- So these guys are building us a nuclear power station.
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.Posted 4 years agorobdixonMember
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.Posted 4 years agoAdamWMember
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 : upgrade (Independent paper) 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.Posted 4 years agokimbersSubscriberkonabunnyMember
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 hallmark of good satire is that it could pass for the thing it satirizes.Posted 4 years ago
A slightly more rational article here IMO:
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.Posted 4 years ago
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 : An expensive nuclear deal that ignores all the energy alternatives
In another article in today’s FT under the headline “Hinkley Point C is pivotal for industry’s future” 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.Posted 4 years ago
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!!!!Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years ago
Of the contrary, it simply requires a basic understanding of financial/investment maths.
On the contrary, a simple understanding of the English language and the term “losing out”.
You might well argue that handing over profits to the French government is an excellent idea, for whatever reason you can dream up, but Britain is “losing out” on the profit.Posted 4 years ago
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
So who should we have got to build a new nuclear power station? Given that as mentioned above BNFL had been systematically dismantled (and despite commentary from the usual suspects about that being a typical private industry thing to do, it was in Labour government hands at the time) who was going to do it? Would you rather it cost us a whole lot more for out of date technology to stay within the UK (or more likely just didn’t happen for another 10 years)? I understand that some on here aren’t big fans of capitalism, but you could at least just admit that’s the issue you have with it.Posted 4 years ago
and despite commentary from the usual suspects about that being a typical private industry thing to do, it was in Labour government hands at the time
Have you just discovered that New Labour privatised stuff and followed economic policies indistinguishable from the official Conservative Party aracer ?
You might be shocked to discover that still today Labour Party policy is to not nationalise the energy companies, despite the fact that opinion polls show a large majority of the public are in favour. That’s right, on some issues the public are considerably more left-wing than New Labour – how amazing is that?
And if that isn’t sufficient I can further shock you by pointing out that previous Tory governments nationalised quite a few companies, as well as setting some nationalised companies. Indeed one former Tory Prime Minister famously described the privatisation of the utilities as “selling the family silver”.
Terribly challenging as it might seem aracer, we have to go beyond the simplistic Labour verses Conservative argument. There just isn’t enough differences between them, although you’ve apparently only just noticed 😉Posted 4 years ago
It’s more an issue with Labour apparently seeing no future in nuclear (though I’d hazard a guess that the Conservatives might have actually done the same thing if in power at the time). I’m sure you knew it was a government organisation – I’m not so sure about el-bent.
My favourite “wrong party” one is still the introduction of tuition fees – I’m not sure the Torys would ever have got away with that one.
As for nationalising the energy companies, I suspect it’s something the public like the theory of, but don’t realise all the implications (I certainly don’t so could be totally wrong about that).Posted 4 years ago
I suspect it’s something the public like the theory of, but don’t realise all the implications
So you mean they are stupid……they’re backing something which they don’t understand ?
Since I suspect that you’ve forgotten I’ll remind you why the energy companies were privatised in the first place. It was because the public, actually a small minority of people called floating voters, decided to back a party whose policies clearly included the privatisation of the energy companies, that’s why they were privatised.
If the public, who apparently don’t understand all the implications of such things, had not backed the policies we would still have state owned energy companies.
Presumably in your world they only “don’t realise all the implications” when they back policies which you don’t support ?
Btw opinion polls show that a much larger percentage of the public now back the nationalisation of the utilities than ever backed Thatcher.
And with reference to Labour seeing no future in nuclear, Tony Blair backed the building of new nuclear power stations while he was Prime Minister.Posted 4 years ago
So to answer my own question….
Wikipedia: “A 1000-MW nuclear power plant produces about 27 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel (unreprocessed) every year.”
Assuming full power all year = 8760000 MWh/year
So if Hinkley C supplied all my electricity, I’d be creating 7g of HLW waste per year.Posted 4 years ago
“A 1000-MW nuclear power plant produces about 27 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel (unreprocessed) every year.”
Do you think the French and Chinese will be taking their shit with them ?
Or is that not part of the, ie, “we’ll subsidise you, you take the profit, and just leave all your crap behind – we’ll deal with it” ?Posted 4 years ago
Junkyard – lazarus
The issue i have with it is i am not a fan of capitalism
What has that got to do with this debate? 😉
The state determines energy policy. The state awards the contract. The state negotiates on our behalf. The state fixes the long term strike price. The state guarantees financing. And if some are to be believed, other states are the main beneficiaries (sic).
Which brand of that despised thing called “capitalism” does all this fall under? If you want to see what the capitalists think, read what Jeremy Warner has to say in today’s Torygraph – don’t worry Ernie, you get 20 free shots there unlike the FT!Posted 4 years ago
Well I’ve just checked and apparently they will be dumping all the nasty unpleasant stuff which no one wants, or knows what to do with, on site. According to Somerset County Council.
EDF are proposing to store spent nuclear waste on site. Somerset County Council raised this as a concern in response to the Stage 1 and Stage 2 consultations for a number of reasons:
Waste has not previously been stored at Hinkley Point;
It would be the first nuclear proposal where on-site storage of waste has been suggested;
There is no clarity on whether the proposal to store waste on-site would include waste from other locations.
The more I learn about it the more I realise what a fantastic deal this has been for the French and Chinese governments.Posted 4 years ago
They’ve already mentioned it. Storing waste is a key benefit!:
A new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point has the potential to provide a range of benefits, both to people living in the immediate vicinity as well as those from the wider area.
Look, they’re planting some trees. It’s all fine.Posted 4 years ago
Whose crap is it? Who is using the power?
Their crap. When someone has a contact it is generally accepted that they deal with all the rubbish and left over stuff that’s been created from the contract.
Perhaps you think they should also leave all the bricks, timber, steal, cement, and all the other crap left over from the construction of the power plant in a big heap next to it for someone else to clear up ?
Obviously dealing with a nuclear waste is a costly and awkward business, forcing EDF and their Chinese partners to deal with it might not make the contract so lucrative for them, and we wouldn’t want that now would we ?Posted 4 years agogrumMember
To have agreed subsidies that lock consumers into prices nearly double the current rate for wholesale power for 35 years – index-linked – in order to get the wretched thing built, is just plain crazy, That it is in apparent pursuit of emissions targets that few others on the world stage seem prepared to meet, further damaging British competitiveness, makes it seem crazier still. Future generations will curse the compromises made in securing this monster of a project, designed and built by foreign concerns.
In signing up to them, the Government has agreed not just an inflated minimum price – bullet-proofed against anything from windfall profit taxes to rising business rates – but a state guarantee for up to £10bn of the financing costs. The public sector might as well have bankrolled the whole thing itself. If ever there was a case of phoney private-sector risk bearing, this is it.
From the Torygraph article THM mentioned. So they agree with ernie – interesting….Posted 4 years ago
Ernie you splitter 😉
And if some are to be believed, other states are the main beneficiaries (sic).
do you think that making a profit from it, rather than paying the costs of it, does not make them the main beneficiary?Posted 4 years ago
Its rare that i agree with the capitalists [ i still dont like them arcacer] and rare that you doubt their ability to make profit.
No JY I do not for the v simple reason that there is a key difference between profits and profitability (has this been said before?) and that is important especially in investment decisions like this. It is perfectly possible to make profits but be a loser in this or any investment – basic investment maths.
One the face of it, looks like a break-even result in pure financial terms and far from a great deal for the suppliers of capital. Equally, the point of the FT and the Torygraph, this is not a humdinger for us (the Uk taxpayer) either as we have crossed what was deemed previously to be the red-line in the strike price negotiations and, given the failure of their French project, EDF were in a relatively weak bargaining position and we hardly squeezed them. But as I said in my OP, far too early to reach sensible conclusions.
So how much was a coalition panic in response to Ed’s price freeze strategy? Let’s hope politicians were not that short-sighted, hey?
Grum, Warner’s point was that the Tories need to be more radical and that this is an effect a state run project with (in his opinion) not a great result. Can’t see how that is saying the same as Ernie tbh nor that it is an indictment on capitalism.Posted 4 years ago
basic investment maths
Will you ever stop with your “basic investment maths” as if it’s some sort of all powerful argument clincher ?
It’s got **** all to do with basic maths and everything to do with basic ideological commitment.
The reason that construction and operation of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant will be handed to French and Chinese state owned companies is because this Tory government are prisoners to their own ideology.
Of course they don’t want to hand over the construction and operation of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant to French and Chinese state owned companies. Quite apart from the obvious awkward issue of the involvement of state owned companies, up until recently had anyone passed on classified information to the Chinese government about Britain’s civil nuclear industry they could have expected to be hauled before the courts and denigrated in the press.
Today we have a situation where the politburo of the Chinese Communist Party no less, will be privy to the most intimate details of Britain’s nuclear industry, indeed they will actually own some of its infrastructure. How embarrassing is that for them ffs ?
However the Tories find themselves in a straightjacket of their own making due to their slavish commitment to privatisation. They have no choice. Firstly there are no private companies anywhere in the world which can build and operate nuclear power plants free from any government involvement, so a government backed outfit is therefore inevitable.
Of course a “British” government backed outfit is the obvious answer, but this would be absolutely disastrous to the free-market fundamentalists who control the modern Tory Party. It would completely undermine their nonsensical claim that government involvement, specially in the utilities, is an extremely bad thing.
Government intervention must never be seen as a good thing, even after the multi-billion government bale out of the banks and financial institutions.
And so it is that we find ourselves in this ludicrous situation in which French and Chinese government backed companies can now own significant bits of our vital energy sector but British government backed companies can’t.
A similar thing happened when British Rail wasn’t allowed to tender for rail franchises but German and French government owned rail companies were.
Maths doesn’t come into it, but ideologically motivated baloney from a bunch of free-market extremists does.Posted 4 years agocrikeyMember
Even George thinks they’ve got it wrong, by using old tech….Posted 4 years ago
Wow that’s quite a rant. So financing a LT capital project has nothing to do with basic investment principles/maths? Hmmm….No wonder you are so unhappy about it? Even governments (if they feel the need to be involved) usually understand the basics of investment.
How about we shouldn’t ever trade with Johnny Foreigner because they get all the benefit?!?!?!?
For the second time in 24 hours,, merci de me faire rire. Now I wonder if a French Wendyball manager can put a similar smile in my face in an hour or so!
Brilliant comedy to rant about a government led and partly managed investment being an example of how government intervention must never be seen to be a good thing. Awesome.Posted 4 years ago
It is perfectly possible to make profits but be a loser in this or any investment – basic investment maths
We all know you are the biggest economic brain in the room and boy do you like to tell us, but never explain so we may understand. I however have faith that , if i ask nicely, you can explain to me in a simple, clear, concise and non patronising way how you can make profit from something and still lose out.
Imagine I am bright GCSE student if it helps , perhaps a stupid A level student with wealthy parents- your choice 😉
The point is EDF are only doing it because they believe they can make a profit
Your constant suggestion that objections are xenophobic is simply an attempt to build a straw man with which to stifle legitimate points which you ignore.
Wow that’s quite a rant.
That is a really dismissive way to refuse to answer his points and then go ona bout economics when his central point was about ideology.
Brilliant comedy to rant about a government led and partly managed investment being an example of how government intervention must never be seen to be a good thing. Awesome.
Marks are given for your working not simply stating something.
His point was the Tories could never be seen to be nationalising oh **** it have it in his words and , as you are want to say, play the argument/ball not the man 🙄Posted 4 years ago
Of course a “British” government backed outfit is the obvious answer, but this would be absolutely disastrous to the free-market fundamentalists who control the modern Tory Party. It would completely undermine their nonsensical claim that government involvement, specially in the utilities, is an extremely bad thingdragonMember
George Monibot is an idiot he thinks they should use technology never used in a major commercial reactor. No thanks. keeping big plant of any kind working safely and with good up time is serious enough business without it being experimental and that we don’t fully understand.Posted 4 years agoFlaperonSubscriber
We could stop there, but its fairly safe to say he’s not an engineer, but a dreamer.
Pretty sure we’d have something good if we used the cash from HS2 instead of burning it in an obnoxious trail across the Chilterns in trains only the very rich can afford.
Hey, we might even be able to export the design to other countries. Who’da thought it?Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘So these guys are building us a nuclear power station.’ is closed to new replies.