[Closed] Hinkley - non merci

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.