Deadline extended to 20 Jan

A shame to see confidence eroding, perhaps no surprise given shortage of willing communities and options for siting

I think the biggest challenge we have in the UK is our cultural landscape, it is very difficult to have a grown up conversation without sensationalist intervention

Public consent can mean a range of things, I’m sure the Swiss ‘geology first’ implementer would argue public consent was very much part of their siting process

Pretty sure it’s in all biosolids applied to land. Not even tested for here in UK… yet applied liberally to arable land near us. This also happens to be chalk downland, the regions main public water supply aquifer lies beneath

Absolutely, great to see such a diverse range of talks and insights into the many new projects being developed

@clairebaileyross.bsky.social

I’ve been wanting to investigate this, but acquiring samples legitimately is the main hurdle. I hear that the UK water industry (UKWIR) is starting to confront this issue, but we still know far to little

So while its correct that some wastes from our existing stockpiles can be processed for use in new reactors, this does not solve our complex and substantial legacy waste problem. Ultimately we need to press ahead with our geological disposal facility

Further to this, SMRs require a higher enriched fuel than conventional reactors - due to the need to sustain fission in smaller cores - which leads to hotter wastes. These wastes then need longer to cool at surface before disposal, with associated societal risks

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for reuse generates additional volumes waste, through direct contamination and activation. We have a lot of experience of this in the UK with Magnox and THORP at Sellafield

Whilst SMRs and nuclear new build generally seems a good idea to me, it is not correct to suggest that SMRs solve our nuclear waste problem…

The UK is out on a limb here!

An open door for biomethane, however ‘green’ it is claimed to be, is an open door for natural gas