do you know what the costs of decommissioning are?  Do you know what the solution to storage of the waste is?

Deep dark geologically stable, simple answer.

Repo was a good idea but butter fuel means it’e not needed and saves a lot of hassle.

Any other questions TJ?

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>squirrelking
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Member</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

And who owns EDF Group?

France, mostly. And?

</div>

and I have to say 10 years playing with nuclear waste did nothing bad to me

Well to make it explicit, do you think France will be bankrupt by then? Personally I don’t so frankly I’m not worried.

Plus the cost of waste storage which the UK government will pick up and that link is putting a positive spin on it.    EDFs contribution to decommissioning is capped but the true costs are not known and EDFs liability does not include large parts of the decommissioning.

so what you said about EDF paying for all the decommissioning is just wrong.

As usual, the public are not actually asked the correct questoin, which is a choice between:

Option 1) Cheap renewable ‘lecy, but the lights (and freezer, and internet, and water, and your boiler, an dyour EV charger, and everything else driven by your ‘lecy) will go off when there ain’t enough to go around

or

Option 2) Potentially more expensive Nuclear ‘lecy, which might cost you more in the long run, but your lights will stay on all the time

Given this (accurate) question, how many people would vote for option 1) ???

Plus the cost of waste storage which the UK government will pick up and that link is putting a positive spin on it

Good they need to, they are storing all the UK’s legacy waste first and maybe some Japanese ILW/HLW swaps, a bit more will be a tiny amount on the bill

EDFs contribution to decommissioning is capped but the true costs are not known and EDFs liability does not include large parts of the decommissioning.

That is fine, it will help employ the well trained decommissioning people after we do the old stuff, think of it as enhanced dole.

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>mikewsmith
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

do you know what the costs of decommissioning are?  Do you know what the solution to storage of the waste is?

Deep dark geologically stable, simple answer.

</div>

So no answer then.  Where?  How?  Who , when?  any answers or is this like your answer to “how do we pug the hole in future generation?  No answer at all  Wishful thinking will not do

So no answer then.  Where?  How?  Who , when?  any answers or is this like your answer to “how do we pug the hole in future generation?  No answer at all  Wishful thinking will not do

Honestly TJ that explains a lot, fingers in the ears don’t want to know, don’t want a solution. You know a bunch of people much cleverer than you are working on this and coming up with serious answers. Though your first reaction is to object to whatever it is. Anyway if you get an independent Scotland I reckon something just south of Carlisle would be perfect.

Anyway just checking do you live on a radon spot?

http://www.ukradon.org/information/ukmaps

As previously stated, we’re currently liable for a whole heap of spent fuel that is going to be around for a hell of a long time, this will be a drop in the ocean. Of course said fuel is also viable for a future breeder programme soooo…

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>squirrelking
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Member</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

Well to make it explicit, do you think France will be bankrupt by then?

Probably not. But EDF is (mostly) owned by France; it isn’t France. To make it explicit.

</div>

yes mike it does explain a lot.  when asked for solutions to problems all you have in answer is wishful thinking.  Two difficult questions.

“how would you cover the future shortfall? ” and ” How would you dispose of high level waste? ”

To both of those the only answers you have are wishful thinking.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant

TJ not sure why you keep hammering the how to generate more energy point.

I’ve said it multiple time we needs as much as we can get, we should build the tidal schemes, and the solar, and the wind and the nuclear. Even if you replace Hinkly with something else we still need more. So we need to build all of it.

AS for waste – in the same place as the UK will put it’s current HLW, we all know that has not been built yet but it will be as it needs to be. That is non negotiable so there will be a repository.

Wrong again, the presentation concerned the present EDF fleet. The condition of the takeover from British Energy was that they were responsible for the defuelling and decommissioning but that the governement had the option of appointing another agent.

I don’t think I’m wrong, it seems widely stated this will be the first one where the developer will have responsibility to cover decom. Did EDF develop their current ones then? They are the current operator I thought, having taken over existing developments.

<p>Right, got you now. Yeah I guess, unless of course they sell it along with any liabilities as SSEB and CEGB did. Not sure why it’s newsworthy to be honest as it’s always effectively been the case, the difference with the Magnox stations being that they were decommissioned after privatisation and the contract went to tender. In the case of the AGR fleet and SZB they were sold with the liabilities meaning EDF are on the hook for defuelling and decommissioning unless the government feel another party can do it better.</p>

Mike – because you keep trying to hammer me on how I would cover future shortfall but when I put the same question to you I got a wishful thinking answer ” In an ideal world more nuclear”

If you want to hammer me on specifics then you need to be specific as well and we are not in an ideal world. New nuclear cannot be built on time to cover the shortfall and you proposal for waste of “bury it and forget about it” is not a solution either.

If you want me to be specific then you need to as well.  So where for the waste.  Who by?  When?  How?

These are two difficult questions that you have ducked.

It cuts both ways

Mike – because you keep trying to hammer me on how I would cover future shortfall but when I put the same question to you I got a wishful thinking answer ” In an ideal world more nuclear”

Simply because you want to stop a massive source of energy and can barely replace that as a source with your tidal idea.

Shortfall needs to be met by building more of everything. It really is that simple.

 So where for the waste.  Who by?  When?  How?

The NDA are on that at the moment

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technical-issues-associated-with-deep-repositories-in-different-geological-environments

As you would expect as they have to build on for the existing HLW in the UK and the ILW Sub arrangements.

You can choose to ignore this if you want. But it will be built.

More wishful thinking.  there is no plan for the disposal of the waste.  None.  Just pie in the sky.  Where will it be built?  When?  Who by?

New nuclear cannot be built quickly enough to stop the shortfall.  simple fact.

This means that your answers to these difficult questions are simple wishful thinking.

Now until you either admit you have no answers that are practical and possible then your position is nonsensical

Shortfall needs to be covered by efficiency and energy savings.

My position is simple.  reduce consumption by converting the entire economy and taxation system to that of carbon taxes.  the polluter pays.  Yes we may need higher carbon commissions for electricity but this could easily be clawed back and more in other energy savings.  Make energy waste uneconomic.  all those big heavy cars burning fossil fuels transporting one person.  all those office building with lights left on 24/7/365.  All those  houses that leak heat. etc etc etc  Savings far in excess of the amount of carbon saved by nuclear power could easily be made.

More wishful thinking.  there is no plan for the disposal of the waste.  None.  Just pie in the sky.  Where will it be built?  When?  Who by?

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority – a government body in charge of this stuff

New nuclear cannot be built quickly enough to stop the shortfall.  simple fact.

Probably true, but it’s not a reason not to build it. We need lots of new generation being built now. Building other stuff does not stop Hinkly, building other stuff doesn’t impact on Hinkly. It does not have to be an either or.

This means that your answers to these difficult questions are simple wishful thinking.

My position is simple.  reduce consumption buy converting the entire economy and taxation system to that of carbon taxes.  the polluter pays.

LOL you are going to reduce it and hope you can cover what you need?

Laughable.

Currently the user/polluter pays, energy is not free, it’s a major cost in a lot of businesses who are working really **** hard to reduce their use to get their costs down. It’s happening all over the country.

More wishful thinking. there is no plan for the disposal of the waste. None. Just pie in the sky. Where will it be built? When? Who by?

That question is entirely and utterly moot since we are already stuck with a legacy of high level waste that NEEDS a solution. Whether or not that pile gets added to makes no difference whatsoever since it will exist whether or not Hinkley does.

Really good to see this device performing well, the chap was just setting up the company back when I lived in Orkney. Think it’s a real clever approach given the expense and difficulty of attaching turbines to the seabed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-45246445

Last sentence here sums it all up really http://renews.biz/112195/scots-tidal-hits-milestone/

“We are dismayed that there is a total lack of market support here in the UK for our technology and we have no option but to focus our business on overseas opportunities.”

It’s unfortunate that right now that generators down south are paid to transmit whilst those up north pay progressively more. When (hopefully) this changes we may see the tide turn.

Yep, in the current energy game every contribution welcome

What?  So a turbine is considered a success because it has generate more electricity than any other turbine before it, when actually, the only ones installed before it were small prototypes conducting small scale studies, rather than aiming to generate useable power for the grid?

what they fail to mention is exactly what each of those GWh actually cost?

So, lets see the numbers, it’s done 3 GWh in a year, it lasts 20 years, we just need to know what it cost to build and install, and how much it costs to run / maintain, divide one by the other and there’s a figure for the cost of the ‘lecy.  And yet, where is what figure?

Building other stuff does not stop Hinkly, building other stuff doesn’t impact on Hinkly.

Its heavy reliance on public subsidy brings it into competition with other forms of energy generation needing the same. So, whilst it’s true that building other stuff does not stop Hinkley, building Hinkley may stop other stuff being built.

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>maxtorque
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

So, lets see the numbers, it’s done 3 GWh in a year, it lasts 20 years, we just need to know what it cost to build and install, and how much it costs to run / maintain, divide one by the other and there’s a figure for the cost of the ‘lecy.  And yet, where is what figure?

You realise it’s a prototype, right?

</div>

what they fail to mention is exactly what each of those GWh actually cost?

if you’d read the links at all you’d see it’s their first full scale prototype undergoing testing, so its costs won’t be comparable to any market-ready device. Jesus this is how we ended up with brexit.

Ex magnox reactor worker here so you may think I’m biased.

This country needs nuclear. It needs nuclear to keep your lights on. Renewables are needed as well and do a good job topping up what we need. But ultimately they are not reliable enough and will never be reliable enough to be the ultamite answer to our energy needs.

This country is on the verge and quite possibly too late to stop the lights goin off. Industry is given a cheaper unit price if the NG can switch them off. How long untill its households?

I don’t think that the hinkley reactor design is the best. But its what we have and its better than nothing. I don’t like the fact that the turbines are dirty. This makes maintenance a pain and expensive compared to other designs.

This country used to be at the forefront of inovation and engineering. It’s a disgrace that we are relying on the french to build our reactors. But succesive governments have made sure that we don’t have the capability to build these.

Public opinion is also an issue. Too many thick  unknowledgeable people have too great an opinion and ultimately power to stop the UK from ever being at the forefront of nuclear power generation. We could sell the technology globaly. Make the UK a hub of inovation. Have a product to sell to the world post brexit. Create high paying employment for thousands of people.

But no. Nuclear=bad. End of story

Its heavy reliance on public subsidy

Say what now? Guaranteed strike price is not public subsidy, it’s consumer funded. The other stations at Wylfa and (potentially) Moorside, THEY have pulic subsidy in the form of a governement stake.

I don’t like the fact that the turbines are dirty. This makes maintenance a pain and expensive compared to other designs.

That’s BWR you’re thinking of (Wylfa), Hinkley is a PWR with the same secondary coolant loops as the Magnox and AGR reactors so shouldn’t have any contamination issues unless you got a boiler tube leak at low pressure.

Say what now? Guaranteed strike price is not public subsidy, it’s consumer funded

If you honestly believe that Contracts for Difference are not a subsidy then the word has no meaning. How else should we describe a government-negotiated contract giving a doubling of wholesale power prices, to be paid for by levies?

I never said it wasn’t a subsidy.

I said it wasn’t a public subsidy which is something entirely different. I even went to the trouble of explaining that it wasn’t publically funded (out of government funds if you really need an explainiation of what that means) and that the costs would be met by consumers (through energy bills).

As for a doubling, that’s already been eroded, the strike price is about 40% above todays prices and with the state of the energy market in years to come (all the coal gone and the AGR’s scheduled to come offline from 2023 onwards) that’s only going one way. Unless someone brings cheap energy to the market and fast I can’t see the difference being that great.

I said it wasn’t a <strong class=”bbcode-strong”>public subsidy which is something entirely different. I even went to the trouble of explaining that it wasn’t publically <strong class=”bbcode-strong”>funded (out of government funds if you really need an explainiation of what that means) and that the costs would be met by <strong class=”bbcode-strong”>consumers (through energy bills).

So it’s not a public subsidy, but a subsidy funded by the public. Gotcha.

If you need the definition of a public subsidy explained to you then really you have no place in this conversation.

If you need the definition of a public subsidy explained to you then really you have no place in this conversation.

You are of course free to continue the pretence that a subsidy funded by the public is not a public subsidy.

Wylfa II is going ahead no matter what the govt say. They are doing the prelim work now around it (I rode past it on Sunday) and there have been pretend public consultation exercises about the pylon routes for over 2 years now. It’s all done and dusted and no amount of discussion or protest can stop it now.

Wylfa isn’t a bwr. It has a graphite core cooled by Co2. The turbine side is clean. I should know. I worked there.

I know it’s a prototype (the tidal turbine).  That is my point EXACTLY!   It’s why i was suggesting that claiming it’s a massive success is pre-emptive in the extreme…

For example, in my home county of Oxfordshire, there are currently precisely zero badger powered generators, so i could install such a device, and then proclaim “my badgerator ™ is the most biggly successful super generator ever, it’s made 1 million times more badger derived energy than ever generated before” despite it only making 3whr in total.

People can moan “how come XXX (<< insert new tech here) hasn’t taken off, it is a conspiracy by the industry/politicians/deepstate/media (delete as appropriate)”  as much as they like, but simple capitalism is the reason new, un-proven and low return technologies don’t take off immediately if at all.  Financiers with money are always going to put most of their money into proven tech with secure returns

so you’re saying it’s actually an unsuccessful prototype? What must the first prototype achieve to be a successful exercise?

What must the first prototype achieve to be a successful exercise?

For me it’s a prototype so a long way from full scale deployment or production, costs are to be determined and there is uncertainty.

While people feel the need to bash Hinkly for it’s price or delays elsewhere I’ve not seen a ready to go solution that will take it’s place.