Forum menu
You still have not said how you would meet this shortfall
I did, ideal world build.nuclear way faster. Where we are now build whatever we can. No matter what we do there will be a shortage
<p>EDF is taking the risk in constructing it, owning it and operating it. CGN will be expecting a return on their investment. That 20Bn construction cost has to be clawed back somehow. Maybe if successive governments hadn't sidestepped the issue for decades and (until recently) refused to take any stake they wouldn't have been in such a strong negotiating position but that's not their fault. They came in with a mad offer and someone was mad/desperate enough to accept it. Bearing in mind that present markets mean you can be selling your electricity for well below the daily wholsesale price because it was sold years in advance you can see a method to the madness. I don't think they have a hope in hell of repeating that for Sizewell C if/when it goes ahead especially since Horizon and NuGen are negotiating much cheaper deals in exchange for a government stake.</p><p></p><p>Decommissioning liabilities are paid through the life of the station, it doesn't just come from nowhere. Part of that strike price will be going back for that. My optimism in build times is down to the fact that (hopefully) all the technical issues that have held up the other projects have been overcome and this one can just get a straight run without having to go back to the drawing board. My personal opinion is that they have a lot at stake at Hinkley, with the previous track record they need to get this right if they ever want to sell another EPR.</p>
Decommissioning liabilities are paid through the life of the station, it doesn’t just come from nowhere. Part of that strike price will be going back for that
are you sure? that's not how previous nuclear power stations here have worked - the public are footing an astounding and ever increasing decom bill as it stands just now.
are you sure? that’s not how previous nuclear power stations here have worked – the public are footing an astounding and ever increasing decom bill as it stands just now.
Then and now are very different things.
Also historic nuclear decommissioning is mostly due to taking things apart we had no plant to take apart and no idea how to handle any of it when it was put there. Early costs also incorporate a huge amount of R&D and Weapons development. Which was not exactly planned well either.
"Nuclear is not for spinning up, no. It sits in the background and provides a constant supply (baseload) and at present is ideal for grid balancing. Believe it or not it is helping renewables stay online. That is also true for the throrium and fusion reactors you mentioned before. Nuclear is good for the grunt work, adding VA’s when large reactive consumers come online and balancing loads as renewables cut in and out, generally just chugging along being used as an anchor."
https://qz.com/1348969/europes-heatwave-is-forcing-nuclear-power-plants-to-shut-down/
TL;DR for Paton's link.
Sea levels are going up, the sea wall is 12.5m high. It doesn't actually give any evidence that 12.5m isn't enough.
It may as well also include the fact that the wall is 12.5m high and kittens are cute.
Sea levels will rise and fat bikes make you more attractive to the opposite sex.
Fukushima almost caused the evacuation of 50 million people and singlespeeders have more fun.
Having actually read some of the UK nuclear tsunami assessment it was a long document considering the lack of fault lines ....
There’s a hypothesis the Great Flood of 1607 was a Tsunami.
There’s a hypothesis the Great Flood of 1607 was a Tsunami.
Good to know....
Still the Japan stats speak for themselves, in the event of a tsunami the impact of a nuclear power station failure is tiny compared to the scale of death and destruction.
Paton, all those stations are landlocked and being fed off rivers, coastal stations are doing just fine.
Also, Fukushima didn't just fail because the sea wall wasn't high enough, it failed because the cooling systems were in a stupid place and all clumped together. EPR's are designed with diversity from the start, nothing is grouped and will all be supplied either independently or from different routes. Plus, JER. Also, Greenpeace, a well known unbiased source if ever I saw one.
Bigjim - yes I'm sure, I attended a presentation about it 5 weeks ago.
Thermal power plants, such as nuclear or coal, use high-temperature steam to turn turbines, which convert heat energy into electricity. In the process, the steam’s temperature falls, so it can no longer be used efficiently to move the turbine again. To raise its temperature back up, the steam first needs to be condensed into water, because liquids absorb heat better than gases.
I don't think even a GCSE student would get a mark for that heap of bollocks. Just as an aside.
Thermal power plants, such as nuclear or coal, use high-temperature dry steam to turn turbines coupled to a generator, which convert the resultant kinetic energy into electricity. In the process, the steam’s temperature falls and it begins to condense, so it can no longer be used to move the turbine without damaging the blades. To raise its energy back up, the steam first needs to be condensed into water, because liquids can be easily and efficiently pumped unlike gases. This has an added benefit of raising the vaccum within the turbine space and thus the efficiency.
For more information, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle
yes it seems this will be the first nuclear power plant the developers will have to pay to decom. 2083, wonder if they'll have it running by then?
velopers will have to pay to decom.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">mikewsmith
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Still the Japan stats speak for themselves, in the event of a tsunami the impact of a nuclear power station failure is tiny compared to the scale of death and destruction.
Well, we had this earlier in the thread but the impact of fukushima was huge... The evacuations were massively disruptive and were linked directly to 573 deaths but also it all had to be done at the same time as the rescue and recovery operations after the tsunami so that was a massive extra strain on resources and the impact on the rescue efforts is immeasurable. And there's no reliable stats for the further impact on mental health and suicides etc in the displaced population. People keep trying to account for the impact of fukushima purely in nuclear-disaster direct deaths but that makes no sense.
(of course, Hinkley is not Fukushima, and is not in a tsunami zone, so direct comparisons are pointless. Hinkley's probably one of the safest coastal reactors in the world. If we ever have to deal with, frinstance, a runaway iceshelf collapse and resultant fast sealevel change then we're going to wish all the other reactors were built the same...)
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-author">bigjim
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
yes it seems this will be the first nuclear power plant the developers will have to pay to decom. 2083
EDF'll be bankrupt long before then- the cost of decommissioning their existing network is already more than the company's worth.
</div>
yes it seems this will be the first nuclear power plant the developers will have to pay to decom. 2083, wonder if they’ll have it running by then?
Wrong again, the presentation concerned the present EDF fleet. The condition of the takeover from British Energy was that they were responsible for the defuelling and decommissioning but that the governement had the option of appointing another agent.
It's also worth noting that as of today the nuclear fleet has only been in private hands for half of the operating life of most stations and that it was orginally built as a public venture. So the developers (the tax payer) WILL be paying for decommissioning as will the owners who have been paying the NLF a percentage of revenue over the life of their ownership.
Well, we had this earlier in the thread but the impact of fukushima was huge… The evacuations were massively disruptive and were linked directly to 573 deaths but also it all had to be done at the same time as the rescue and recovery operations after the tsunami so that was a massive extra strain on resources and the impact on the rescue efforts is immeasurable. And there’s no reliable stats for the further impact on mental health and suicides etc in the displaced population. People keep trying to account for the impact of fukushima purely in nuclear-disaster direct deaths but that makes no sense.
Yep 15,000 dead, nearly 7,000 injured then.
The issue of building a nuclear power plant with a very old design on a coastline vulnerable to Tsunami was a bad one, that was the mistake not nuclear power.
It makes no sense to treat it as something outside of the massive natural disaster that it was. More people would have been killed if there was a town there.
But as said there is nothing comparable in the UK in any way. For all the claims the nuclear industry remains very safe.
EDF’ll be bankrupt long before then- the cost of decommissioning their existing network is already more than the company’s worth.
What value was delivering this power to France and the UK?
The biggest problem here is power is not a national industry.
EDF’ll be bankrupt long before then- the cost of decommissioning their existing network is already more than the company’s worth.
EDF Energy and the EDF group are not one and the same.
returning to the OP - yes, it's going to happen and will be energised in 2025 (-ish).
National Grid have just awarded a contract for an underground cable link on this route from Hinkley C to Bristol with contract award for a c£210 million new 400kv overhead line on the same route imminent.
It's happening - and it's the right thing to do.
Their liability for decommissioning is capped - and capped at well below the real cost. the reason for this is they would not take on the contract if they had to face the full cost of decommissioning.
Read the documents carefully.
the reason for this is they would not take on the contract if they had to face the full cost of decommissioning.
What is the full cost of decommissioning?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/30/hinkley-point-nuclear-waste-storage-costs
Just a simple skim of the government documents shows this without even needing to see the "secret " stuff.
Mike - storage and disposal of the waste, any cost overruns in the decommissioning of the site all down to the taxpayer. Not EDF
Go on have a read up on it. all the documents are available on the net and its blindingly obvious
EDF would not take on the contract without the cap
so we have the most expensive electricity ever produced, we have the taxpayer picking up the bills at the endand there remains next to no chance it will be on time. all other reactors of this type have been hugely delayed. this is already several years behind shedule and they have only just started work on it.
Go on have a read up on it. all the documents are available on the net and its blindingly obvious
It's something I know a little about don't worry, thought you might have an actual number there for all your certainty.
so we have the most expensive electricity ever produced, we have the taxpayer picking up the bills at the endand there remains next to no chance it will be on time.
You still seem to think that cost is the only factor in energy for the future. Even if it late it will be producing a serious contribution to the grid for a long long time. That is needed.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">squirrelking
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
EDF Energy and the EDF group are not one and the same.
Well, correct, but what's your point? EDF Energy is wholly owned by EDF Group, and EDF Group is ****ed.
</div>
We cannot have a number as we do not know how much decommissioning will cost and we still have no idea how to dispose of the waste nor any plans to do so
And who owns EDF Group?
So TJ, basically you're complaining about if's, but's and maybe's? In a worst case scenario.
Ah good to know, you don't know.
The reason we have no certainty on waste disposal (we have plans) is a huge anti nuclear scare mongering crusade.
People have been happy to pollute all over the place but not address sensible storage plans. The huge attempt to confuse historical legacy with future has not helped either.
What is the waste ratio for new builds?
No one knows hence the cap - but we do know that EDFS liability is limited to a lot less than the known costs of decommissioning and the UK taxpayer picks up the rest. so again another factually incorrect statement from the nuclear proponents stating that EDF will pick up the bill. That is simply wrong
do you know what the costs of decommissioning are? Do you know what the solution to storage of the waste is?
but we do know that EDFS liability is limited to a lot less than the known costs of decommissioning and the UK taxpayer picks up the rest.
Er, from your own link no less:
[There will be a] cap on the liability of the operator of the nuclear power station which would apply in a worst-case scenario…The UK government accepts that, in setting a cap, the residual risk, of the very worst-case scenarios where actual cost might exceed the cap, is being borne by the government.
do you know what the costs of decommissioning are? Do you know what the solution to storage of the waste is?
Deep dark geologically stable, simple answer.
Repo was a good idea but butter fuel means it'e not needed and saves a lot of hassle.
Any other questions TJ?
<div class="bbp-reply-author">squirrelking
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
And who owns EDF Group?
France, mostly. And?
</div>
and I have to say 10 years playing with nuclear waste did nothing bad to me
Well to make it explicit, do you think France will be bankrupt by then? Personally I don't so frankly I'm not worried.
Plus the cost of waste storage which the UK government will pick up and that link is putting a positive spin on it. EDFs contribution to decommissioning is capped but the true costs are not known and EDFs liability does not include large parts of the decommissioning.
so what you said about EDF paying for all the decommissioning is just wrong.
As usual, the public are not actually asked the correct questoin, which is a choice between:
Option 1) Cheap renewable 'lecy, but the lights (and freezer, and internet, and water, and your boiler, an dyour EV charger, and everything else driven by your 'lecy) will go off when there ain't enough to go around
or
Option 2) Potentially more expensive Nuclear 'lecy, which might cost you more in the long run, but your lights will stay on all the time
Given this (accurate) question, how many people would vote for option 1) ???
Plus the cost of waste storage which the UK government will pick up and that link is putting a positive spin on it
Good they need to, they are storing all the UK's legacy waste first and maybe some Japanese ILW/HLW swaps, a bit more will be a tiny amount on the bill
EDFs contribution to decommissioning is capped but the true costs are not known and EDFs liability does not include large parts of the decommissioning.
That is fine, it will help employ the well trained decommissioning people after we do the old stuff, think of it as enhanced dole.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">mikewsmith
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">do you know what the costs of decommissioning are? Do you know what the solution to storage of the waste is?
Deep dark geologically stable, simple answer.
</div>
So no answer then. Where? How? Who , when? any answers or is this like your answer to "how do we pug the hole in future generation? No answer at all Wishful thinking will not do
So no answer then. Where? How? Who , when? any answers or is this like your answer to “how do we pug the hole in future generation? No answer at all Wishful thinking will not do
Honestly TJ that explains a lot, fingers in the ears don't want to know, don't want a solution. You know a bunch of people much cleverer than you are working on this and coming up with serious answers. Though your first reaction is to object to whatever it is. Anyway if you get an independent Scotland I reckon something just south of Carlisle would be perfect.
Anyway just checking do you live on a radon spot?
http://www.ukradon.org/information/ukmaps
As previously stated, we're currently liable for a whole heap of spent fuel that is going to be around for a hell of a long time, this will be a drop in the ocean. Of course said fuel is also viable for a future breeder programme soooo...
<div class="bbp-reply-author">squirrelking
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Well to make it explicit, do you think France will be bankrupt by then?
Probably not. But EDF is (mostly) owned by France; it isn't France. To make it explicit.
</div>
yes mike it does explain a lot. when asked for solutions to problems all you have in answer is wishful thinking. Two difficult questions.
"how would you cover the future shortfall? " and " How would you dispose of high level waste? "
To both of those the only answers you have are wishful thinking.
TJ not sure why you keep hammering the how to generate more energy point.
I've said it multiple time we needs as much as we can get, we should build the tidal schemes, and the solar, and the wind and the nuclear. Even if you replace Hinkly with something else we still need more. So we need to build all of it.
AS for waste - in the same place as the UK will put it's current HLW, we all know that has not been built yet but it will be as it needs to be. That is non negotiable so there will be a repository.
Wrong again, the presentation concerned the present EDF fleet. The condition of the takeover from British Energy was that they were responsible for the defuelling and decommissioning but that the governement had the option of appointing another agent.
I don't think I'm wrong, it seems widely stated this will be the first one where the developer will have responsibility to cover decom. Did EDF develop their current ones then? They are the current operator I thought, having taken over existing developments.