EDF - Hinkley Point 'C'

[hidetheelephants]

louiebaby said:

I don't like the idea of being wholly reliant on Nuclear either. The countries selling Uranium can be "undesirable trade partners", and the question of what happens to the waste hasn't ever been properly answered.

Given Australia is a major supplier that's an odd position to take, but following your point to completion it's irrelevant; if the supply from existing sources became inadequate through rising demand(unlikely) or political instability(possible) and the price rises dramatically, uranium can be economically extracted from seawater. The price of uranium is an irrelevance almost, it makes up a minute proportion of the overall cost of nuclear generated electricity.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

To ask a silly question, but is this not the exact reason for the existence of UK sovereign debt?

To build infrastructure for the UK, rather than the funding being pushed into the cost of electricity or am I being really dim about this ?

Is this aiming to be another Gordon Brown-like PFI suck-cess?

[V8 Fettler]

Unless fusion develops in leaps and bounds, the UK will reach the point where the new fission power stations have to be built, irrespective of the cost. The current unknown is whether construction commences before the extended power outages.

[Scuffers]

V8 Fettler said:

Unless fusion develops in leaps and bounds, the UK will reach the point where the new fission power stations have to be built, irrespective of the cost. The current unknown is whether construction commences before the extended power outages.

well, it's almost certain to go online after blackouts.

[hidetheelephants]

We're already there; 2023 is 8 years time, Sizewell B was built in 7 years, but equally it was there was 10+ years of planning, preparation, ordering longlead items. Barring further life extensions for the AGRs(unlikely as the limitation is cracking of the graphite moderator and there is no way of repairing this, it's just a feature of a design long past its original life expectancy)the grid will become extremely dependent upon STOR, panic-built gas turbines and energy imports from France etc, and if the proposed wind developments go ahead there will be increased voltage and frequency excursions, likely causing a lot of expensive damage to the grid and to rotating machines. This is presumably 'part of the plan'. We need to be pouring concrete now, but we'll be lucky if a start is made within 5 years at this rate.

[hidetheelephants]

More knives out for Hinkley; Prof Ian Fells was on Today( about 2:35 onwards) this morning slagging it off, although his grip on the subject appears sketchy as he seems to think Hinkley C is a first of class. He thinks we ought to be building SMRs.

[PRTVR]

hidetheelephants said:

More knives out for Hinkley; Prof Ian Fells was on Today( about 2:35 onwards) this morning slagging it off, although his grip on the subject appears sketchy as he seems to think Hinkley C is a first of class. He thinks we ought to be building SMRs.

Is he not partly right as I believe there is not one operational EPR yet, so still a unproven design.

[hidetheelephants]

PRTVR said:

hidetheelephants said:

More knives out for Hinkley; Prof Ian Fells was on Today( about 2:35 onwards) this morning slagging it off, although his grip on the subject appears sketchy as he seems to think Hinkley C is a first of class. He thinks we ought to be building SMRs.

Is he not partly right as I believe there is not one operational EPR yet, so still a unproven design.

The Finnish and French EPRs are estimated as starting up sometime in 2018, although given the original dates were 2009 and 2012 that's a target rather than a prediction. The two Chinese units are predicted to be finished in 2017 from start dates of 2009 and 2010 and planned finish dates of 2013 and 2014.

[PRTVR]

hidetheelephants said:

PRTVR said:

hidetheelephants said:

More knives out for Hinkley; Prof Ian Fells was on Today( about 2:35 onwards) this morning slagging it off, although his grip on the subject appears sketchy as he seems to think Hinkley C is a first of class. He thinks we ought to be building SMRs.

Is he not partly right as I believe there is not one operational EPR yet, so still a unproven design.

The Finnish and French EPRs are estimated as starting up sometime in 2018, although given the original dates were 2009 and 2012 that's a target rather than a prediction. The two Chinese units are predicted to be finished in 2017 from start dates of 2009 and 2010 and planned finish dates of 2013 and 2014.

So buying into a design that has not run yet and could have problems, what could possibly go wrong.

[V8 Fettler]

It's not unheard of for the construction of a fleet of nuclear power stations to commence whilst the design and R&D is still incomplete ...

[speedy_thrills]

Welshbeef said:

speedy_thrills said:

Welshbeef said:

Personally I don't get why the UK govt don't finance it for them or even pay them directly to deliver the working plant.

Financing the plant would add to the deficit, guarantee the price however and they make this a future liability allowing them to claim they are closer to balancing the current budget. It's just good politics.

But assuming all spent in one year it's a one off deficit and thereafter the debt interest would be the prevailing deficit less the payments back from the EDF as the widget goes live.

At some level we still want to be able to pretend this is still a private venture. There is already quite a lot of subsidisation and guarantees in place.

Also it’s in EDFs interest to delay building plants because if the EDF Sizewell project is delayed they get a better subsidisation guaranteed price on that project as well. It's a win-win for EDF as long as taxpayers don't question the economics.

[hidetheelephants]

speedy_thrills said:

Welshbeef said:

speedy_thrills said:

Welshbeef said:

Personally I don't get why the UK govt don't finance it for them or even pay them directly to deliver the working plant.

Financing the plant would add to the deficit, guarantee the price however and they make this a future liability allowing them to claim they are closer to balancing the current budget. It's just good politics.

But assuming all spent in one year it's a one off deficit and thereafter the debt interest would be the prevailing deficit less the payments back from the EDF as the widget goes live.

At some level we still want to be able to pretend this is still a private venture. There is already quite a lot of subsidisation and guarantees in place.

Also it’s in EDFs interest to delay building plants because if the EDF Sizewell project is delayed they get a better subsidisation guaranteed price on that project as well. It's a win-win for EDF as long as taxpayers don't question the economics.

To what end? So we can have the privilege of guaranteeing EDF's bottom line, a quasi-state power company majority owned by France? We're subsidising an inefficient state entity just like we did in the 1960s and 70s with CEGB, but this time it's the french rather than us who benefit.

[speedy_thrills]

Well the UK needs to meet it's international commitments on climate change and clean air or it could face financial penalties.

To be fair even industry lobby groups expressed doubts about the EDF deal when it was announced.

[V8 Fettler]

hidetheelephants said:

To what end? So we can have the privilege of guaranteeing EDF's bottom line, a quasi-state power company majority owned by France? We're subsidising an inefficient state entity just like we did in the 1960s and 70s with CEGB, but this time it's the french rather than us who benefit.

The CEGB was cumbersome and monolithic, but the long term planning was good. Had the CEGB continued into the 21st Century then we would now have twin reactor PWRs up and running at Sizewell C, Sizewell D and Hinkley Point C. Instead, we have windmills and uncertainty.

[vonuber]

Can someone explain the reasoning behind this?

'Hinkley Point C nuclear deal contains £22bn 'poison pill' for taxpayer'

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/18/hin...


Is it me or does this whole deal really stink?

[speedy_thrills]

vonuber said:

Can someone explain the reasoning behind this?

'Hinkley Point C nuclear deal contains £22bn 'poison pill' for taxpayer'

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/18/hin...


Is it me or does this whole deal really stink?

They are afraid the British government might try to renege on the agreement if cheaper low carbon energy sources are found in future or there are safety problems with the new reactor design. With the price of solar and wind falling rapidly it's likely these will soon be cheaper than nuclear.

It's important to understand how the subsidisation agreement works:
The strike price for Hinkley Point C is set at £92.50/MWh or £89.50/MWh if the planned new nuclear power plant at Sizewell goes ahead. These figures are in 2012 prices so actually you've agreed to pay more than £92.50/MWh in nominal terms because it's inflation indexed back to 2012. The Hinkley Point C contract will last for 35 years, the strike price is fully indexed to inflation through the Consumer Price Index and the project will be protected from changes in law (again they don't want the UK to renege).

There is a third important aspect to also consider in that the British government will also guarantee 65% of EDFs debt at commercial rates.

[Luther Blisset]

It's happening.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/23/hin...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/efc78d5a-f114-11e5-9f20-...

[louiebaby]

Asked by Conservative MP James Heappey why it was “reasonable for us to assume it but not reasonable for you to just say it”, Mr de Rivaz responded: “I am very pleased to give you the privilege to make the assumption and to draw the right conclusion as you have done.”

[Smiler.]

I listened to a couple of items about this on R4 this morning. Sounds like an utter shambles.

EDF appear to be struggling to complete existing projects for similar builds in France & Finland - will they ever Finnish


In all seriousness, one snippet trotted out was "the risk is in the build cost & the developer bears this". Oh, well that's ok then. I mean, it's not like the PFI scheme has returned any problems at all, it it!

The other depressing thing said was along the lines of "too much face will be lost if it's not built, so it will be".

Political expediency operating at full steam then. Great.


Why not just fast-track a gas turbine programme nationally to plug the gap until some grown-ups can get involved. I know that this means a re-establishment of home-grown talent but why not? It's not like the energy issue is going to disappear any time soon.

That said, I wouldn't trust any of the major construction players in the UK further than I could throw them. They all appear to be a bent as a 9-bob note.

[Sylvaforever]

30 Bilion!! wow, could you not set up both a fracking gas supply AND build the equivelent output gas turbine power station??