[Closed] Hinkley - non merci

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.

Ignoring the fact that the "profit" on this project is so poor only EDF are silly enough to think the prestige is worth it. Most others can see a bad allocation of resources a mile away and are still running.

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

I think you're being a bit optimistic on the cost.

Can someone who knows about these things tell me why we aren't building molten salt reactors ? It seems like the obvious choice safety wise and is proven already.

Ignoring the fact that the "profit" on this project is so poor only EDF are silly enough to think the prestige is worth it. Most others can see a bad allocation of resources a mile away and are still running.

As mentioned earlier, the price and the cost to us is only going to go one way THM.

It just annoys the hell out of me that the UK has gone down this route when it comes to infrastructure, one of the most important pillars of an economy.

Molten salt isn't even close to being commercially proven. Whilst the EPR is unknown in terms of being a new design its still based on proven PWR technology.

Westinghouse and Hitachi are both actively pursuing their respective new builds, they just aren't as headline worthy as the EPR as they are based upon existing designs and haven't broken ground yet.

After ABWR and AP1000 complete GDA then the new focus will be on small modular reactor designs, the present tranche will be the last large reactor builds for the foreseeable future.

Westinghouse and Hitachi are both actively pursuing their respective new builds, they just aren't as headline worthy as the EPR

As in they'll probably be built on time and on budget. How on earth did EPR get ahead of these other technologies in the UK when ABWR stations in particular appear to be being built on time and operating reliably in other parts of the world such as Japan.

No idea, can only assume EDF got their GDA submission in first. Will see if I can dig anything up.

Well, Horizon started out as a partnership between E.On and RWE and was then sold to Hitachi in 2012. The (inevitable) choice of the ABWR was only made after Hitachi bought Horizon, so it was well behind EPR into the GDA.

NuGen was set up as a joint venture between ENGIE, Iberdrola and SSE. SSE bailed out in 2011 and later Toshiba bought Iberdrola's stake plus some of Engie's to give t a majority hoding. At that point they (inevitably) chose the AP1000 design and started that in GDA.

So EdF are first because they are the only one of the three which hasn't had major comercial upheaval on the way to choosing a design, apart from Centrica, a minor partner, getting out early on. It was also clear from the beginning that Hinkley would be EPR so there was no technology choice to be made.

Aye thats a good rundown, forgot about the whole Horizon debacle for some odd reason. Interesting to see who the CEO of Horizon is, high flier doesnt come close. Not so excited by ABWR but a CANDU would be interesting, moreso given they can be kept online for refuelling like the TNPG/NNC type AGR's.

I think ABWR will be interesting because, of all the different designs, it's one we've not really done in the UK. Boiling brings a lot of interesting engineering problems. It's certainly raising some tricky questions in GDA. But if/when they get it through, then they ought to be able to get it built quickly.

People whose opinion I respect say that they fancy NuGen to be first to generate power because the EPR is so complicated to build and the ABWR will be tough to get through GDA.

Tidal flow turbines are the answer. If this had 1/100 of the investment in nukes then we would need no nukes. If tidal flow had the same fixed price as Hinkley then people would be falling over themselves to build them. Instead tidal flow has to pay huge charges to access the national grid ( the further north you are the more you have to pay to put electricity into the grid) and it gets no subsidy.

fortunately for us scotland is going down a safer cleaner road than England. Last month on one day ALL of scotlands electricity came from alternatives. Last year ALL scotlands [i]domestic[/i] electricity came from alternatives. Scotland now has the worlds first commercial scale tidal flow generator. Multiple tidal flow schemes are going. this provides baseload.

Plans are well underway for the north sea interconnect which will allow scotland to export electricy to Norway where it will be used in huge pump storasge schemes with scotland getting it back when wind is low and exporting surplus to Germany via the low countries.

Scotland met its climate change targets last year - despite all the experts saying they were far too ambitious

Before hinkley provides a single watt of electricityy scotland will be at 100% of all electricity needs from alternatives with the aforementioned interconnect / pump storage for smoothing and fast spin gas turbines for backup. NO nukes.

Everyone said thathe targets scotland set tewn years ago were too ambitious. Every one has now been met.

Hinkley is the wrong answer to the wrong question.

Aye tj, that's all well and good but what about the days the wind doesn't blow? Two stations were told not to drop load because the grid was already running short. And as I said earlier, its not even winter yet.

As for the exporting thing, let's not count our chickens, we lost about 2.4GW with Longannet and the two AGRs are another 2GW. Oh, and we have zero black start capability now meaning if we have a major grid collapse we could be talking days before supplies are restored. Soundbites mean bugger all in reality. And I can guarantee Torness will be running well into the 2030s. Unless an economic case is made for new nuclear (not seen the new memo yet?).

I do agree though that tidal is a viable option and should be encouraged but isn't the single solution.

Oh, and we have zero black start capability now meaning if we have a major grid collapse we could be talking days before supplies are restored.

I think Squirrel was talking about Scotland. I'd be pretty amazed if our large hydro doesn't have black start capability though.

squirrellking - read the post.

At the moment a winter high pressure event we need electricity from other sources ( but nukes no good for this as you can't turn them on and off quickly) so you need a fast spinup reserve but still that ALL domestic electric over the year from alternatives - thats a huge carbon saving.

in the future the interconnect to Norway will allow us to store energy there ( yes I know its inefficient) and tidal flow will produce smooth baseload meaning the two fast spinup gas plants will only be in reserve for those winter high pressure events. ~We also could have more pump storage here but the rigged market makes it uneconomic as scotroutes pointed out

also its rare that the whole country has no wind.

Wind is only a part of the scottish alternatives. Hydro, micro hydro ( lots of this going on) Solar, all play a part. Lots of small huydro plants going in right now.

Longannet was closed to attempt to ensure Scotland could not be completely energy self sufficient - political decision. Longannet paid huge access charges to the national grid. It could and should have been kept open

Hinkley is not the answer to your issues ( and they are real issues especially for England) as it will be 25 years at least until it produces any electricity

Scotland plans will see in 25 years it producing electricty for export in large amounts and only needing fossil fuel generation in occasional circumstances - ie winter high pressure events. Never mind - we will sell you some with much cheapness

edit - sorry - you in Scotland?

OK, let's open the book. Hinkley is due to cost £18bn and to start producing in 2025. What are your predictions?

I think it will have cost about £30bn by the time construction is abandoned completely in about 2027, after ending up in the same sort of spiral of construction failure as Flamanville 3 has

(which, if you want a useful guideline, is 3 times over budget and is [i]currently[/i] scheduled to start producing a mere 11 years into its claimed 4.5 year build time. But the date slips faster than time lapses so right now it's getting further from completion not closer as they try and figure out how to un-**** it)

The last nuke commissioned in europe IIRC was 17 years from the start of the build to producing electricity

I think hinkley will never be built - it will be abandoned in a few years- probably before anything is actually built.

Catching up

Can someone who knows about these things tell me why we aren't building molten salt reactors ? It seems like the obvious choice safety wise and is proven already.

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?

tjagain - Member
Tidal flow turbines are the answer.

fortunately for us scotland is going down a safer cleaner road than England. Last month on one day ALL of scotlands electricity came from alternatives.

Hinkley is not the answer to your issues ( and they are real issues especially for England) as it will be 25 years at least until it produces any electricity

In addition I would say that renewables have a serious place in the mix, no new building should be allowed without some sort of renewable generation attatched. At the very least housing should be equipped with Solar Hot Water and PV, the government should be subsidising this for any socila and low income housing. Reducing the energy costs of low income households should be a priority. Any industrial or commercial property should have Solar covering it's roof and wind trubines across the car park for instance.

micro hydro ( lots of this going on)

micro hydro still being built. I saw three schemes under construction this summer. Well not really micro - sort of mid range - the size of the schemes is the sort of size to power a village.

Mike - how can nuclear be part of the answer when it won't be on line for 25 years?

tjagain - Member
micro hydro still being built. I saw three schemes under construction this summer. Well not really micro - sort of mid range - the size of the schemes is the sort of size to power a village.

Ta for that Scotroutes.

I think Squirrel was talking about Scotland. I'd be pretty amazed if our large hydro doesn't have black start capability though.

Yup, was talking about the Scottish portion of the grid, as far as I'm aware there are several black start stations across the UK (diversity of supply) so Dinorwig will just be one of many. To answer your other point, Cruachan is part of the black start plan but can't be sustained long enough to bring another station online on its own. Longannet [i]was[/i] that station but since its closure nothing else has the capability. We will have to rely on interconnects to bring us back on which is not good as far as security of supply goes.

At the moment a winter high pressure event we need electricity from other sources ( but nukes no good for this as you can't turn them on and off quickly) so you need a fast spinup reserve but still that ALL domestic electric over the year from alternatives - thats a huge carbon saving.

No arguments there, I certainly agree that it's achievable albeit with a lot of investment. I should point out though that your figure for domestic might be a nice average but as I said we're still a long way off from having enough diversity. And as far as transmission charges go that's not going to change, putting pylons or ground lines in is expensive, especially if you're talking about Wester-Ross to Glasgow for example.

in the future the interconnect to Norway will allow us to store energy there ( yes I know its inefficient) and tidal flow will produce smooth baseload meaning the two fast spinup gas plants will only be in reserve for those winter high pressure events. ~We also could have more pump storage here but the rigged market makes it uneconomic as scotroutes pointed out

Again, not really a rigged market, it's simple economics - the further you are from source the more expensive it will be to import. It could be tweaked but as we will see from the western DC interconnect (Hunterston to Wirral) the savings on transmission charges will be obliterated by access charges. If you want to blame anything blame privatisation of the grid.

And the fast spinup gas, I take it that's the Cockenzie replacement that seems to have been quietly dropped by SSE and doesn't look like it's happening any time soon? Gas is also an issue in terms of strategic supply, the North Sea is all but dry after we wasted it all on cheap turbines after privatisation and now rely on imports. Not a good place to be IMO.

On pumped storage, large scale hydro is as expensive as nuclear and about the most environmentally destructive renewable source going (aside form the flooding issue you have long term methane release via anaerobic digestion of organic materials). Whilst upgrading reservoirs and existing hydro would allow extra capacity I don't think more hydro is the solution.

also its rare that the whole country has no wind.

Wind is only a part of the scottish alternatives. Hydro, micro hydro ( lots of this going on) Solar, all play a part. Lots of small huydro plants going in right now.

Again, no arguments here. Just need to boot a few NIMBY's every so often. What would make a bigger difference is tougher energy efficiency regulations especially in the commercial and industrial sectors.

Longannet was closed to attempt to ensure Scotland could not be completely energy self sufficient - political decision. Longannet paid huge access charges to the national grid. It could and should have been kept open

Not really political, it was going to close in five years anyway as it was never going to meet emissions regs. Carbon capture is a pipe dream and they wasted huge amounts of money on it rather tahn investing in new build. I do agree that it should have been kept for strategic reasons though until such time as we had a viable alternative.

Hinkley is not the answer to your issues ( and they are real issues especially for England) as it will be 25 years at least until it produces any electricity

Scotland plans will see in 25 years it producing electricty for export in large amounts and only needing fossil fuel generation in occasional circumstances - ie winter high pressure events. Never mind - we will sell you some with much cheapness

edit - sorry - you in Scotland?

Hinkley isn't, no but I don't think nuclear is totally dead in Scotland, as I said the policy seems to have quietly changed to 'no new nuclear - unless there is an economic case'. To that end I think SMR's will be the next step, especially with some of the players being based in Scotland themselves (RR and others already service Faslane).

And yes, you assume correctly.

I think it will have cost about £30bn by the time construction is abandoned completely in about 2027, after ending up in the same sort of spiral of construction failure as Flamanville 3 has

Dunno, it could go either way, if it does get completed I think it will be a Dungeness B scenario where it's first build last on after years of construction and trouble shooting.

Mike - how can nuclear be part of the answer when it won't be on line for 25 years?

According to you. And that's only looking at EPR's, I'd be willing to bet we'll have an AP1000 or ABWR online by 2025.

Not a chance it will be online in 9 years. The last plant built in Europe was 17 years to get online and look at the problems the french have with their new nukes. I'll take that bet!

As for access charges - are these not based on how far you are from london rather than how far the electricity is actually travelling? Thats what killed longgannet - the access charges was it not?

Unfortunately the scottish government does not have the power it needs over electricity generation ( not that I am convinced that the SNP really understand it properly)

Which plant was this? And although the AP1000's are running up to 3 years behind they still have a ~7 year turnaround. Provided they pass GDA next year that's enough time. The ABWR's will already be underway by then as well, reckon it'll be a race between Wylfa and Moorside to see who's going critical first.

(Actually, give a couple of years for testing and commissioning before official opening)

Not so much London specifically but highest population (which amounts to the same thing). IIRC it was because Longannet didn't win a contract to maintain voltage levels for National Grid, it was a purely commercial decision that was later blamed on transmission charges (which for some reason had been fine before that and have been similarly fine for Peterhead who outbid them).

The plant was in one of the scandenavian coutries - Sweden? considering that not a single new nuke has been commissioned in under ten years anwhere in Europe the idea we will have them on line in the UK in less than that is not believable to me. The plant EDF are buildin in France is now predicted to be 12 years - but the estimated commissioining date is still many years off - I doubt they will even get anywhere near the date they have now set

My issue with the whole way the grid is set up is that as you say its all purely commercial decision with no room allowed for strategic decisions - like the shelving of the cockenzie replacement. the scottish government had a nice coherent plan based on strategic thinking but do not have the power to implement it.

Usual gov cock-up

TM lukewarm on Hinkley ar best. But (1) has to pacify the Chinese and the French, (2) pace the dismantling of the Dave/George legacy and (3) not spook industry.

And people want governments interfering in ever increasing aspects of economic life. Bizarre.

Still the French are happy to allocate their resources badly - plus ca change

Some may be unaware the Chinese have also started buying up our renewables projects http://renews.biz/101689/repsol-exits-uk-offshore/ , there may be others since too.

China is a massive exporter. They have massive flows of capital flowing in and need to do something with it. It's natural that they want to invest that money "overseas". If you don't have a cycle of money, the whole system falls apart.

30 years ago it was Japanese investment. Before that US. It's a good thing.

Had a look, definitely not Scandi, might have been the French N4's that took about 15 years after needing a redesign mid-build? But again, that's EPR, Westinghouse AP1000 is just an evolution of a PWR which is designed to be simpler to operate and easier to construct, the last one we build was Sizewell B (about the same time as the french N4's) which took 8 years to build and synchronise. Hitachi ABWR's are already running and take anything from 3-5 years to reach first criticality.

Just for comparison, Dungeness B took 18 years to get running and even then it's run so little I'll be surprised if it's not still running for it's centenary!

And yes, privatising was IMO not the way to go, if we had a monopolised national industry we could share the burden (building, research, operating) whilst keeping strategic assets in place. We are now compleetly toothless hence Hinkley requires so much financial assistance because private backers don't like long term investments. Same reason we'll never see a Severn Barrage without the same sort of deals.

because private backers don't like long term investments

No because private backers understand the economics of investment

As M Wolfe put it in the FT today

Whoever is right about this project, the competitive private sector would never make this decision, given the risks, longevity and upfront costs of nuclear power.

A good point, even if he uses it to make an odd conclusion later 😉

Deffo Scandinavian
I will have a look

Finland?
On a phone on a train right now so not easy to search. I'll have a lookex later. IIRC the it's the same type as hinckley C

Oh you mean Olkiluoto 3, nah construction still ongoing for the same reasons as Flamanville and Taishan. I thought you meant a plant actually finished!

No because private backers understand the economics of investment

Yes, to make a quick return. Which is why I disagree with private investment financing our national infrastructure where strategic deployment is looked over in favour of a quick buck.

That is the one.
You really think hinckley can be online in ten years?

Jeremy, do you remember why you got banned?

😉

Yes, to make a quick return. Which is why I disagree with private investment financing our national infrastructure where strategic deployment is looked over in favour of a quick buck.

Oh I see. Personally I have a number of private sector clients engaged in long term infrastructure investment, often on poor countries and hostile environments - so we can agree to differ.

If the private sector can spot a bad deal, governments have to be very clear that they know better and why. Personally, I doubt that this is the case with Hinkley.

Don't be mean.... I've frequently disagreed with TJ, but I'm glad he's back and hope that he keeps expressing his views passionately

anyone else actually live within a stones throw of hinkley other than me?

negs

- can see it from the beach where i live (BoS)
- can see it when riding the quantocks if on the north eastern edge
- in case of terrorist attack i'm quite close to fallout

pros

- local economy investment etc..

and most importantly..

- they're improving the roads from the M5 to the cannington area to cope with the increased traffic due to construction which means a chunk of my route to the quantocks is being improved 😀

as a side note. i do wonder if the forthcoming merger of west somerset council and taunton deane (TDBC) has anything to do with the money from the deal (currently west somerset and sedgemoor stand to profit and TDBC was never going to get a pennt. sedgemoor have opted not to merge too. west somerset has apparently had many financial issues..)

That is the one.
You really think hinckley can be online in ten years?

No! Sorry, I did say somewhere in the previous well of text it's going to be a Dungeness B scenario or not at all. I have higher hopes for the other reactors though, they can easily be up and running.

Oh I see. Personally I have a number of private sector clients engaged in long term infrastructure investment, often on poor countries and hostile environments - so we can agree to differ.

If the private sector can spot a bad deal, governments have to be very clear that they know better and why. Personally, I doubt that this is the case with Hinkley.

What I meant by that is when it comes to infrastrucure such as power plants then private investment likes a quick turnaround, hence the 'dash for gas' and the amount of investment in windfarms. It's not difficult to see the attraction.

In terms of the bigger things such as hydro or nuclear though it's usually left up to the state to take on the burden and although it may turn a profit eventually it could be decades before it does so. Some investors may well go for that but they are few and far between. In terms of safety you would also hope the state would put itself before commercial considerations. You also have the necessary losses such as we saw in Longannet that was closed for commercial reasons leaving a huge gap in our strategic backup.

Jeremy, do you remember why you got banned?

Don't be mean.... I've frequently disagreed with TJ, but I'm glad he's back and hope that he keeps expressing his views passionately

Not sure what that's supposed to mean, I'm enjoying having a sensible educated debate without personal digs flying about!

tjagain - Member

You really think hinckley can be online in ten years?

Is there some crossed purposes here? I think the 10 years mentioned was for an ABWR or AP1000, which is certainly feasible, they're a much more suitable design. (realistically I doubt Moorside will be online on schedule but at least it's not debunked fantasy like Hinkley)

Cheaper, better plants are right around the corner and we're literally planning to have 3 of the things finished and running before Hinkley is done, for less. At this point, the government is acting like they've got some personal investment in Hinkley- committing to it before the better alternatives make it obsolete. There's a rapidly closing window in which they can get away with fully committing to Hinkley- not just on paper but with unrecoverable funds and effort enough to make it "too big to fail". In just a few years time it'll be impossible to deny it's a white elephant (right now, it obviously is, we're just still at the point where they can deny it). And by the time it's obvious what a total disaster it is, someone else'll be in charge.

Ironically, pretty much everyone that's anti-Hinkley gets lumped in with the anti-nuclear crowd, because that's such a simple dialogue for the government to promote. But in 10 years time I predict that Hinkley will be the biggest publicity coup for the anti-nuclear movement since Fukushima.

How much more power will Hinkley actually produce than tidal,solar etc projecting forward technology till its potential commisioning date?
Teej; Longannet was a smokey old dinosaur.

Well written Northwind

Apologies, not read the whole thread, but going to have my 2p anyway.

I really can't believe we are even considering going ahead with Hinkley. Given that there is a track record of being unable to actually complete construction of the design in question makes it a total non-starter for a project so expensive imo.

Not at all against Nuclear energy, although hopefully long term we continue to get more and more investment in renewable energy sources.

How much more power will Hinkley actually produce than tidal,solar etc projecting forward technology till its potential commisioning date?

It's hard to project for the renewables because the potential resource isn't being matched by development. the potential resources are great but due to governments not supporting the development of technologies and sites they will at this rate largely be untapped. Even sites which are being developed are facing problems very late in the day after many millions have been spent, eg RSPB halting progress of Inch Cape and NNG offshore wind farms. Technology developers we had here in the UK at the leading edge have had their funding pulled by Scottish government and existing and potential investors have been scared off by lack of government support for the industry as a whole.

There are some success stories such as Meygen which is in the news this week, and a few offshore wind farms springing up. The vision of the marine renewables industry we had a few years ago has largely died though, which is very sad, especially with the surplus of people and resources from the struggling O&G industry.

For me tidal is a no brainer, we can predict exactly when and how much power can be generated for years into the future, and tide times vary significantly around the UK. I've worked on a couple of international interconnector projects and if they seem very sensible to me too.

The trouble with tidal is, every generator slightly slows the tides down and since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, that'll cause the moon to speed up and fly off.

It's OK if you spend some time on youtube you'll learn the moon is a projection and thus not real (actually worth searching on youtube to see how much time and money people put into this)

Yeah, but just think how heavy the projector is!

The trouble with tidal is, every generator slightly slows the tides down and since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, that'll cause the moon to speed up and fly off.

But with carbon capture we could reconstitute any pollutants into a nanotube leash and hold it in place like a super death star sized sky hook.

Oh well, sensible was nice whilst it lasted... 😛

Oh, Northwind - absolutely spot on. Given CGN have Bradwell will it be an EPR or (more likey) an AP1000*? Wonder what Sizewell C will look like?

*CGN are building both the EPR and AP1000 at the moment.

The Centre for Alternative Technology has produced a comprehensive report on how "Britain can create a carbon-free, electricity-based energy system by 2030, using renewable energy and biomass alone, and without recourse to nuclear power." It runs to 384 pages but chapter 8 is where you need to be.

Now I've no idea if they've done their homework or not, but they're not idiots. I'm afraid decades of lies and broken promises have led me to mistrust the nuclear industry. From Trident to nuclear power I just wish we'd get our heads out of the sand. The carbon cost of digging uranium ore out of the ground is getting greater with each passing decade, a fact often overlooked. Nuclear power is not carbon neutral. Anyone remember this particular fib from the nuclear power lobby in the 50s and 60s - "Energy too cheap to meter"? And we know how that turned out.

@phil I think if that was really feasible we'd be doing it

Tidal, hard to make it work I think, large body of water moving fairly slowly. Putting something in the way means it must be hugley strong and big knock on effects to environment, fish stocks etc ?

Hinkley is a strange one, speculative technology and EDF themselves are tied in knots with 5 of the Directors suing the company over the decision to go ahead.

Oh, I missed this earlier

mikewsmith - Member

Some small things that might help there sod all people and lots of space. I can't be bothered to do the numbers but the Km(coast)/person if probably hugely favourable in Scotland over England.

It is, but coast space isn't a limiting factor for either Scotland or England, so it doesn't make any practical difference.

The Centre for Alternative Technology has produced a comprehensive report on how "Britain can create a [b]carbon-free[/b], electricity-based energy system by 2030, [b]using[/b] renewable energy and [b]biomass[/b] alone

Now I've no idea if they've done their homework or not, but they're not idiots.

If that's their words, they are. Highlighted pertinent points.

Nuclear power is not carbon neutral.

No, but it could be. Well, concrete production aside, which is a problem faced by all "carbon free" models.

Tidal, hard to make it work I think, large body of water moving fairly slowly. Putting something in the way means it must be hugley strong and big knock on effects to environment, fish stocks etc?

Depends entirely on how much of that energy you extract and where you site your turbines or whatever.

squirrelking - Member

If that's their words, they are. Highlighted pertinent points.

You're not very clear but I assume you're taking issue with "carbon-free" in relation to biomass? Biomass can be fully carbon neutral so there's nothing idiotic about that comment... (carbon-free doens't mean "no carbon involvement", it means neutral)

@northwind that's the minor second point, the first being Scotland has the lowest population density in the UK, transposing what works in an effectively empty country to the rest of the UK is misguided at best.

mikewsmith - Member

@northwind that's the minor second point, the first being Scotland has the lowest population density in the UK, transposing what works in an effectively empty country to the rest of the UK is misguided at best.

The reality is that there's far more empty space in all parts of the UK than is needed for this stuff; it's the same as coastlines. Scotland has many times more than enough, the rest of the UK has less times more than enough.

You're not very clear but I assume you're taking issue with "carbon-free" in relation to biomass? Biomass can be fully carbon neutral so there's nothing idiotic about that comment... (carbon-free doens't mean "no carbon involvement", it means neutral)

I wasn't up to speed with the BS, seems 'free from' is now the same thing as offset.

But semantics aside, you similarly can't claim in one breath that biomass can be carbon neutral but somehow nuclear can't. Renewables can also potentially be terrible pollutors but for some reason that never seems to be touched upon (again, large scale hydro results in a lot of methane releases which is a far more potent greenhouse gas).

squirrelking - Member

But semantics aside, you similarly can't claim in one breath that biomass can be carbon neutral but somehow nuclear can't.

Correct; didn't.

How does hydro produce methane?

EDIT

[url= https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed/ ]hydro/methane[/url]

To do with man-made reservoirs/dams rather than the tidal that this country should be doing.

you similarly can't claim in one breath that biomass can be carbon neutral but somehow nuclear can't

On the contrary, the proposal is that biomass be carbon negative, to the tune of -200g/CO2/kWh (zcb2030 page 231), achievable by combining biomass with CCS. The reliance of biomass in the proposal shouldn't be overstated, it was included in the quotation to differentiate it from being renewable. The theoretical proposal is that is forms less than 10% of the mix.

Granted, it'll take a series of small imaginative leaps to bring about a change in the way our energy supply and demand is managed and balanced. But each small leap will amount to large change. Importantly, each small leap is orders of magnitude smaller than expecting the nuclear industry with their track record to deliver the solution on time, on budget and without thousands of years of headaches for future generations.

@Northwind, electricity has a transport cost both financial and wastage, so you can't just make it in Scotland and move it to the SE where it's needed (not sure if that's what you are suggesting)

While I would never argue that nuclear has been a shining beacon of truth over the decades, its opponents are no better.

"Energy too cheap to meter"

Northwind - sorry that was a general'you' directed at the audience as opposed to you specifically.

Phil - CCS is nothing but a pipe dream right now, we're nowhere close to it and to rely on it would be foolish. That said the rest of your point is true enough, we should be making step changes, not just in how we produce but also how we consume energy.

Jamba - the DC link going in from SW Scotland to the Wirral was expected to do exactly that by cutting transmission costs (through vastly reduced losses) however the service rights are expected to make savings negligible (another hooray for privatisation of national infrastructure).

Tidal, hard to make it work I think, large body of water moving fairly slowly. Putting something in the way means it must be hugley strong and big knock on effects to environment, fish stocks etc ?

I assume you live in a cave

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-37321639

http://www.meygen.com/environment/#environmental-impact-assessment

you can't just make it in Scotland and move it to the SE where it's needed (not sure if that's what you are suggesting)

as someone said above, yes you can, in fact we're looking at far further distances to transport over, I've worked on HVDC interconnector projects for Iceland>UK and Norway<>UK

dpfr - Member

was never said about nuclear energy; it's a quote taken totally out of context.

This seems to be revisionism tbh... The famous speech is a bit vague and people suggest he was talking about fusion. (which in itself would be pretty remarkable)

But it's not just that speech- he was asked by a journalist if "nuclear piles" were commercially viable, clearly referring to the known technology, and repeated the "too cheap to measure" line, to be seen in his children or grandchildren's time.

TBH most people knew it was cobblers at the time; it's not clear whether he ever thought it was true. But it's pretty interesting that the man in charge of nuclear energy in the US would come out with such bobbins. If he believed it, it says volumes about how rational policy was. And if he didn't, then it does the same about how the public was sold it.

Now it comes out that the government have agreed to underwrite the disposal costs of the waste from Hinkley. so not only will it be the UKs most expensive electricity and not be on line in time to actually do anything about the coming electricity shortage but that the UK population will have to pay for waste disposal.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/30/hinkley-point-nuclear-waste-storage-costs

That is what happens when no investment is made.

Similar deal in Sunderland?

This was a wonderful opportunity for us to really take back control.
Invest every penny in renewables. Invest in solar panel factories flog them and instal them cheap.
Energy security. What's the point in having nuclear ****ing bombs if a foreign country can just turn off your lights.
It takes a lot for me to hate someone more than Tony Blair.
Mrs May well ****ing done.

The tories have made another cluster **** of the situation over the past few years, as it has become glaringly obvious what the problems that lie ahead are.

But the situation has come from decades of mismanagement and an ideology driven energy market that has prioritised private profits over service provision and long term management.

Still, the investors will do well out of it, and that's all that matters really.

The people responsible for this completely avoidable mess that was predicted almost since its inception should hang their heads in shame.

A famed environmentalist has come up with a [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40363390 ]really great, imaginative idea, right?[/url]. A Great idea!

We could do that with the new walls all round the new Irish and Scottish hard borders. 😀

We could do that with the new walls all round the new Irish and Scottish hard borders.

The Donald is doing his best to accelerate climate change to help out. Sadly I'm not sure that will mean 'wall to wall' sunshine in those locations.

As for Hinckley, TM was screwed from the outset. Endorse it and we're burning million pound notes, cancel it and send a clear message to the foreign investors we need to do business with after the Brexit shitshow. Still, I'm sure that she's got at least a couple more U-turns on the issue available.

martinhutch - Member

As for Hinckley, TM was screwed from the outset. Endorse it and we're burning million pound notes, cancel it and send a clear message to the foreign investors we need to do business with after the Brexit shitshow.

Option c, cancel it but seek foreign investors for similar projects that aren't so fundamentally bollocksed.

Just to copy over TJ's linky https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/23/spending-watchdog-condemns-risky-expensive-hinkley-point-c-nuclear

What a mess.

http://thecorner.eu/news-europe/will-macron-sell-the-jewels-in-frances-crown-like-engie-edf/65197/

"EDF: If it hadn’t been for the support from the government, it would have been impossible for the French utility to find the necessary funding to continue with its business. Its pensions plans, combined with the costs of dismantling its nuclear plants, would have been insurmountable burdens with its current cash flow structure. The government’s 84% stake guarantees its future and hides its disastrous finances. The progressive disposal of the stake which can be sold is the only viable way out."

going to be a tad more expense than first thought [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40479053 ]quelle surprise[/url]

French energy supplier EDF has estimated that the cost of completing the new Hinkley Point nuclear plant will be nearly [s]10%[/s] 25% more than expected.

And two years late already!

I thought that this was the case, due to the Contract for Difference method of payment.

A government spokeswoman said "the cost of construction, including any overruns, sits with the contractor".

The extra costs partly result from adapting the project's design to meet the demands of UK regulators, the company said.

When was the last time a major UK project ran on time and on budget.

Sell you one thing, expect another. Its how business works 😉