[Closed] So these guys are building us a nuclear power station.

Anyone know the nuclear waste generated per MWh?

Its like getting a 60 year mortgage when you could buy the house outright - it only makes short term sense and will cost you more in the long run

That's overly simplistic, a nuclear power station is a much bigger capital investment, with complex running requirements there after. Essentially the government is trying to minimise the risk of the project by getting EDF to do it.

People need to understand that nuclear is complementary to renewables, not in direct competition.

and edf are doing it because they will make profit - there is no debate about whether this will cost us more in the long run.

have they established how we pay for the clean up/decomissioning?

And according to the news this morning, double the current rate per KW for the electricity provided has been agreed, which is nice for EDF.

Dunno how the contracts worded, but the way you phrase it sounds like a bargain, if British Gas called me tomorow and asked if I wanted to pay double the current rate in 10 years time and it was constant for the next 60 years I'd bite their hand off!

Anyone know the nuclear waste generated per MWh?

Depends on the design of the plant, but unlike the original Nuclear power (which made material for wepons with power as a by-product), newer reactors can run on much less dangerous fuel, which can then be re-processed and used again and again. So the waste (and decomisioning costs) should be much lower than older plants.

this thread mentions that the price goes up and is not frozen at that price for ever

as for no waste - is that like they promised us it would be clean, lead to free electricity and machinery would give us all more free time - ie I will believe it when it happens not when they claim it

[and edf are doing it because they will make profit - there is no debate about whether this will cost us more in the long run.

have they established how we pay for the clean up/decomissioning?]

funded by developer/ operator

So these guys are building us a nuclear power station

So wait.. because some planning official or contractor in China made a cockup, that means that any other work done by Chinese people will be rubbish? Why would that be? Are you saying there's something intrinsic to all Chinese people that prevents things being built well?

and edf are doing it because they will make profit - there is no debate about whether this will cost us more in the long run.

Not necessarily true as assuming the contract is written properly then the risk (cost) is shifted onto EDF and their partners. Sure EDF are if all goes well making a profit, but that's the pay off of de-risking the project. Profit in itself isn't a bad thing.

Plus by EDF taking it on the government don't have to stick more people on their books, that are then hard and costly to get rid of later.

Nuclear stations are ace!

But there are some very long term capital expenditures to think about, not the least of which is that it's unlikely that anyone will build a retirement village on the place once it's decommissioned - at least not for a few millenia.

Unfortunately, we lost our expertise in building nuclear plants a very long time ago and these things are expensive...so the money needs to come from somewhere. W

[and edf are doing it because they will make profit - there is no debate about whether this will cost us more in the long run.

have they established how we pay for the clean up/decomissioning?]

funded by developer/ operator

Which I guess will be a distinct legal entity which will for some reason go suddenly under just before decommissioning. Leaving us to pick up the tab...

[Which I guess will be a distinct legal entity which will for some reason go suddenly under just before decommissioning. Leaving us to pick up the tab... ] nope...

During plant operation, operators set aside funds progressively into a secure and independent fund.

and edf are doing it because they will make profit - there is no debate about whether this will cost us more in the long run.

Of course! They've already factored in a build cost three times higher than originally estimated, and the small print allows for further increases when it inevitably goes over budget.

The money would of course be far better spent on reducing consumption.

Anyone know the nuclear waste generated per MWh?

Depends on the design of the plant, but unlike the original Nuclear power (which made material for wepons with power as a by-product), newer reactors can run on much less dangerous fuel, which can then be re-processed and used again and again. So the waste (and decomisioning costs) should be much lower than older plants.

OK then. How about for Hinkley Point B we take Kg of waste and divide by MWh generated over its lifetime. Any idea where I'd find that info?

It's another slap in the face for british industry, giving the contract to some tin pot chinese companies. Meanwhile all our green taxes go in to the pockets of the fatcats. Hinckley point is too near sea level anyway what with southern england sinking into the sea.

How many more pensioners have to freeze?

During plant operation, operators set aside funds progressively into a secure and independent fund.

Bit like a pension for the power-station. Let's hope the French Government are securing any short-fall.

But on the other hand, if you paid some expensive British outfit, taxpayers would complain about inefficient goverment.. at least some would.

Problem with democracy innit.

Given the UK's beligerent foreign policy of recent years will the UN step in and impose sanctions against us for bulding this reactor as they have with Iran and North Korea?

How many more pensioners have to freeze?

To be fair not many of them actually do. And anyway.... pensioners are the last people to have any right to moan nowadays. Seeing as we're all going to be paying forever to keep them in Werthers Originals and cream teas in Lake District Tea Rooms, while we all work till we drop, or get recycled into fertiliser when our organs start packing up

OK then. How about for Hinkley Point B we take Kg of waste and divide by MWh generated over its lifetime. Any idea where I'd find that info?

It still isn't as simple as that.

kg of what?

kg of CO2 emitted in building the plant?
kg of CO2 in manufacturing the fuel?
kg of CO2 in running the plant?
kg of depleted fuel?
kg of low grade waste? Because everything coming off the site will be treated as nuclear waste, whether it's dangerous or not, which is why you occasionaly get "Nuclear waste accidently dumped in landfill" type headlines. When the reality is a few containers of used paper towels and overshoes.

Hinkley C will be French technology and Chinese money.

Making a profit, subsidising the French taxpayers, a slap in the face of the UK etc....where does all that come from?

I believe that "Uk Inc." had the chance to play here (Centrica) but concluded that the returns would be unattractive. "If" they are right then presumably a good job that the UK government isn't taking this on either?

So what is the outcome? A consortium of EDF and others (the ownership is a red herring at best, xenophobia at worst) step up. According to those in the know, on the basis of the new, compromise, strike price they will make a return on investment of @10% on a high risk project. So given that their cost of capital is unlikely to be much below (if not higher) than the return, that is hardly a great deal. On balance probably about break even for a mega project with lots of risk. Hmmmm.....not sure I would accept that risk/return balance????

So (if the shareholding is relevant at all) those very nice French tax payers may "break even" on their investment - how very kind of them. Ils sont tres gentils!!!

But it is absurd to suggest that anyone really knows at this stage.

Now whether nuclear is the right option at all..,.., leave that to a lib dem to answer!!!!

It still isn't as simple as that.

kg of what?

Just high level waste then for starters. You know, the really nasty stuff.

Making a profit, subsidising the French taxpayers, a slap in the face of the UK etc....where does all that come from?

Your entire argument seems to be based on the premise they wont make a profit which is clearly not how they nor UK plc. as you like to refer to us, view it.

But it is absurd to suggest that anyone really knows at this stage.

Now whether nuclear is the right option at all..,.., leave that to a lib dem to answer!!!!

the ownership is a red herring at best, xenophobia at worst

Oh here we go, if someone suggests that it makes no sense for profits and subsidies to go into the coffers of the French and Chinese governments, then you're some sort of bigot.

What a pathetic way to play the racist card.

Of course they want to make a profit and no harm in that. They key questions not make a profit/not make a profit. [b]It's the return on investment[/b]. I do not understand the nitty-gritty of this, but what is clear is that we are talking about an v complex investment project which had alternative methods of financing and a wide range of potential financial outcome. Yes, nobody really knows what the future of nuclear and other prices will be.

This deal seems offer a relatively marginal return on investment at roughly EDF's cost of capital. From a UK perspective that seems an ok deal. Again allowing for the shareholder argument (even though I think it's a red herring) imagine if the UK gov said to us - we are going to invest your money in a high risk, long term project and we expect the return on investment to just cover th cost of capital. Would you reply - mais oui, bien sur!! I doubt it somehow

But lets not forget that profit and profitability are not the same thing!!!

but Ernie, if (and it's a big if) edf make a profit, it will be taxed at 23% and go straight back to the government. And the subsidies? What subsidy? The whole point of the way the deal is structured is that there's no money up front, no money during the 10+ years of build and just a guarantee to pay double the current price per mw hour and likely 50% less than the going rate on the open market.

As others have said above, a 10% return on capital given they have to take all the risk is frankly a bonkers deal (a very bad one) for the french government / tax payer...

Like all issues it seems to depend on who you ask and what day it is

With the LibDems it's not so much who you ask but more what side of an election it is.

[i]"Nuclear power is a tried, tested and failed technology, which is clearly a costly blind alley."[/i]

Chris Huhne - May 2007

[i]"We are on course to make sure that the first new nuclear power station opens on time in 2018" [/i]

Chris Huhne - August 2010

You can word it how you liek they expect to make money from us and it will go to French govt owned companies and the Chinese govt

we are going to invest your money in a high risk, long term project and we expect the return on investment to just cover th cost of capital

Fair point ernie even the same person can say different thing on different days within the LIB dems

but Ernie, if (and it's a big if) edf make a profit

Yes of course. Oh how we are going to laugh at the French and Chinese governments for being stupid and building us a nice big new shiny nuclear power station 🙄

Hold on a sec - weren't all those price rises in gas & electricity due to gas wholesale prices and the costs of continuing investment?

Looks like the privatised power companies should be starring with Bernard Cribbins on Jackanory.

AdamW - both. The element of "continuing investment" in the retail price we pay actually relates to the ageing national grid (which loses 50% of the energy transmitted across it). The rate (and return ) of investment on that is regulated by government so it isn't something the retail power companies make a profit on - but it doesn't relate to production investment which is effectively separated from the retail market. As you correctly say, the rise in energy cost does account for the rest.

if (and it's a big if) edf make a profit, it will be taxed at 23% and go straight back to the government.

I suspect they are rather good with their tax arrangements as well like many power companies and multinationals

Well Ernie (no need to be rude) but you keep going on about profits going back to French state. So what? If they go back at a rate of return below the cost of capital then they are subsidising us not the other way around.To argue otherwise is either misunderstanding how investment works or being xenophobic. I am sure that you cannot be accused of either.

The deal is structured to reduce/ minimise UK cash flow/expenditure and let someone else take the bulk of the risk/being expertise. Of course someone has to make a return of some sort on the latter but today's announcement suggest that it is a marginal one.

As I said before, if the uk Gov proposed the same idea, we would be v unlikely to support it.

Well Ernie (no need o be rude) ..... I am sure that you cannot be accused of either.

MMMM you both seem to be equally guilty of pressing each others buttons tbh but he is right that xenophobia is not the main reason that folk are objecting

Of course someone has to make a return of some sort on the latter but today's announcement suggest that it is a marginal one.

Well Ernie (no need o be rude)

Don't you ever tire of using that ridiculous tactic ?

And how [i]polite[/i] do you think it is of you to accuse me, and anyone else who doesn't agree with you, of being "xenophobic"

.

you both seem to be equally guilty of pressing each others buttons tbh

Yeah ? How about you point out where I have accused THM of being a xenophobe, or anything else for that matter. Go on.

Rob - the line loss factors vary depending on the distance to the substation and also the prevailing weather conditions. This is sent out to each electricity company each day and usually incorporated into their EAC/AA systems, the major one that was in use was the one written by Logica in the late 1990s. (EAC/AA = estimated annual consumption/ annualised advance).

The LLFs are related into the payment that each customer generally pays, when the non-half-hourly data is aggregated each day (also a system that was written by Logica at the time: NHHDA) which then feeds into the '98 systems to produce the final bill.

Hence my electricity is generated down the road (I can see my station from my house) and my LLF will be less than someone at the other end of the country. There will be different LLFCs depending on transmission distance and line voltages.

Also, regardless of the above - this isn't investment, it is regular maintenance and I happen to know what happened to the local distribution company when it was purchased by a number of different companies. The word 'investment' did not occur. The word 'redundancies' did.

EDIT: just remembered too that the DUoS component - Distributed Use of Systems, charging other companies for transmission through the local network - actually *IS* a good little earner.

AdamW - I'm curious at your suggestion that the national grid work is simply regular maintenance.

The most recent £4.5B programme to renew the national grid doesn't appear to be maintenance as it's being funded, managed and depreciated as an additional capital investment - and has been widely described as such, including by the regulator.

robdixon - the distribution companies must have a long-term plan for their part of the network and also budget set aside for it for any new developments and maintenance. Continuing increases in costs do not show a plan but just money grab.

Please also note that the national grid is not the local distribution companies, that's Centrica/National Grid company. It will charge for transfer across its network but that network does not belong to, say, BG/E.ON/EDF etc.

I'm also quite curious that this 'investment' has been ongoing since Mrs T privatised the industry with no end in sight. And the cost will be £30b : [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/national-grid-freshens-up-for-30bn-upgrade-7945497.html ]upgrade (Independent paper)[/url] which will be met by a price increase of ca. £20 per consumer and reduced dividends for investors. That's a *long* way away from constant 'investment' which never appears to occur.

Monbiot he say BAD !
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/21/farce-hinckley-nuclear-reactor-haunt-britain

It's another slap in the face for british industry, giving the contract to some tin pot chinese companies. Meanwhile all our green taxes go in to the pockets of the fatcats. Hinckley point is too near sea level anyway what with southern england sinking into the sea.
How many more pensioners have to freeze?

A slightly more rational article here IMO:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/96e9c976-3a43-11e3-b234-00144feab7de.html#axzz2iOQ3PREV

Not surprising for the FT, the logic of investment decisions is understood and the red herrings (and...) ignored. A far more valid point and criticism for the government was why was the 80 red-line (a cliched term now?) threshold broken especially given EDF's relatively weak bargaining position and need to recover from Flamanville. But against that, the rebuttal that "Deals that are built on a one-sided victory tend not to last. Good business is done on the foundation of mutual advantage." has merit.

You know that the FT has a paywall which won't allow links to its articles THM, we've had this discussion before. It does show the headline though, which I found rather interesting : [i][b]An expensive nuclear deal that ignores all the energy alternatives[/b][/i]

In another article in today's FT under the headline [i]"Hinkley Point C is pivotal for industry’s future"[/i] the FT claims that this is a big moment for the French nuclear industry and that Hinkley Point C will be a show case project and a boon for the French government desperate for a boost to its nuclear industry in the wake of the Fukushima disaster and a world turning away from nuclear power towards other forms of renewable energy.

So definitely a big win for the French government then.

Well there are lots of areas of where this deal "could be" criticised and the FT has a variety of articles and opinions today. Of course they make the point that EDF needed the deal so that is "good" for la Republique (and possibly bad bargaining by the UK) but that is not the same as a making the false point that we are automatically subsidising the French or that if profits flow to France then that means we are losing out. Worth subscribing for the analysis and that point alone!!

As mentioned before, it's the FT and they understand the basics of investment decisions, NPV etc as one would expect. Profits and profitability are not the same thing!!!!

or that if profits flow to France then that means we are losing out.

That really is quite an unbelievable thing to say ! 🙂

Unless of course you have a completely different definition for the term "losing out".

Of the contrary, it simply requires a basic understanding of financial/investment maths.

(It's like the BS headlines - XYZ makes £000s a day/hour/minute. An observation that has little if any value in itself. Makes good headlines but is basic nonsense. )

BTW - apologies about the rude comment. I mis-read your post. Fine to call my comment pathetic. Wrong, but fine. Ditto I was saying that comments re foreign shareholders were red herrings or xenophobia not that you were xenophobic.