EDF - Hinkley Point 'C'
Discussion
Apparently a petition with only 300,000 signatures has been handed in to Downing St urging the gov't to waste more money on renewables rather than give the go-ahead to Hinkley Point C. Only 300,000 signatures and this makes the news - I thought I'd read somewhere that the deluded Greens got over a million votes at the last GE, and there are quite a few Labour voters and Libdims who would want more madness.
turbobloke said:
Apparently a petition with only 300,000 signatures has been handed in to Downing St urging the gov't to waste more money on renewables rather than give the go-ahead to Hinkley Point C. Only 300,000 signatures and this makes the news - I thought I'd read somewhere that the deluded Greens got over a million votes at the last GE, and there are quite a few Labour voters and Libdims who would want more madness.
It would be interesting to see the ROE for improving renewable technologies over the 30years of paying for Hinckley C - but then that won't fit your narrative.Murph7355 said:
I'm not sure that helps the "immediate" needs for power in the country though, does it?
No, but we can build some gas plants for a fraction of the cost as noted above. This nuclear deal stinks all over, someone somewhere is getting rich from pushing this contract through.vonuber said:
turbobloke said:
Apparently a petition with only 300,000 signatures has been handed in to Downing St urging the gov't to waste more money on renewables rather than give the go-ahead to Hinkley Point C. Only 300,000 signatures and this makes the news - I thought I'd read somewhere that the deluded Greens got over a million votes at the last GE, and there are quite a few Labour voters and Libdims who would want more madness.
It would be interesting to see the ROE for improving renewable technologies over the 30years of paying for Hinckley C - but then that won't fit your narrative.don4l said:
sirtyro said:
I don't get why we would do this deal. Why would we want any foreign state have power over something like a nuclear power station in our country!?!? Are we just that desperate for an energy policy that we are stuck with this.
I think that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.£92.00 per MegaWatt hour is utterly insane. As far as I am aware we could build a gas powered station for about 10% of the cost which would produce electricity for £26.00 a MWH.
This winter there will be power cuts.
Makes you feel nostalgic for the good old 1970's.
The "global warming" card is driving the whole market direction.
If we continue to follow this direction, and shutdown all our coal stations, and ultimately the gas stations too, we either accept nuclear or occasional demand reduction.
vonuber said:
Murph7355 said:
I'm not sure that helps the "immediate" needs for power in the country though, does it?
No, but we can build some gas plants for a fraction of the cost as noted above. This nuclear deal stinks all over, someone somewhere is getting rich from pushing this contract through.Costs of the AGR fleet mean break even is about £45-50 /MWH but much of the backend costs were taken by the government as legacy costs from the cegb days. Factor in all costs for sizewell C, the cost is much more realistic.
If we are going to decarbonise, then building gas plants is not acceptable.
Oh, and check the price for wind !
Actually gas is the best short/medium term way to reduce CO2 emissions substantially.
If the (utterly pointless) total decarbonisation was a genuine goal, nuclear is the only medium/long term option in the UK (wind/solar is costly and not dependable, any attempt to buffer for dependability would send costs stratospheric).
If the (utterly pointless) total decarbonisation was a genuine goal, nuclear is the only medium/long term option in the UK (wind/solar is costly and not dependable, any attempt to buffer for dependability would send costs stratospheric).
Mr GrimNasty said:
Actually gas is the best short/medium term way to reduce CO2 emissions substantially.
If the (utterly pointless) total decarbonisation was a genuine goal, nuclear is the only medium/long term option in the UK (wind/solar is costly and not dependable, any attempt to buffer for dependability would send costs stratospheric).
And there's the rub.If the (utterly pointless) total decarbonisation was a genuine goal, nuclear is the only medium/long term option in the UK (wind/solar is costly and not dependable, any attempt to buffer for dependability would send costs stratospheric).
Is co2 " the biggest threat to mankind" or not. I don't know, I suggest no one really knows.
I do understand the opinion that once we know, it maybe be too late. I also understand that this CO2 was in the atmosphere in the past and the planet wasn't cooked to death.
Pick a side people !
vonuber said:
No, but we can build some gas plants for a fraction of the cost as noted above. This nuclear deal stinks all over, someone somewhere is getting rich from pushing this contract through.
It's (evidently) not my field, but I'd have to assume that....- people had looked into the relative merits of the different types of power generation available now and come up with the solution we have
- to me, diversification would seem to be a good idea in this field. But that always costs more
- I'd hardly say it's been "rushed" through. We've been procrastinating on this stuff for years and someone had to make a decision. It's like the airport decision...when that finally gets made there will be people upset that their preferred option wasn't chosen, that it was rushed through etc.
Lots of people will get very rich from any decision made, so sadly that's moot. If you think that people haven't become very wealthy out of other power generation options in the recent past you're kidding yourself. And from what I can see none of them (the alternative "solutions") has made the slightest dent in what the country needs?
What I would now like to see, however, is a more cohesive plan about getting ahead of the curve so as a country we aren't left (seemingly) at the mercy of private company negotiations to meet demands. Infrastructure investment...
4x4Tyke said:
A bike wheel is designed not to collapse. A car bumper is designed to do so.
It seems both have done their job. Arguably the Chinese product better than the German one. Is that what you were trying to say
El Guapo said:
Are we as a nation no longer capable of designing & building nuclear power stations? We were pioneers in the field not so long ago.
When BNFL was government owned and BNFL owned Westinghouse we were right up there, with access to some of the best designs going. Gordon Brown sold Westinghouse to Hitachi for pocket change and gave all that away. Ironically Westinghouse is filling China with AP1000s at £3bn a pop at the moment.
As much as I'm a fan of nuclear, I don't understand this deal. Why are we not funding this ourselves given out access to cheap credit it must be cheaper to borrow the money than pay the extra on the supply side? Last I heard the Chinese were planning to largely bring their own workforce over, so the economic benefit from the investment is likely to be exported too. Bizarre.
Murph7355 said:
4x4Tyke said:
A bike wheel is designed not to collapse. A car bumper is designed to do so.
It seems both have done their job. Arguably the Chinese product better than the German one. Is that what you were trying to say
Edited by fido on Friday 16th September 11:07
paulrockliffe said:
When BNFL was government owned and BNFL owned Westinghouse we were right up there, with access to some of the best designs going. Gordon Brown sold Westinghouse to Hitachi for pocket change and gave all that away.
Ironically Westinghouse is filling China with AP1000s at £3bn a pop at the moment.
As much as I'm a fan of nuclear, I don't understand this deal. Why are we not funding this ourselves given out access to cheap credit it must be cheaper to borrow the money than pay the extra on the supply side? Last I heard the Chinese were planning to largely bring their own workforce over, so the economic benefit from the investment is likely to be exported too. Bizarre.
Ditto. I do think Nuclear is the way to go, The financing of this just seems odd.Ironically Westinghouse is filling China with AP1000s at £3bn a pop at the moment.
As much as I'm a fan of nuclear, I don't understand this deal. Why are we not funding this ourselves given out access to cheap credit it must be cheaper to borrow the money than pay the extra on the supply side? Last I heard the Chinese were planning to largely bring their own workforce over, so the economic benefit from the investment is likely to be exported too. Bizarre.
The whole deal seems pretty bonkers to me. It's apparent that we need some new nuke plants to keep the base load up but is this really the best way to go about it? Guaranteeing a Chinese operation great prices for their electricity for ever more.
I know that PH is generally very anti nationalision but to me state ownership of nuclear plants makes sense. By which i mean our state, not the PRC. Projects that need a massive capital investment, with a slow pay back and need to be looked after by an organisation that doesn't prioritise short term profit over all other concerns. There's the counter argument that government projects in this country are often total balls ups but I'd say that's more a problem with our governments that the concept in general.
I know that PH is generally very anti nationalision but to me state ownership of nuclear plants makes sense. By which i mean our state, not the PRC. Projects that need a massive capital investment, with a slow pay back and need to be looked after by an organisation that doesn't prioritise short term profit over all other concerns. There's the counter argument that government projects in this country are often total balls ups but I'd say that's more a problem with our governments that the concept in general.
vonuber said:
Murph7355 said:
I'm not sure that helps the "immediate" needs for power in the country though, does it?
No, but we can build some gas plants for a fraction of the cost as noted above. This nuclear deal stinks all over, someone somewhere is getting rich from pushing this contract through.a fraction of eithers cost or time.....however gas plants would have been far far better for the UK...
Edited by Sylvaforever on Friday 16th September 15:00
Sylvaforever said:
vonuber said:
Murph7355 said:
I'm not sure that helps the "immediate" needs for power in the country though, does it?
No, but we can build some gas plants for a fraction of the cost as noted above. This nuclear deal stinks all over, someone somewhere is getting rich from pushing this contract through.a fraction of eithers cost or time.....however gas plants would have been far far better for the UK...
The nuke will have a lifetime cost of about £35bn, will operate far more continuously, not rely on the weather, and have a likely lifetime of 70-100 years these days, whatever the initial figure is (look at the previous generation).
Also, wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say scientists (link below) so the climate fairytale 'reason' for their existence doesn't work even as a fairytale.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windp...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff