:16)
Crumpsall-Lass, Crumpsall
11/11/2009 at 11:04
Sizewell A and B, and Dungeness are pretty close to that London. The new plants will be built on coastal locations primarily for the availability of the cooling water (unlimited). There is not a new proposal for a plant in Manchester. The new plants are proposed for existing generation sites in the North West of the Country as well as other sites around the UK.
Nuclear power generation is the cleanest method of producing electricity after renewable’s. There is plenty of information on line about this. Do not confuse the reprocessing plant at Sellafield with electricity generation. The burning of the highly sulphurous UK coal left in the ground will be far more damaging environmentally than the building of next generation nuclear plants. Energy is also of key consideration. Given the global volatility of the gas markets and the tenuous relationship the UK has with the countries we currently source gas from. The UK needs to become more energy independent.
Give people in the regions a say on something as controversial as a massive decision like this and people will still be sat round the table in 10 years time..
It is essential that the Government grasps the nettle on this subject now.
nyb, ex manc (11/11/2009 at 16:15)
Manchester is not a nuclear free zone.
Manchester has lead the world in nuclear physics since the 1930s'.
UK nuclear technology is among the most advancd in the world.
Properly handled and managed as it will be the answer to our future power needs is nuclear with a good home grown mix of other power sources.
That way we are self sufficient, clean and safe from outside sources.
Crumpsall-Lass, Crumpsall (11/11/2009 at 16:42)
And I suppose we have not had windscale, Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island....all major incidents involving nuclear power. And why not tell the Irish who pick up the radiation from Windscale/Sellafield that it's clean. And what about the length of time the radioactive by-products need to be stored for and protected from terrorism, earthquakes (Of which we have a lot of them albeit minor ones), accidents, etc. No Put all Nuclear Power Stations in the Thames - it's tidal and will be very cooling except if they have another accident.
Horatio Dogsbody, Flixton (11/11/2009 at 21:55)
Lord Ryan the Great, Chadderton (12/11/2009 at 01:20)
Black Flag (12/11/2009 at 09:31)
We don't mine uranium domestically, so nuclear power will be dependent on outside sources.
citycentre, manchester (12/11/2009 at 12:04)
Is not Sellafield a re-processing plant, rather then a poer generation site?
Also buring coal releases at least as much radioactive material into the atmosphere as nuclear powered generation
Mike Davies (12/11/2009 at 12:24)
Phil Oldham (12/11/2009 at 17:00)
All the major nuclear disasters were done by pushing the boundaries.. the test at Chernobyl for example, was done without an pre checks on equipments (that turned out to be faulty). We are not talking about general electricity production here.
Protected from terrorism - Have you seen how thick reactor walls are? You could literally fly a 747 into one and you would barely scratch the surface. Reinforced concrete metres thick.
Nuclear power is cleanest and safest option for the future for the mass of our electricity production. The French have been doing it for years very successfully. Nuclear fusion would of course be a lot safer than fission, and without any nasty by products - but funding into the commercial reactor is somewhat limited unfortunately - welcome to Europe. Google 'jet reactor' for some info!