http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16646405
Although most of the complaint concerns the UK, some of its ingredients would apply to other EU nations as well, especially the capping of nuclear liability.Estimates prepared for Energy Fair suggest that if operators had to buy insurance at the market rate, that would add at least 14 euro cents (12p) to the price of one kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity - and potentially 20 times that figure.
With electricity in the UK retailing around 12p/kWh, that would mean at least a doubling of the price.
Campaigners have repeatedly said down the years that all nuclear programmes are in fact underwritten by the state whether they are government-owned or private, because the clean-up costs from major accidents are enormous and the companies involved are considered "too big to fail"
Or might not.
Doesn't it depend on the outcome of the complaint?
Who's going to pay for all the pollution emitted by the conventional power stations over the past hundred years? My children and grandchildren 😳
My children and grandchildren
That's very honourable of them, I thank them from the bottom of my heart. 😛
Yours are welcome to help with the cost too 😉
We'll have fusion sorted by 2050 so it's all good, assuming we survive that long ofc.
Be intresting submitting the claim form for the insurance, and then the insurance refuse your claim because you failed to tell them a material fact.
Like nuclear accidents kill people as do bombs.
Well they would say that wouldn't they as their primary purpose for existing is to stop nuclear power generation.
http://www.energyfair.org.uk/anti-nuclear-campaigns
Nuclear works for us and works even better for the French. Unlike wind it works all the time and doesn't need gas power stations to back it up.
Riiiiiiiiiiight - and how quickly can you spin up a nuclear reactor for whenteh kettle all go on at half time in the cup final?
Just what % of our nuke output is actually running now?
This is a perennial STW hot potato. We're all a bunch of armchair experts on the subject, I wonder how many of us on here have a degree in particle physics or thermodynamics. I haven't.
What I do understand is that nuclear power is a partial solution at best. Although it hasn't killed anywhere near as many people as the hysteria would suggest, there's a lot of distrust there because it's seen as almost a dark science. We perhaps need to get over ourselves and discuss the safety features built into modern reactors. Before anyone says "Fukushima" or "Chernobyl" to me, we should remember that the Suffolk coast where they plan to build Sizewell C is not currently at risk of earthquake tsunamis and that the COMECON plants of the Chernobyl design lacked a great many rudimentary safety features of even 1960s western reactors. Like a containment roof over the reactor for example.
TJ has raised an excellent point - nuclear stations can't be cranked up to eleven on a whim.
We needn't be scared of new technology, I have high hopes that we'll make thorium reactors feasible and perhaps one day fusion will be a reality. However, none of these technologies can be built en masse within fifteen years to replace fossil fuels without requiring a significant investment of fossil fuel energy as an overlap. To leave it to the last minute would be an unmitigated disaster.
Right, I'm off to gen up on my GCSE notes.
TJ, load following is always seen as a weakness for nukes but the French manage it well across the whole estate.
"France provides a precedent for load-following and load-cycling in Ontario. France has been producing nearly 80 percent of its electricity from its nuclear fleet for many years with the balance coming from hydro and fossil fuels in about equal amounts. France has 58 pressurized light water reactor units on line so the national grid controller can select units that have been recently refueled and have high reserve reactivity so have the flexibility to provide dispatchable load-following, load-cycling, and AGC. Power is varied by so called “grey” control rods and boron use is minimized. Steam bypass is not used for these operations. When units are around 65 percent through their 18 to 24 month fuel cycle they play a diminishing part in load- following and when 90 percent through their fuel cycle they are restricted to baseload operation. CANDU flexibility is not affected by fuel burn-up limitations since it is refueled on-line."
TJ has raised an excellent point - nuclear stations can't be cranked up to eleven on a whim.
What can?
I remember looking at the operation of the one Crane operating within the reactor at Sellafield and working on the computer program to manage the fuel rods with this crane.
Total nightmare.
But fun, it hasn't blown up yet.
Our problem in the UK is we have shafted most of the companies who are capable of building a new generation of reactors and so we will have to import most of the technology and equipment.
But the nuclear industry is at the absolute peak of wasting money.
Makes the NHS look like Ryanair.
TJ has raised an excellent point - nuclear stations can't be cranked up to eleven on a whim.Right, I'm off to gen up on my GCSE notes.
You'll need a lie down and not your GCSE notes if you think that was an 'excellent point' from the Edinburgh resident.
Most all generators run to provide the base load with the likes of stored pumped hydro waiting for the nod to come in and cope with a spike in demand. Smart metering will help modify behaviour in the next few years with one of the aims to drive down those spikes as they are hard to manage. Nuclear was always going to provide a base generation capability much like the majority of current fossil fuel generation.
Smart metering will help modify behaviour in the next few years with one of the aims to drive down those spikes as they are hard to manage.
Dynamic demand systems are becoming more popular also.
I can't understand this complaint. If the renewables industry is complaining that the nuclear industry is getting state subsidy, then will the state also have to cut the subsidy they (or rather we) provide to the renewables?
Well they would say that wouldn't they as their primary purpose for existing is to stop nuclear power generation.
This does not man they are lying can you refute the research?
Who's going to pay for all the pollution emitted by the conventional power stations over the past hundred years? My children and grandchildren
Don't worry they won't need to pay for conventional power stations, they'll be too busy paying the tens of billions required to decommission the current generation of nuclear reactors...
http://www.nda.gov.uk/sites/financials/index.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Decommissioning_Authority#Costs
wrecker - MemberWhat can?
Marshall stacks
If nuclear power is so safe, why do armed guards and police them, never seen armwed police at a wind turbine.
Oh and Wales will soon be importing elecy from scotlandshire, when they conect the cable, its coming a shore at connahs quay, after traveling down the wirral.
If nuclear power is so safe, why do armed guards and police them, never seen armwed police at a wind turbine.
There are armed police at airports and I've yet to see an airport kill anyone 😕
every seen an airplane kill someone?
very poor argument
Don't worry they won't need to pay for conventional power stations, they'll be too busy paying the tens of billions required to decommission the current generation of nuclear reactors...
At least we can pay money and do this. How much would it cost to reverse climate change? Oh....................
very poor argument
Pretty much the reason I picked up on it. Armed guards are there for people, not reactors.
wrecker - MemberTJ has raised an excellent point - nuclear stations can't be cranked up to eleven on a whim.
What can?
Gas
Hydro
Pump storage
There where armed police in our local chippy last week, theyd had reports a fish had been battered, as the chipy was closing there was a lack of evidence.
woosh
They are there for what they could do with what is there.
You get people everywhere but not armed guards so i think we can safely discount that argument and look for the actual reason.
If nuclear power is so safe, why do armed guards and police them, never seen armwed police at a wind turbine.There are armed police at airports and I've yet to see an airport kill anyone
i THOUGHT THEY WHERE THERE TO SCARE THE BIRDS AWAY.
@TJ "Riiiiiiiiiiight - and how quickly can you spin up a nuclear reactor for whenteh kettle all go on at half time in the cup final?"
Faster than you can make the wind blow when a high pressure is sitting over the UK in winter. Anyway as well all know nuclear (ours and imported French) is the major part of the base load mix along with coal and gas. Page 2 at
Just what % of our nuke output is actually running now?
[url= http://www.edfenergy.com/about-us/energy-generation/nuclear-generation/nuclear-power-stations/station-reports/nuclear-plant-status/nuclear-plant-status.pdf ]Just for you TJ[/url]
when they conect the cable, its coming a shore at connahs quay, after traveling down the wirral.
If the scousers don't nick the cable first 😯
Love the "nominal full load" for the reactors that have had to be turned down as they are cracking up inside / old and unreliable Usual untruths from the nuclear industry.
So, if these people win, they coud force the power generating companies out of the market, in which case the state would then be forced to re-nationalise power generation
Genius 🙄
Possibly!
when they conect the cable, its coming a shore at connahs quay, after traveling down the wirral.If the scousers don't nick the cable first
We are not scousers on the wirral, but Wirralians.
Nominal full load refers to the nominal maximum generation in megawatts from a reactor. The output from a reactor can fluctuate even when at full load for many reasons (e.g. plant conditions, sea water temperatures, operating limits/constraints etc). Where the output of a reactor is reduced by approximately 10% or more of its maximum, the reason for this will be shown. Generation figures are net of any imports into the station and may be negative when a unit is not generating.
Not sure where you are getting your half truth argument from ..got a source [ i can hear the googling from here ]
Junkyard
Hinkly point - running at 70% because of internal damage. But it is at "nominal full load" ( my arse)
http://www.british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=89
Other reactors are in similar conditions. or keep on shutting down as they are fubarred
Oh look - hunterston B as well
http://www.british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=90
In 2006 the station's reactors were closed for testing microscopic defects that had been found in similar reactors. While it was implied in the media that these were major holes gushing steam, had this been the case the loss of pressure would lead to an automatic shut down to prevent damage. Due to its age, on 16 August 2006 the company warned that until a decision was made over whether to extend its usable life it would operate at a maximum of 70 per cent load. Both reactors were subsequently restarted generating 420 MW each, roughly 70% of full capacity.
Other reactors are in similar conditions. or keep on shutting down as they are fubarred
Usual untruths from the nuclear industry
You are still over egging the pudding. Hinckley has been operational for 40 years it is not incapable of doing 100% it is just not.
If it was at full power I assume you would be arguing that was unsafe so either scenario supports your view so how can i argue/debate with you?
Not sure how long it was expected to be in use when built do you know? Same for Hunterston...if folk like you just let them build more we would not have this problem 😉
TJ has raised an excellent point - nuclear stations can't be cranked up to eleven on a whim.What can?
Pumped Hydro storage. Cruachan and the like.
If they turned it up to 100% it would fall apart if not blow up! Remember its propaganda from the nuclear industry as well- downplaying the risks all the time.
I have always been a fan of nuclear and fully understand the technicalities and risks etc etc but watching the video from inside Fukushima today really kind of hits home about how dangerous radiation really is and makes you think "maybe there is a better way".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16644935
Just what % of our nuke output is actually running now?
[url= http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm ]76.75% right at the moment[/url]
Thats of the "nominal full load of course which actually means its a lot less than that as two of the biggest are turned down to 70% as they are fubared and others are turned down as well.
For balance wind is currently running at 34%
TJ has raised an excellent point - nuclear stations can't be cranked up to eleven on a whim.What can?
Nuclear Subs?