Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 263 billion, and rising.

[Wij]

I think it also puts the population of Eastern China into perspective; imagine if the Chinese went for Nuclear instead of dams, and if they had a Chernobyl in that area, they'd have to evacuate millions.

By the way, did a bit of a google about that disaster, there's 62 dams in that region. 62!

The size of the Chernobyl exclusion zone is 1000 square miles. The population density of China is 375 per square mile. That's 375,000 evacuated. Better than 250,000 dead imo.

 

[Gwadien]

The size of the Chernobyl exclusion zone is 1000 square miles. The population density of China is 375 per square mile. That's 375,000 evacuated. Better than 250,000 dead imo.

Eastern China is a bit more populated than the west though.

 

[Wij]

Eastern China is a bit more populated than the west though.

You'd also probably build a nuclear power plant a good few miles out of cities. Evacuation is better than death.

 

[Scouse]

You'd also probably build a nuclear power plant a good few miles out of cities. Evacuation is better than death.

You'd think so wouldn't you.

China has about 45 nuclear plants and has situated some of them near large cities.

Regardless - renewables take dirty coal offline and reduce gas consumption. They save lives. Period.

 

[Job]

Just because you would be in an exclusion zone doesnt mean you would be dead.

Radiation limits are pure guesswork outside of direct exposure to mass cell killing levels.
In fact they have simply followed detector sensitivity.
Did they find stacks of dead animals?
No..because most animals die before tiny cancer risks get them.

 

[Job]

Power the process with nuclear and its a win all around.

Out of thin air: New electrochemical process shortens the path to capturing and recycling CO2 - U of T Engineering News

 

[Wij]

You'd think so wouldn't you.

China has about 45 nuclear plants and has situated some of them near large cities.

Regardless - renewables take dirty coal offline and reduce gas consumption. They save lives. Period.

Nuclear reduces gas consumption more because it is always-on and doesn't require backup.

 

[Scouse]

Nuclear reduces gas consumption more because it is always-on and doesn't require backup.

This is true. I've not said it doesn't have I?

 

[Wij]

This is true. I've not said it doesn't have I?

Thought it worth reiterating.

 

[Scouse]

I think this is worth reiterating.

Britain has not used coal to generate electricity for two weeks - the longest period since the 1880s...

coal was last used at 15:12 on 17 May...

"As more and more renewables come onto the system, we're seeing things progress at an astonishing rate".

It ain't new nuclear rebuild that's providing that. And offshore wind auctions are capping prices at £53/mwh.

This compares favourably with the £93.50/mwh that new nuclear rebuild is guaranteed (for 35 years instead of 15 for wind) - and we still get to foot the bill for imaginary nuclear "cleanup".

 

[Scouse]

Oh, btw - the Nuclear Decomissioning Authority says the cost of "cleaning" up (how?) UK nuclear has reached £164bn (and still rising) - and Sellafield alone has risen to £117.4bn.

That's an additional 50 billion pounds since this thread started six years ago. And rising. With no technical solution on how we, you know, actually deal with nuclear waste.

Build away I say....

Edit: @Jupitus - can we strike-through the 67.5 in the title and add 117.4 in instead please? Makes it easy to keep track.

 

[Wij]

You neglect to mention that wind still requires some other station to be on standby which adds to the cost for the system as a whole.

Also, ahem: How Much Does Electricity Cost in France?

 

[Scouse]

Also, ahem: How Much Does Electricity Cost in France?

I notice your tactic of refusing to address any of the hard facts I put down - especially those above (I guess actually trying to address them would make you look foolish and you know it).

But since I've got the clear beating of you on this (and am not afraid to address your posts) I'll reply to your laughable link that you provided about how much electricity costs in France. With this:

You're pitching a paltry 1p per kwh we pay more than France against everything I posted above?

L. O. L.

 

[Wij]

I notice your tactic of refusing to address any of the hard facts I put down - especially those above (I guess actually trying to address them would make you look foolish and you know it).

But since I've got the clear beating of you on this (and am not afraid to address your posts) I'll reply to your laughable link that you provided about how much electricity costs in France. With this:

You're pitching a paltry 1p per kwh we pay more than France against everything I posted above?

L. O. L.

You are quoting £53 vs £93.50 which makes it sound like nuclear energy would make our electricity prices almost double. I am showing a country with majority nuclear power and the price is lower demonstrating that the strike price does not paint the whole story.

 

[Wij]

And guess who has lots of wind power on your graph.

Germany.

 

[Scouse]

And guess who has lots of wind power on your graph.

Built loooong before wind came down to £50/mwh.

Guess who has a lot of wind power on that graph built since it started to come down in price. - yep. Us!

Guess what would happen to that graph if we built a load of things that would double the cost of our electricity for a generation...

It's pretty simple stuff @Wij.

 

[Job]

As Ive said before Sellafield is a one off..a dumping ground for the worlds nuclear waste and was totally mis managed for decades.

 

[Wij]

Built loooong before wind came down to £50/mwh.

Guess who has a lot of wind power on that graph built since it started to come down in price. - yep. Us!

Guess what would happen to that graph if we built a load of things that would double the cost of our electricity for a generation...

It's pretty simple stuff @Wij.

Not really. You're making a lot of assumptions. We got quotes that future nuclear plants would get lower costs due to economies of scale and experience. You aren't allowing for that but are allowing for the fact it has happened for wind. That's having your cake and eating it. We are paying the price for under-investing in power for decades.

I'm showing a country which invested in nuclear for decades and has cheap electricity and very low emissions.

Also a country which invested in wind for a decade and a bit and has high electricity cost and its emissions haven't dropped much at all.

Also you need to look at the amount of space you'd need to run a country on wind and solar alone. It's a lot. I'd quite like our land to be covered in trees which absorb CO2. (And you'd still need CCGT backup which someone has to pay for.)

We've been through this about once every year.

Still the original point of your thread is only partially relevant to the point you are trying to make about nuclear power. From the FT article you quoted today:

But almost three-quarters of total spending, or £120bn, is expected to be swallowed by Sellafield alone. Sellafield has been at the centre of the UK nuclear industry since starting production of plutonium for weapons in the 1950s.

Which has been pointed out before. A lot of that cost is from nuclear weapons research.

 

[Wij]

As Ive said before Sellafield is a one off..a dumping ground for the worlds nuclear waste and was totally mis managed for decades.

In fact I agreed with you about that on the first page

 

[Scouse]

Not really. You're making a lot of assumptions. We got quotes that future nuclear plants would get lower costs due to economies of scale and experience. You aren't allowing for that but are allowing for the fact it has happened for wind. That's having your cake and eating it. We are paying the price for under-investing in power for decades.

I'm absolutely allowing for that. Nuclear power has been getting multibillion pound subsidies since the 1950s, and have been promising lower costs ever since. But the nuclear has never delivered on that promise. In any business situation if someone promises but consistently fails to deliver then you, rightly, stop believing them.

Wind, however, has delivered on those promises - with much less subsidy - and in a much shorter timescale.

I'm showing a country which invested in nuclear for decades and has cheap electricity and very low emissions.

And is the full cost of nuclear accounted? Including the costs of building a whole raft of new nuclear rebuilds to replace their aging infrastructure? Which as they're finding is wayyyyy more expensive than they predicted (surprise suprise! the only thing consistent across the nuclear industry is it's escalating expense).

If Innovation Makes Everything Cheaper Why Does It Make Nuclear More Expensive? Asks Forbes...

A phenomenom that affects the globe:

• A new nuclear plant in Georgia that was supposed to take four years and cost $14 billion for two reactors is now expected to take nine years and cost $23 billion.
• A new nuclear plant in Finland that was supposed to take four years and cost €3.2 billion is now expected to take 14 years and cost over €10 billion.
• The average construction time of nuclear reactors around the world between 2004 and 2013 was ten years — twice as long as it was in the past.

Nuclear is hamstrung - by it's very nature it hasn't really the potential to drive down costs through innovation that solar and wind does. And even if it could, the potential savings in percentage terms aren't as great for such an inherently expensive and complicated technology.

Nuclear is getting spanked - and will continue to get spanked - just on cost alone.

(Not to mention the title of this thread, and our ever-increasing £167billion bill for a problem we've still got no solution for because: physics).

Also a country which invested in wind for a decade and a bit and has high electricity cost and its emissions haven't dropped much at all.

We're a country that is being criticised for still putting less subsidy into wind and solar than into coal and other fossil fuels (this year!) and yet our emissions have plummeted because of wind and solar, which is getting cheaper with each generation.

Also you need to look at the amount of space you'd need to run a country on wind and solar alone. It's a lot. I'd quite like our land to be covered in trees which absorb CO2. (And you'd still need CCGT backup which someone has to pay for.)

Offshore. That cost is for off-shore. There's not a lot of land on top of the sea.

And yes. You need energy backup. It's a tech that absolutely needs continual development. But it's a tech that has potential to deliver on the current promises - unlike nuclear, which hasn't and doesn't and can't.


And, just for completeness:

Sellafield costs: Which has been pointed out before. A lot of that cost is from nuclear weapons research.

Yep. But now it ain't. And we're adding to the problem we have no solution for.

Putting the waste argument completely aside - everything else about nuclear sucks balls. It's getting spanked left right and centre because we have much much cheaper ways of producing electricity, for less subsidy, with no hangovers.

It's no longer unproven tech. It's stood the test of time and vested interests and we're ramping it up because renewables work.

 

[Job]

I have to agree if we had soent the money on storage instead of nuclear we might have a rudimentary workable renewable network.
Of course it would have to be fucking huge and seriously land consuming...and even then it would only solve electricity.
The entire renewables in the world including hydro..wood burning etc only accounts for less than 10% of world energy demand.
We could convert everything to electricity of course..and I suppose we will.
But thats going to be another 30 years away.

 

[Job]

Looks like those climate summits are starting to show their worth.

Latest data shows steep rises in CO2 for seventh year

 

[Bodhi]

Renewables are great. If you want to keep the Fossil Fuel companies smiling anyway, considering they are pretty much all invested in it, and sell the backup we need when the wind doesn't blow.

Mind you when one side of the argument has to reframe a tax break as a subsidy (which it isn't) you know they are making it up as they go along.

 

[Scouse]

Renewables are great. If you want to keep the Fossil Fuel companies smiling anyway, considering they are pretty much all invested in it, and sell the backup we need when the wind doesn't blow.

Mind you when one side of the argument has to reframe a tax break as a subsidy (which it isn't) you know they are making it up as they go along.

A) I thought you liked people making money? In the end that amounts to beans > hill. Companies invest. So what if it's the "big bad fossil fuel companies" as long as it's not fossil fuels they're making money out of.

B) A tax break to one energy producer, that isn't applied equally to another (renewable) energy producer. Sounds like a subsidy to me. Even if not - why the fuck are fossil fuel companies getting tax breaks?

 

[Bodhi]

A) I thought you liked people making money? In the end that amounts to beans > hill. Companies invest. So what if it's the "big bad fossil fuel companies" as long as it's not fossil fuels they're making money out of.

B) A tax break to one energy producer, that isn't applied equally to another (renewable) energy producer. Sounds like a subsidy to me. Even if not - why the fuck are fossil fuel companies getting tax breaks?

A) they will be making money from Fossil Fuels for many many years to come, as there is no way to power modern civilisation without them. Unless we go nuclear of course.

B) Not really the same, as a cheque isn't given to the FF Companies in the same way it is for RE companies. That's why one is called a tax break, and the other is a subsidy.

 

[Scouse]

Full of shit as usual @Bodhi.

"WTO definition of subsidies, accepted by the UK and 163 other nations, includes government revenue that is otherwise due, foregone or not collected - such as reduced tax rates".

 

[Job]

The perfect future would be fusion power, all goods made locally with 3D printers, all food made from plant protein in soiless vertical farms and all travel done virtually with holographic rooms and all self identity removed.

I think I might have just spelled out the EU 50 year plan.

 

[Job]

Full of shit as usual @Bodhi.

"WTO definition of subsidies, accepted by the UK and 163 other nations, includes government revenue that is otherwise due, foregone or not collected - such as reduced tax rates".

The WTO is a toothless chicken, their own rules say..do what you want.

 

[Scouse]

The WTO is a toothless chicken, their own rules say..do what you want.

Did you read "WTO" and ignore all of the other words again? Including "definition of subsidies, accepted by the UK"...

 

[Job]

Yes..I was backing your comment.