Forum menu
If you want to call it that then you should probably point out where the funds are coming from – if not you could be seen to be using semantics to mislead and I’m sure that is not what you are trying to do.
Where the funds are coming from is immaterial: public subsidy can take many forms as anyone familiar with state aid rules will be aware.
So we can agree this is not coming from government funding then......
So we can agree this is not coming from government funding then……
It's a subsidy, conferred on a selective basis by the national public authority. It's difficult to see how that doesn't constitute government funding.
It's worth noting that state aid can take a variety of forms, for example the provision of assets, contracts, tax reliefs, etc. At heart, they all amount to the same thing.
Its not coming from private investors. Its a public subsidy - same as the public willbe picking up the decommissioning costs after a capped figure - another public subsuidy
If the government didn't give that money to the nuclear industry it would have that money for other things. Like investment in renewables.
Renewables get a tiny fraction of the money given to nuclear.
When investment funds are limited and most is given to one part then yes - its one or the other.
Well frankly it's tough shit time, it's the direction that things are going in and it's getting built.
If you want more funding for renewable vote in a government who wants to deliver that.
if not you could be seen to be using semantics to mislead and I’m sure that is not what you are trying to do.
Exactly my thoughts.
Oh, decommissioning?
<div>Funding of Decommissioning</div>
<div>5.3.1</div>
<div>The costs for decommissioning, waste and spent fuel management and disposal would be</div>
<div>funded through a Funded Decommissioning Programme (FDP), approved by the Secretary of</div>
<div>State, which must be in place before the operator us</div>
<div>es the site by virtue of the site licence. This</div>
<div>ensures that EDF Energy sets aside funds over the operating life of the power station to cover</div>
<div>these costs in full.</div>
<div>5.3.2</div>
<div>A legal framework that implements this policy</div>
<div>has been established through the Energy Act</div>
<div>2008 and Government also publis</div>
<div>hed a consultation on draft FDP guidance in February 2008</div>
<div>(Ref.5.6), providing further detail on what an</div>
<div>FDP should contain. Further consultations on the</div>
<div>arrangements for setting a fixed price for wast</div>
<div>e disposal and the regulations under the 2008</div>
<div>Energy Act were issued on March 2010.</div>
<div>5.3.3</div>
<div>The UK Government has created the independent</div>
<div>Nuclear Liabilities Financing Assurance Board</div>
<div>(NLFAB), to provide impartial scrutiny and advice</div>
<div>on the suitability of the FDP, submitted by</div>
<div>operators of new nuclear power</div>
<div>stations. NLFAB would advise the Secretary of State on the</div>
<div>financial arrangements that operators submit fo</div>
<div>r approval, and on the regular review and on-</div>
<div>going scrutiny of funding.</div>
Squirrelking - we have been thru this before
EDF are responsible for decommisioning and waste disposal costs only up to a capped figure. anything above that becomes the responsibility of the government
Instead the document explains that there will be a “cap on the liability of the operator of the nuclear power station which would apply in a worst-case scenario”. It adds: “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.”
Separate documents confirm that the cap also applies should the cost of decommissioning the reactor at the end of its life balloon
The level of the cap is unclear. But Dr David Lowry, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who made the FoI request, said it was clear that the risk of footing the bill for a significant cost overrun had been transferred from Hinkley’s operator to the taxpayer.
Instead the document explains that there will be a “cap on the liability of the operator of the nuclear power station which would apply in a worst-case scenario”. It adds: “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.”
Separate documents confirm that the cap also applies should the cost of decommissioning the reactor at the end of its life balloon
The level of the cap is unclear. But Dr David Lowry, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who made the FoI request, said it was clear that the risk of footing the bill for a significant cost overrun had been transferred from Hinkley’s operator to the taxpayer.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/30/hinkley-point-nuclear-waste-storage-costs
Unsurprisingly the government fought hard to keep this cap secret as it shows that EDF will NOT be liable for the full costs.
And the worst case scenario is?
Lowry again. Do you have another source that can present facts objectively? I've helpfully included the previous paragraph which you omitted for some reason. It's almost like you're doing your damnest to misrepresent the facts.
it states that “unlimited exposure to risks relating to the costs of disposing of their waste in a GDF [geological disposal facility], could not be accepted by the operator as they would prevent the operator from securing the finance necessary to undertake the project”.
Now, I for one can't understand why an operator should be exclusively footing the bill to dispose of waste in a facility that should exist but doesn't thanks to successive governments kicking it into the long grass. That looks like a sensible commercial decision to me.
Correct
Without the government picking up the bill EDF would not accept the contract
To state tho as you keep on doing that EDF are liable for all costs is simply false
It's not just waste this applies to. It's also decommisioning
You keep insisting on accuracy. So be accurate on this. EDF do not cover this liability
It's all a waste of money and effort anyway as solar (plus storage of course) is going to have taken over by then.
It’s all a waste of money and effort anyway as solar (plus storage of course) is going to have taken over by then.
What area of solar is needed to provide 24hrs of power from about 6hrs of sunlight?
EDF do not cover this liability
EDF do not cover the liability of the government failing to provide a Geo Repository which is entirely sensible.Same as you are not liable for the provision of sewage treatment facilities when you build a house just that you will connect to a bigger system.
It’s not just waste this applies to. It’s also decommisioning
He warned that an accident that could force the closure of the reactor, either because of problems with it or at another plant, as happened in Japan, would leave the taxpayer having to pay billions of pounds for the clear-up years after it ceased generating revenues.
So if the regulator were to force them to shut down before they had generated enough to pay for decommissioning they are not liable for for the difference. Again, that's not entirely unreasonable.
And the governemnt is not "picking up the bill". Enough of the spin, this is proper Daily Mail grade pish you're spouting. The government is picking up the difference in the event of a "worst case scenario". Not normal business. I already linked to the document that says EDF Energy is liable for all decommissioning costs of Hinkley Point C in full (ie. normal costs and liabilities).
Squirrel
It's unarguable. EDF have only a limited liability for both waste and decommisioning. Simple fact
You do realise EDF is essentially bankrupt? The cost of decommissioning their aging fleet is massively more than they can afford. They won't be around in their current form when Hinkley needs decommissioning so arguing about their liability is just pissing in the wind.
Seems important to some....
If they do go south and the UK government can take on hinkly then they can head someway back to being in control of generating power which seems to have scared various governments shitless and left is in this situation.
If a government backed guaranteed price is a government subsidy, then so is the FIT for renewables.
Decommissioning costs for coal fired generation (ie, mines and waste tips) have mostly been paid out of public money. Not sure who who will end up paying for removal of offshore wind turbines, and there seems to be a get out for oil platforms.
I'm puzzled by Rolls Royce, if they think an SMR based on submarine reactors is viable, as they use very highly enriched uranium fuel that I can't imagine any civil operator will be allowed to have. All the research reactors have had to be modified to use low enrichment. Something like the pebble bed reactor, where it's physically impossible to get the fuel out of the pebbles, is the only way you could use HEU.
Not sure who who will end up paying for removal of offshore wind turbines
developer, though repowering with the latest technology is what I would expect.
developer, though repowering with the latest technology is what I would expect.
Well by the logic above the tax payer is liable and expected to pay for all of it.
You do realise EDF is essentially bankrupt? The cost of decommissioning their aging fleet is massively more than they can afford.
Might want to tell them that, they're bidding on the contract! FWIW though that's not strictly true, EDF Group as a whole isn't great but EDF Energy (the UK subsidiary) is doing alright for cash flow. Or were, we'll see how an unplanned 6 month (+?) outage pans out. But that's immaterial, the money for decommissioning is already there, it gets taken from every megawatt generated and paid back to the successful decommissioning bidder. SSEB, Scottish Nuclear and British Energy all paid into the pot. Finally, whilst there is no denying that age is definitely showing in the TNPG reactors (Hunterston B and Hinkley Point B) the NPC reactors (Hartlepool and Heysham 1) to my knowledge have shown no issues, the second tranche reactors (Torness and Heysham 2) have at least 16 odd years left before they get to the same age and Dungeness will probably still be "running" in 2118 for all the time it ever spends online. Oh, and Sizewell B? No idea, different reactor type.
It’s unarguable. EDF have only a limited liability for both waste and decommisioning. Simple fact
I'm glad we can agree on something at last. I never disputed that, where we differ is where we believe that liability begins and ends. I don't think it's unreasonable to say they shouldn't have unlimited liability subject to certain scenarios.
Mike - whataboutery. No one is denying that there is some subsidy to renewables and that it is needed - even tho its a fraction of the subsidy to nuclear and decommissioning renewables is a miniscule problem to that of nuclear.
However when people try to insist that EDF will be picking up the bill for all costs associated with Hinkley this simply is not true. No commercial operator ever could accept that open ended liability as no one knows what the costs of decommissioning will be. The government will be picking up the tab. they tried very hard to keep that fact secret and we do not know what the cap on costs actually is.
Squirrelking - you touch on a critical point. Its hard to find unbiased information. The government and the nuclear operators certainly do not provide this. Public statements made which are shown to be wrong time and time again - as in the decommissioning costs issue. Headline claims "EDF will pick up the tab" Small print " unless its too expensive then the UK government does" ~There are many examples of this all through the history of nuclear including the pretence that hinkley is on time when its already years late.
I far prefer information from outside the industry from people who are truely independent - but I accept a large pinch of salt is needed but people outside the industry are truthful far more often - again see the two examples above. without people outside the industry fighting to get the truth we wouldn't know that the EDF liabilities are capped.
I am glad you finally seem to agree that EDF are NOT liable for all decommisioning and waste disposal costs. Earlier you were arguing they were.
Developer, although repowering with the latest technology is what I would expect
But at some point, even after repowering, the foundations have to be lifted from the sea bed. That's where the wriggling will come. Taking off the turbines is cheap compared to the foundations. They'll be abandoned, just like the coal mines and the oil platform substructures.
Greybeard, I was just going from what I heard from someone who came from RR, it would seem that's as true only as far as it being small PWR's, the design appears to use conventional UO2 fuel.
Thanks for the link, squirrelking. That's interesting and might well work - but it's nothing like a submarine reactor.
However when people try to insist that EDF will be picking up the bill for all costs associated with Hinkley this simply is not true. No commercial operator ever could accept that open ended liability as no one knows what the costs of decommissioning will be.
How is that, how many reactors are under decommissioning so far?
It's almost as if you don't want to look this stuff up.....
I far prefer information from outside the industry from people who are truely independent
Independant perhaps but certainly not unbiased.
http://www.nuwinfo.se/waste2007lowry
http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/members/
I prefer my facts to come from empirical data. Or at least referenced in some way.
Well by the logic above the tax payer is liable and expected to pay for all of it.
Not sure what you mean, as part of the lease requirements with the crown estate the developer has to show they have costed for and have the funds for decom.
Not sure what you mean, as part of the lease requirements with the crown estate the developer has to show they have costed for and have the funds for decom.
Well to paraphrase above yeah but and stuff yeah and but....
Do they have to cost and account for boats not existing when they have to get rid of them? the Geo Repository clause is basically that.
Trouble is squirrelking - you don't get that from the industry either.
Mike how many generators of this type have been decommissioned? What are you going to do with the waste?
Mike how many generators of this type have been decommissioned? What are you going to do with the waste?
Oh my..... read it all? Firstly these are a new gen, based on the learning of all the other stuff, with all the learings we have gained from those 1950's stations.
The UK government needs to provide a stable geo storage for the existing legacy waste, they cannot avoid doing that which is the store for the waste from the new builds. Waste will be much lower as we have worked a lot more out. If the UK does not build geo storage then it's ****ed and is screwing up on the UK governments obligations. If you think that is a risk for EDF then you have no idea.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">tjagain
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
No commercial operator ever could accept that open ended liability as no one knows what the costs of decommissioning will be.
Well that's the thing with EDF, they've dealt with the costs of decommissioning by... er, putting their fingers in their ears and ignoring it. They plan on decommissioning costing 300 million euros per gigawatt, compared to the UK that plans on it costing 2.7 billion, or even germany's 1.4 billion. Obviously not all reactors are the same but pretty much nobody outside of EDF seems to think that's realistic. They're also on the hook for building Cigeo, whose budget has already doubled and whose start date keeps getting set back.
</div>
Squirrelking wrote,
"EDF Group as a whole isn’t great but EDF Energy (the UK subsidiary) is doing alright for cash flow. Or were, we’ll see how an unplanned 6 month (+?) outage pans out. But that’s immaterial, the money for decommissioning is already there, it gets taken from every megawatt generated and paid back to the successful decommissioning bidder. SSEB, Scottish Nuclear and British Energy all paid into the pot"
It's the French reactors that will bankrupt them, not the UK ones. EDF Energy doing OK won't help when EDF Group goes to the wall.
You're looking at the companies as the same when they are separate entities though. Legally our reactors are completely independent of those in France. Believe me, if EDF went under EDF Energy would be sold as a going concern with a relatively healthy balance same as Bruce Power was when BE went under. New name, same faces, same old routine. Hinkley would simply be passed on to a new operator.
Not sure about costs but France predominantly has PWRs whilst we have AGRs that require much more time (and money) to decommission thanks to the graphite core, they just need to remove the water and the moderator is gone then leave the vessel to "cool". I do agree that figure seems hopelessly optimistic though.
Well to paraphrase above yeah but and stuff yeah and but….
Do they have to cost and account for boats not existing when they have to get rid of them? the Geo Repository clause is basically that.
I don't think it has anything to do with a geo repository or non existant boats. I think I'm probably missing something.
The worst case scenario involves the government not having got round to building a Repository for the waste/spent fuel to go into. In terms of the liability most would accept it's unreasonable to expect EDF to account for or budget to build a repository for the waste as it's something the NDA should be delivering right now.