[Closed] Hinkley - non merci

...if we are going to generate electricity would it not be better to aim for 0 casualties and 0 consequences...?

Of course.

But that also rules out wind power / solar / hydro / geo-thermal / etc. etc.

No I am not ruling out anything and 0 consequences are not realistic for any activity.

I was refering to using the current energy system, and the use of fossil fuels etc. as the benchmark for judging another system.

[quote=iffoverload ]not sure what you intended to say with this statement... anyway.

I'm sure others will get it, even if it's gone sailing way over your head.

Are you saying that he is the only human capable of making an error or that current systems are able to override human input and will never fail under any circumstances?

I'm suggesting that it's possible to have systems and procedures in place which will failsafe.

Unfortunately the energy industries track record (as I mentioned previously) is not perfect and I see no good reason to give them benefit of the doubt in this case.

The industry's track record is reflected in the stats quoted above.

[quote=iffoverload ]No I am not ruling out anything and 0 consequences are not realistic for any activity.
I was refering to using the current energy system, and the use of fossil fuels etc. as the benchmark for judging another system.

What do you suggest comparing the dangers of nuclear power with then? The question is what should we build to generate our electricity, not what happens in utopia. You say no to nuclear because it's dangerous, well go on then, what are you suggesting which isn't dangerous when benchmarked against nuclear?

maxtorque - Member

So, all the "anti nuclear" supporters, you'll be fine to be the first on the electricity rationing list when the rolling blackouts and un-expected blackouts (due to a sudden lack of wind or sun) occur in a few years time?

There's a few problems with depending on nuclear to get you out of that hole, too- as I mentioned up the page, we're decommissioning more than we're building, even if Hin[b]k[/b]ley arrives on time, which nobody thinks it will because it's already one of those projects which announces it won't be completed on schedule, before it's started.

But I'll say it again, you don't have to be anti-nuclear to be anti [i]this[/i] nuclear. Unproven and demonstrably troublesome design, wobbly financials, these aren't nuclear specific concerns. Course, it could be that all the troubles of the existing projects were either unique to that build, due to some local issue, or were issues that have been worked out, and ours will go splendidly. Seem likely to anyone?

Been reading this one from bad signal....

For all the crap about Sellafield, things like they don't know whats what etc. try reading the Life Time Plan - go far enough into the references and my name will come up. It must have been 13 years ago I was reviewing and updating papers on the waste inventories there.
Legacy vs Current - as a simple example compare the outdoor storage ponds (B29/B30) referred to here with the 80's version
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
Guess what people learned stuff and improved it. I also never read a report that was scary or ran into people who just looked stunned and shocked.
I was also still in the industry when Fukashima happened, the review of everything was done, it was done properly. The what if's were checked out.

The world has more to fear from a coal plant than modern nuclear.

Those photos illustrate just how much what I assume at the time were considered to be safe and adequate practices for storage appear to have changed...

edit: mind you, to the layman it kinda just looks like the same thing in a warehouse with less scaffolding and more lights. I'm sure that there must be a lot more to it than meets the eye though?

Fukashima....it was done properly. The what if's were checked out.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

maybe they asked the wrong questions?

The world has more to fear from a coal plant than modern nuclear.

the biggest difference is you can just shut down a coal plant and close the gates. Try that with a nuclear power plant or storage facility.

For starters it's inside, big change. There is also a lot going on there that you don't see and as a layman your not expected to know but also as a layman your making a lot of judgements without being in possession of the facts.

Edit on the coal you will also have killed thousands of people during its operations.

yes the facts are not in my possession.. true.

It looked nice when it was built though.

[img] ?w=736[/img]

and I refer you to my earlier post about using cheap and dirty energy as a benchmark for other solutions

The Hinkley A station cooling ponds were outside in the early days too.

and I refer you to my earlier post about using cheap and dirty energy as a benchmark for other solutions

[quote=iffoverload ]and I refer you to my earlier post about using cheap and dirty energy as a benchmark for other solutions

You don't yet seem to have provided a suggestion of what we should be comparing with - or taken up the challenge of doing it the other way by comparing with nuclear and suggesting a less dangerous option.

As a non-serious aside - many moons ago I was doing a project studying fracturing of rock at Sellafield. I requested to look at some data, and they agreed I could do so. What happened was that I was stuck in a room with books of data and a very cute secretary with a very short skirt and very long legs. No idea what the books contained.

OK I'll throw a few laymans ideas out there and would be interested to hear opinions.

Agree that alternatives are needed,if the trend in the graph is accurate this should probably be something to try and control more effectively.

[img] [/img]

less requirements for energy would probably be the cheapest and safest solution and make demand easier to meet.

But how to do this? I wish I was smart enough to have a concrete answer!

At an individual level we should try and do as much as possible to reduce energy usage, increase efficency and try to eliminate wastage. Lots of small ways to do this this that will add up over the long term.
Many people are already thinking like this 🙂

This should carry through to industry,manufacturing,distribution etc. with government enforced incentives and penalties perhaps? Bottom line means everything 😉

At a National level small localised energy creation and distribution may be something worth looking at? Seems to have worked in some places I believe.

In brief I think throwing money or building more facilites will not give a long term solution to the problem if we continue to use energy unwisely.

No point in comparing nuclear to anything really as it is great idea but I think we are still playing with fire at the moment, maybe some day it will mature to a technology which does not have the drawbacks of generating long term problems with storage or accidental leakage.

Not sure if a NPP at Hinkley is the best idea and the wisest use of available funds and possible investment.

and yay! for cute secs...

The global graph is probably a little misleading in this context as it's taking in to account the massive changes happening around the world.
UK energy demands are not soaring off but generation capacity is dropping off, it's at a scale where lots of small things won't make a bug enough difference.
Local generation may be a good start but not for the big industrial areas that need the big supply.

In brief I think throwing money or building more facilites will not give a long term solution to the problem if we continue to use energy unwisely.

Hmm not sure a naked child is a great thing to have on computer screen for those of us in an office, maybe someone should put NSFW in the title? I think I got away with it but could cause problems for some

Also where I live at the moment they are chucking in diesel generators because the sub sea cable that tops up our power is damaged in the same year that drought is leaving our hydro dams empty. Couple that with asking industry to run a go slow to stop the island going a bit dark. What does happen when the power goes off?

At a National level small localised energy creation

This always crops up but it isn't very efficient. The UK has a national grid, so localised energy generation really isn't all that necessary.

iffoverload - Member

Agree that alternatives are needed,if the trend in the graph is accurate this should probably be something to try and control more effectively.

World power consumption isn't very useful when you're talking about 1st world consumption- it's hugely influenced by industrialisation and growth elsewhere. I believe we could reduce our energy consumption to 0, and only put a dent in the rise globally.

UK energy consumption is actually falling already- though whether that's a longterm trend I don't know, it could just be a series of one-offs. It rose pretty steadily from 1980 to 2005 but is now back to 1995 levels or thereabouts.

[quote=bigjim ]Hmm not sure a naked child is a great thing to have on computer screen for those of us in an office, maybe someone should put NSFW in the title? I think I got away with it but could cause problems for some

But it's an appeal to emotion - that sort of thing is always allowed.

[quote=dragon ]This always crops up but it isn't very efficient. The UK has a national grid, so localised energy generation really isn't all that necessary.

Indeed - the way to go is likely to be more interconnects in order to make use of renewables more feasible. Had a chat with TJ about this last night and he suggested they're putting in a connection from Scotland to Norway so Norway can store the surplus of renewables form there for use when the wind stops.

If it's OK with TJ (I'm sure he's reading this) I'll post up some of his comments - interesting to have an intelligent discussion with somebody who disagrees with me on nuclear.

It doesn't change the fact that even with lots of energy saving, all the stuff going offline means we need new capacity now (not that Hinkley will provide that, something should have been done decades ago, but it might at least ease the problems in 20 years time).

Indeed - the way to go is likely to be more interconnects in order to make use of renewables more feasible. Had a chat with TJ about this last night and he suggested they're putting in a connection from Scotland to Norway so Norway can store the surplus of renewables form there for use when the wind stops.

See my post on page 2 of this thread

Norwegian and Icelandic interconnectors still in early planning stages but others in place and very successful

If anyone is interested in the interconnectors, here's two I've worked on but there are others in the generic bottom link

http://www.northconnect.no/

http://www2.nationalgrid.com/About-us/European-business-development/Interconnectors/Iceland/

http://www2.nationalgrid.com/About-us/European-business-development/Interconnectors/

Hinkley decision postponed for two months http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35873786

you guys just lose interest once you've had your argumentgasm don't you

Can't read the leaked engineer report behind the paywall myself but looks interesting http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35925637

Well you should probably stock up on candles and a mini generator. Currently waiting for heavy rain to fill our dams to produce electric here as our mainland connection is down till mid June.

so (according to the BBC articles)

the UK statagey to ensure we can meet projected demand has been:

to sell British Energy to the French State owned company EGF,

which seems to be in dire financial trouble

which is...

being bailed out by China's government for a 33% stake in Hinkley C

which is ...

based on technology that is not yet developed and has been delayed numerous time for safety concerns

then ...

commiting to purchase the energy well above the market price

and..

wanting to ensure consumers foot the bill.

Dr Wyman .... might look expensive today, she says, but she argues it boasts the advantage of being generated within the UK, helping the country become more energy [b]self-sufficient[/b].

does this really make any sense?

It will be built their is French pride at stake, Hollande has personally said it will go ahead and EDF have been promised a cash injection from the french government apparently. EDF can't afford to cock this one up, it is their demonstrator to the rest of the world of their nuclear capabilities.

There's lots of quotes about how the agreed price per MWH is higher than the going market rate for energy - but how does it compare with the price of other non-carbon based sources? (And I note here that that price might shoot up massively if renewables had to expand to provide base load)

why would the Chineese state want to buy into this?
future bargaining chip?

If it is such a good investment why does the UK not put in a 1/3rd?

Can't read the leaked engineer report behind the paywall myself but looks interesting

basically says that the engineers building reckon it will over run by years after the deadline when our existing plants will be shut down

it also says the chinese also think it will overrun and want guaranteed compensation from the uk government
(osbornes bet the house on china helping us out, so Im sure theyll get it too, protecting china's cheap steel imports are more important than jobs and communities in Port Talbot after all)

kimbers - Member

basically says that [s]the engineers building[/s] literally everyone reckons it will over run by years after the deadline when our existing plants will be shut down

FTFY. (I don't like FTFY but I couldn't resist, for this one)

dragon - Member

EDF can't afford to cock this one up, it is their demonstrator to the rest of the world of their nuclear capabilities.

Flamanville 3 is supposed to demonstrate their nuclear capabilities to the rest of the world. I suppose it has- 6 other countries have binned plans to buy these plants from France. Including France.

There's lots of quotes about how the agreed price per MWH is higher than the going market rate for energy - but how does it compare with the price of other non-carbon based sources? (And I note here that that price might shoot up massively if renewables had to expand to provide base load)

it's been touched on earlier in the thread and you can look up strike price of recent cfd's online eg http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1335815/uk-awards-first-cfd-round. "CfDs guarantee developers a price for the electricity produced for 15 years. The average price awarded for onshore wind was £80.57/MWh while offshore projects averaged £117.14/MWh"

Renewables price are falling all the time - the key things here are the length of the contract for Hinkley is very long in comparison, and the amount of energy we are committing to buying at that price is massively higher than that of renewables developments, making it a comparitively much more expensive investment, hence the fuss.

An indication of prices falling is given by the German market:

Compared to German offshore prices, the payment rate for projects going on line in 2015, 2016 and 2017 is €194/MWh for eight years, falling to €39/MWh (approximately equal to wholesale market price) for the following 12 years.

Alternatively, project owners in Germany can choose a lower rate of €154/MWh for the longer period of 12 years followed by €39/MWh for the following eight years.

If it is such a good investment why does the UK not put in a 1/3rd?

Because it isn't. All the talk of UK taxpayers subsidising nos amis in France was poppycock (see previous thread). Lots of aggro when your try to explain you investment maths works!!! reality comes home to roost eventually

Actual footage from the trilateral negotiations has emeged

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36903904 ]Hinkley Point: Surprise delay for nuclear plant deal[/url]

[img] [/img]

It's hardly a surprise, EDF themselves only voted to go ahead by 10 votes to 7. I'd be more surprised if it goes ahead than doesn't I think.

How much has been spent on it already

As I understand it the Johnson/Lumley Graden bridge has already had over £30m spent on it 😯

Im willing to bet hinckley's al;ready incurred many multiples of that

A lot no doubt, it's part of life with big developments though. Even the comparatively small offshore wind farms that RSPB successfully stopped last week will have had many many millions spent on them already.

[I]A lot no doubt, it's part of life with big developments though. [/I]

Yep. Crossrail had folk working on it from before 1991, so a full 20 years before the project really 'started'.

IS this fallout from Brexit?

I've heard of people buying houses based on the jobs this created. I feel very bad for those people if this is going to lead to large redundancies in the Southwest.

No drama. Parliament is due it's summer break. New cabinet etc, so this will probably be discussed when the Government next meets after the break.

[I]No drama. Parliament is due it's summer break. New cabinet etc, so this will probably be discussed when the Government next meets after the break.[/I]

except that the investors may decide that the risk isn't now worth it for the price, so want a higher price for the electricity...

IS this fallout from Brexit?

It was a crazy project before brexit so maybe not, but if brexit adds to the risks generated by it inevitably massively overrunning in time and budget then it might be. Speculation on speculation really. EDF weren't exactly all behind it so it isn't surprising the government aren't either.

hugely overpriced piece of civil and mechanical steam raising engine, reduce consumption, switch off lights on motorways, building floodlighting, and many other engery waste streams, and spend the cash saved on low engergy products.

[I]hugely overpriced piece of civil and mechanical steam raising engine, reduce consumption, switch off lights on motorways, building floodlighting, and many other engery waste streams, and spend the cash saved on low engergy products. [/I]

Yep agree, do all that but we'll still need new power stations otherwise we'll be short. So FFS someone make a decision!

we also have interconectors between ireland and France for power, what happens when we leave the eec, even less power available, best to stock up on AA batteries now

Below is a list of existing and future interconnectors.

As with other major infrastructure projects future interconnectors face a range of challenges that can impact on timing of delivery. The estimated delivery dates shown below reflects our understanding of developers existing delivery plans for future interconnectors.

PROJECT NAME DEVELOPERS CONNECTING COUNTRY CAPACITY CAP AND FLOOR REGIME? EXEMPTION? DELIVERY DATE/ ESTIMATED DELIVERY DATE
IFA National Grid Interconnector Holdings (NGIH) and RTE France 2000MW No No 1986
Moyle Mutual Energy Ireland 500MW* No No 2002
BritNed NGIH and TenneT Netherlands 1000MW No Yes (Second Package) 2011
EWIC EirGrid Ireland 500MW No No 2012
ElecLink Star Capital Partners Limited and Groupe Eurotunnel France 1000MW No Yes (Third Package) 2019
NEMO NGIH and Elia Belgium 1000MW Yes No 2019
NSN NGIH and Statnett Norway 1400MW Yes No 2020
FAB Link Transmission Investment and RTE France 1400MW Yes No 2022
IFA2 NGIH and RTE France 1000MW Yes No 2020
Viking NGIH and Energinet.dk Denmark 1000MW Yes No 2022
Greenlink Element Power Ireland 500MW Yes No 2021

So build a few gas power stations to fill the gaps in renewables until we can design something else that a) doesn't cost so much. b) works.

Hinckley is a lemon.

This seems a really bad deal.

I'm glad that the new government hasn't just ploughed ahead and signed up.

But, I don't know what their reasons are for delaying the decision.

Pause for thought, evaluate the options, decide.

Our requirement for electricity isn't going to change markedly given Brexit. IMO this delay is May wanting to look at the project again before signing it off on "her watch"

Maybe with the end of austerity we'll bankroll and build it ourselves (I know or own nuclear industry has been privatised and let to go fallow) rather than relying on state loans from China and state engineering from France.

EDFs own internal report reckon it will run hugely over budget and time, the Chinese have been garuantee compo by Osborne when that that happens, May knows it's a stinker

I reckon she'll leave it to her 3 fall guys, Johnson, Davies and Fox, unless she appointed Gove as minister for not listening to nuclear experts

"I reckon she'll leave it to her 3 fall guys, Johnson, Davies and Fox, unless she appointed Gove as minister for not listening to nuclear experts"

😀

Is this a desperation solution though ?

The crazy guaranteed MWh pricing for 35 years !

£18 billion quid* to build it. Billions to decommission it.

* like that won't increase.

Alternatives ? We need fusion to get solved pronto 🙂

Is there no reason we don't plough every penny into tidal power?
Energy self sufficiency must be the top priority of any country.
Imagine being able to tell all the energy rich foreign despots to go **** themselves.
No doubt it will cost an absolute fortune but what an investment.
There again, the tories could build it using tax payers money then flog it to the Chinese for a pound.

[quote=zippykona ]Is there no reason we don't plough every penny into tidal power?
Energy self sufficiency must be the top priority of any country.
Imagine being able to tell all the energy rich foreign despots to go **** themselves.
No doubt it will cost an absolute fortune but what an investment.
There again, the tories could build it using tax payers money then flog it to the Chinese for a pound.

Would you agree with the unions stating that government decision to have a rethink is "bonkers" ?

It seems a crap deal to me, what do the unions know that we dont ?

I'm pro nuke so anti Hinckley. Ap1000 is far further advanced so lower risk. If you need quick build go for Korean gen 3+. Hinckley is Eurofighter, Korean gen 3+ is F18.

How much would it cost the government to place solar panels on the roof of every dwelling/house in the UK and perhaps roll it out as a new work/training scheme to employ tens of thousands of contractors to do the fitting.

If Hinkley point will only produce 7% of the UK's power then surely the solar energy generated on everyones roof would offset the need to build such a nuclear scheme?.

I guess i'm being simplistic but it's better than signing over our power supply to foreign investors.

allthepies - Member

But, I don't know what their reasons are for delaying the decision.

Neither do they, apparently- 5 days ago Hammond was proudly declaring how it'd go ahead and we were just waiting for EDF. The Chinese signatories for the finance side had been flown in ready to sign the deal, the press conferences had been booked... Suddenly, change of plan. Hurrah for our new government, here's their first test of any note and they have no idea what they're doing, they can't plan 5 days into the future on a project that'll take 20 years minimum.

TBH it feels like they expected EDF to back out, and now are left panicking.

The problem with solar is that it doesn't work at night time. Or during the winter.

TBH it feels like they expected EDF to back out, and now are left panicking.

It's like Johnson campaigning for Brexit all over again 😯

Bargaining chip to be used in Brexit negotiations?

Steelfreak - Member
Bargaining chip to be used in Brexit negotiations?

Interesting.

Explain?

Steelfreak - Member
Bargaining chip to be used in Brexit negotiations?

I suppose that the theory is EDF need the business more than we need electricty

Id say that was rubbish as

A) we are facing a huge energy shortage

B) EDF themselves know its going to be a disaster

Steelfreak - Member

Bargaining chip to be used in Brexit negotiations?

France themselves have cancelled their plans to build more reactors of this design, so it's hard to see them being too intimidated by us doing the same as a brexit threat...

It's us that's potentially up shit street here tbh with an aging fleet of reactors and currently no real plan in place to deal with that.

Okay, so here's the rundown.

By 2024 the first AGR reactors will be coming offline. Hinkley B and Hunterston B. Hartlepool and Heysham 1 will follow (Dungeness B has run so little it'll probably be running till the 2120's). ~6400GW down.

2034 sees Torness and Heysham 2 shut down, another ~2400GW down. So, that's 8800GW of generation down in nuclear alone. Add in coal and it gets far worse.

So what's the solution? C'mon big thinkers, you seem to have the answers, how do you replace 8800GW of nigh on 70% capacity?

AP1000 and Hitachi ABWR are due to exit design evaluation within the next year (one then the other, IIRC Hitachi are due out first), they will go ahead and if they are cheaper etc. then Sizewell C will simply be passed on to Hitachi or Westinghouse leaving Hinkley C as this generations equivalent of the Dungeness B fiasco. Chill, these things sort themselves out.

As for fusion, we have access to all of the resulting data and technnology from ITER as part of our EU membersh....oh.

So like I said build a few Gas power stations to provide base for renewables until reactors that work come on line.

Classic bad state policy - why debate an idea that produces losers among both the consumers and the producers of power?

At least the xenophobic nonsense has (largely) stopped

Oh..and if you could stop my wife tumble drying towels on breezy summers days we could probably get by with a lot less leccy.

So what's the solution? C'mon big thinkers, you seem to have the answers, how do you replace 8800GW of nigh on 70% capacity?

I thought we got about 20% of our electricity from nuclear, most from gas and coal and the remainder c.10% renewables?

http://www.energy-uk.org.uk/energy-industry/electricity-generation.html
Quick summary of it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom
Total usage in the UK was 2249 TWH in 2014
Not sure of squirelkings numbers there but the point stands where can you find 8800 GWH of stable base load electricity?

So like I said build a few Gas power stations to provide base for renewables until reactors that work come on line.

Reduce usage (another)10%, increase renewables 10%(as per Scotland) and build 3/4 gas stations or more of the smaller ones.
These would be ready in 10years giving us time to build some actual working nuclear reactors or develop renewable storage.

We are being sold a pup with Hinckley,

If we go gas we go fracking (i've no problem with fracking). We import almost all our gas - alot of it from Qatar. Shipping gas a quarter of the way around the world is hardly the most CO2 friendly way of generating our electricity.

For me nuclear plus renewables is the only way forward. Maybe not Hinckley, I don't know enough about the technicalities of it, but don't like the idea of the Chinese being so invested in it.

Don't the latest LNG carriers use LNG as fuel. Compared to the amount carried/used at the power station an insignificant amount.

2 happy premieres today

[img] [/img]

Not sure about happy. Relieved possibly, now old Francois juts has to worry about EDF generating a return well below its cost of capital on the project. Still a grand gesture - merci nos amis

£92.50 per mw/h for 35 years you're going to be trying not to laugh never mind smile.

What do we reckon then, 1.5 x original cost and ten years late?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

What I don't understand is how they government can guarantee EDF will be able to sell electricity at what will probably be above the market value when the station comes on line. How can they force electricity distributors to buy Hinkley's electricity when other lower cost sources are available?

What I don't understand is how they government can guarantee EDF will be able to sell electricity at what will probably be above the market value when the station comes on line. How can they force electricity distributors to buy Hinkley's electricity when other lower cost sources are available?

It works through the Contract for Difference they have with the government, the government basically guarantees them the price for a set time and any difference between that and the market price of electricity is made up by the electricity suppliers ie we all pay for it through our bills, rather than the government paying them and increasing tax. In renewables it's to stimulate investment in low carbon technology and it's development until it becomes cheaper so carbon emission targets can be met, in nuclear, well people will argue about what the real reason for this project is, eg Chinese investments etc etc

The controversial thing with this project is the very high price but in particular for how long they've agreed it for, £92.50 is a lot higher than £45 or whatever the market price is just now and will be so for a very long time on a very high number of units sold. CfD for emerging energy sources like offshore wind also have a high price, but for a much shorter period of time, and many fewer units sold, before dropping to normal market price or nearby for the next 10 years or whatever.

Market price is roughly £32 for next year meaning a lot of generators will be running at a loss.

That said, with present market conditions I don't expect it will be long before the wholesale cost starts coming back up, we're already getting grid shortfalls and it's not even cold yet. Headline news of total renewable generation is all well and good but it's nowhere near consistent enough to be anything other than a soundbite.

The controversial thing with this project is the very high price but in particular for how long they've agreed it for,

They have to make a profit after all since they and not the Government are fronting the cash for it. We will simply have to pay the price for once again Governments both past and present not investing in the infrastructure of this country and leaving all to the private sector.

Privatisation bites us on the ar*e again.