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

[Embattle]

The strike price allegedly includes decommissioning and waste management.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/00eff456-3979-11e3-a3a4-00144feab7de.html#axzz2iNESisNa

 

[Wij]

Er, the 630MW phase 1 of London Array covers 100km2, so you're out by a factor of 12. Also it's offshore, and nobody is suggesting we get 100% of our power from wind, so your 60% figure is facetious in a number of ways.

Yes, I got something from the wrong column in an article. I realised the mistake 10 minutes after as it looked a bit odd that I didn't have to bring any other factors in to make the case but it made Scouse shut up for a few days so I was glad of the break

Anyway, it was a simplistic calculation that, changing the figure to 100KM2, would imply that we would need a windfarm bigger than Yorkshire, our biggest county. That was based on an offshore farm. Onshore is less efficient. Mackay's 2008 book covered this well as you also have to look at how many sites are actually usable and have good wind. I'll look at the figures again but when you factor in our other current carbon-source, such as transport, the amount of wind farms you would need is astronomical.

Nuclear has a fantastic energy density. Moving to electric cars would not make any sizable dent on the UK landscape.

Anyway, now that we know the strike price for Hinckley C we can start to make real comparisons. That price is 92.50. That price includes waste management.

Here's the strike price the UK Gov will offer you for other generation:

Onshore wind is 100 now, going down to 95 in 2017. Hinckley is below that now. They agreed they will go lower for subsequent deals.

Offshore wind is 155. Massively more expensive.

You might think that onshore wind is not that far off nuclear. It might go down more in future and be cheaper. Maybe it will. But we'll soon run out of good sites for onshore wind.

As far as the grid is concerned it is still junk energy. To maintain supply we still need 100% backup. Either a storage solution which does not exist; let's not beat around the bush,The storage solution is pie in the sky at the minute or backup gas generation. Neither of these solutions are included in the strike price for wind. It will be the taxpayer who ends up paying for it on current arrangement as there's no profit in it. The only other economic solution would be for the wind generation to cover the cost, which would push up the strike price.

Offshore wind is more scalable but much more expensive and still provides no solution to storage/backup. It still could get nowhere near to attacking transport carbon, we need ships to be able to move.

Solar is junk energy as well. Electricity demand peaks on cold winter evenings when solar is producing nothing. We'd still need 100% backup/storage.

Nuclear is currently cheaper, even with waste disposal, cheaper still when backup/storage is accounted for. Nuclear takes up vastly less space. A nuclear-heavy grid will acheive the lowest level of CO2 emissions too as the gas backup is required the least.

 

[old.user4556]

Can we cut to a conclusion here?

 

[Raven]

Yeah, wind wont work. Nuclear is the only way to go.

Done.

Edit, no good saving a couple of billion here and there if you are sat in the dark with nothing better to do that play shadow puppets under candle light.

 

[TdC]

Nukes are the only cost effective way to generate power on a scale large and reliable enough to realize humanities requirements. Renewables are not cutting it at the current tech level and never will as advances in the field will bolster all potential providers allowing nukes to keep the edge.

Edit: or what Raven said.

 

[Raven]

Yeah, wind wont work. Nuclear is the only way to go.

Done.

Edit, no good saving a couple of billion here and there if you are sat in the dark with nothing better to do that play shadow puppets under candle light.

Edit Edit. Its not like electricity is cheaper for us either way, we still get raped by the energy cabal, so frankly...who cares?

 

[Scouse]

George Monibot thinks Nuclear at Hinkley is way too expensive Wij.

And he's in agreement with me on some of it!:

... "if Hinkley Point's entire output is tied to the rate of inflation for 40 years, we could be staring at a truly astronomical cost by the end of the contract." The City analyst he consulted reassured him that "the government surely can't be that dumb". Oh yes? Payment to the operators, the government now tells us, will be "fully indexed to the consumer prices index". Guaranteed income for corporations, risk assumed by the taxpayer: this deal looks as bad as any private finance initiative contract.

That's not the only respect in which the price is too high. A fundamental principle of all development is that we should know how the story ends. In this case no one has the faintest idea. Cumbria – the only local authority which seemed prepared to accept a dump for the nuclear waste from past and future schemes – rejected the proposal in January. No one should commission a mess without a plan for clearing it up.

Regardless of whether you think nuclear is necessary - it's certainly going to end up expensive - the above is pretty much what I've been saying all along.

No new build without a cleanup plan. Period.

 

[Wij]

George Monibot thinks Nuclear at Hinkley is way too expensive Wij.

And he's in agreement with me on some of it!:


Regardless of whether you think nuclear is necessary - it's certainly going to end up expensive - the above is pretty much what I've been saying all along.

No new build without a cleanup plan. Period.

But EDF will cover the cost of this. So what if they don't know how yet. It's small beer compared to the existing waste.

Nuclear's strike price is below that of all renewables AND we don't have to provide all the backup (can't believe I have to type this again) would you rather save the taxpayer money by burning coal?

 

[Wij]

No new build without a cleanup plan. Period.

Your principle. Not mine.

 

[Scouse]

But EDF will cover the cost of this. So what if they don't know how yet.

So, waste disposal "nowhere", cost unknown, old reactor design (none of the new (non-existent) reactior designs you've been saying we need), darling Monibot says it's a shit ridiculously expensive deal, and still no?

If they can nail CCS then gas is the way to pick up the slack - and that's an easier technological ask than waste disposal. Nuclear is still a dirty joke with an unsolveable problem.

Monibot says:

To build a plant at Hinkley Point which will still require uranium mining and still produce nuclear waste in 2063 is to commit to 20th-century technologies through most of the 21st.

We need nuclear power. But the government has plumped for outdated technology at the worst price imaginable.

Not great.

 

[soze]

The government have gone for technology that can be in place and running by the time we need it. There is no point talking about a Gen 4 reactor now as we have done nothing to research or develop one as everyone has been green focused for years. If the government could have started this plant 10 years ago maybe it would be different.

 

[Scouse]

There is no point talking about a Gen 4 reactor now as we have done nothing to research or develop one

There was plenty of time to talk about Gen 4 reactors as a justification for nuclear earlier in the thread - and when I pointed out they didn't exist...??

 

[soze]

There was plenty of time to talk about Gen 4 reactors as a justification for nuclear earlier in the thread - and when I pointed out they didn't exist...??

If 10 years ago the government announced they planned to spend £1bil on developing plans for the next generation of Nuclear power stations the country would have gone mental. Instead that £1bil went into green subsidies and we are where we are because of it.

 

[Poag]

So, waste disposal "nowhere", cost unknown, old reactor design (none of the new (non-existent) reactior designs you've been saying we need), darling Monibot says it's a shit ridiculously expensive deal, and still no?

Wait a sec here... I'm confused by what your saying.

You saying because no 4Gen reactors have been developed (due to lack of research, cake..whatever) we shouldn't use currently cutting edge Gen3+ reactors? Seeing as Gen4 reactors are slated for Development in the 2030's....

And Gen3+ reactors are the current gen, I am unsure what you are trying to get at here?

We should wait for a currently unresearched technology that may or may not be late? Or that the current Gen3+ reactors are not reliable/efficient enough for your position?


This is a question on why Gen4 is a sticking point over Gen3+, rather than the costs and waste disposal issues currently abound in the thread.... Seeing as Gen4 is mostly theoretical atm.

I do not disagree that gen4 reactors look really nice on paper, but atm they dont exist

 

[Scouse]

You saying because no 4Gen reactors have been developed (due to lack of research, cake..whatever) we shouldn't use currently cutting edge Gen3+ reactors

Yep. The "cutting edge" Gen3+ reactors are exactly the same as the old reactors - requiring uranium mining/producing a lot of waste that we don't know what to do with - apart from scale and the fact that if you fly a plane into them they shouldn't break open.

It's old, dirty, tec that's going to make our waste problem worse. As Monibot said. And I don't even like Monibot...

 

[soze]

The waste from an EPR is meant to be easier to place in dry storage than current reactors and is a fuck sight easier to deal with that the really bad waste of Gen 1 and 2 reactors which leave you with the cooling ponds and contaminated ground like Sizewell. Yes there will be waste problems in that you need to store it somewhere for year upon year but it is nothing like the problems with the original reactors.

 

[Scouse]

It's still a bad dirty waste problem from last century that we've nowhere to put since Cumbria said "fuck no".

How about these cogent points then, soze?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Can we cut to a conclusion here?

People love to argue in long detail about things they can't affect?

 

[soze]

It's still a bad dirty waste problem from last century that we've nowhere to put since Cumbria said "fuck no".

How about these cogent points then, soze?

It does not really matter. You have not shown a plan that proves it can be done in any other way. And until you do that we need another generation of these plants to buy the country 40 years to fix the problem.

And as these stations are going on or near existing sites and the fuel is cleaner the chances are Hinkley C will be cleaned up and decommissioned (at a cost to EDF) before Hinkley B is.

 

[Scouse]

You have not shown a plan that proves it can be done in any other way

Nice, discount it out of hand. And that's a weak argument in response soze. You have not shown a plan that your preferred way works, have you?

There are LOTS of plans out there that show that both ways work. The argument is not about whether the technologies work or not (they both do). I've stated for a long time - the argument, for me, is about an unsolveable problem that we're exacerbating in an expensive manner...

 

[soze]

Nice, discount it out of hand. And that's a weak argument in response soze. You have not shown a plan that your preferred way works, have you?

There are LOTS of plans out there that show that both ways work. The argument is not about whether the technologies work or not (they both do). I've stated for a long time - the argument, for me, is about an unsolveable problem that we're exacerbating in an expensive manner...

You do not really need a plan to show Nuclear power works as it is already working. You can argue the price and you can argue clean up. But it is suitable and capable. Without government funded gas plants that sit there and lose money by design you can't say the same for anything else. Hence needing a plan.

 

[Scouse]

government funded gas plants

As opposed to government funded nuclear?

Have you read *any* of the articles posted?

 

[soze]

As opposed to government funded nuclear?

Have you read *any* of the articles posted?

Yes and that is my point. If we or the government are paying either way why not go for the technology that we know works and we know can cope.

 

[Embattle]

The UK fell behind nuclear because of two simple reasons, we developed the wrong technology originally (Magnox) and we found north sea gas and oil which means we went from a leading position to a following that requires countries outside our own to provide the reactors. The first EPRs (Gen 3+) are certainly proving to be a little problematic in terms of costs and delays so hopefully those issues won't be reapeated.

 

[Scouse]

The first EPRs (Gen 3+) are certainly proving to be a little problematic in terms of costs and delays so hopefully those issues won't be reapeated.

Yup. Nuclear's costs have trebled since 2008. EPR's are busting budgets everywhere and we've not capped our price - which would force the French and Chinese governments to fund any overruns themselves.

It's like the banks. You fuck up? No worries! The UK taxpayer will bail you out!

 

[soze]

With Gas running out what is to stop Norway tripling the price they charge us in 15 years when we have not option but to buy gas because wind is not enough? There is no way to win this there are negatives with both sides but one keeps the lights on. Well actually it might not seeing as the first EPR is over budget and massively delayed. We have no guarantee it will be up and running in time.

 

[soze]

So In France the first EPR was started in December 07 at a cost of 3.3b euros. It is now delayed and will not produce Electricity until at least 2016 and is currently set to cost 8.5b euros.

But in China they are getting two for 8.5b euros and i bet they are built and running inside of the 4 years.

The construction of the first reactor at Taishan started officially on 18 November 2009, and the second on 15 April 2010. Construction of each unit is planned to take 46 months, significantly faster and cheaper than the first two EPRs in Finland and France. This means the unit will be finished in March 2014.
The vessel of the first reactor has been installed in June 2012.

 

[Scouse]

But in China they are getting two for 8.5b euros and i bet they are built and running inside of the 4 years.

The thing about communist countries is that they'll throw safety out of the window and people at it like they were bugs to be squashed.

There are no labour costs in China and no fallout (pun not intended) if they lose a few workers. Won't be like that over here...

 

[Embattle]

Overruns are paid for by the Chinese partners.

 

[Job]

We allready use French nukes as a back up during the adverts in corrie.
Solar panels should be in African deserts and wind turbines in the jet stream.