You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Quelle surprise:
How many years late is it now? 10?
I am still on course to win my bet that it never produces any electricity
the most expensive electricity in the world, all the risk falls upon the UK government ( bar a small capped amount) but still it not going to show much if any profit.
Biggest white elephant since gawd knows when
To add to that uncertainty, EDF revealed a couple of weeks ago that they've been welding new nuclear heat exchangers wrong since 2008!
How hard can it be?
These white elephants are keeping me in work, so can’t grumble.
Not sure why we can’t build power stations “off plan” like everyone else.
I like how the new overbudget and delay is always announced compared to the last overbudget and delay announcement, rather than the original budget and timing... And yet it still seems bloody awful. Not many nuclear plants manage to be a catastrophe before they're even fuelled.
I bet 10 scottish pence that by the time the damn thing connects to the grid- assuming it ever does- it's obsolete. I still think it'll most likely be abandoned before being fuelled.
And still we focus on the money, and just kind of ignore the gaping hole it leaves in our energy policy.
tthew
Subscriber
To add to that uncertainty, EDF revealed a couple of weeks ago that they’ve been welding new nuclear heat exchangers wrong since 2008!
Trivial compared to the le creusot scandal tbh.
How many years late is it now? 10?
Considering the new nuclear build was only given the go ahead 9 years ago and the EPR Generic Design Assessment was only completed in 2012 that would be some going.
I am still on course to win my bet that it never produces any electricity
Not a good gamble considering Taishan 1 & 2 are up and running. The design works.
Not many nuclear plants manage to be a catastrophe before they’re even fuelled.
The previous generation of this reactor was seemingly set back by similar delays, it just wasn't built internationally so wasn't subject to the same scrutiny. And we're not exactly brilliant ourselves, Dungeness B was 13 years behind schedule and took 18 years to construct. To put that in context if Olikiluoto 3 doesn't fire up next year it still has until 2023 to beat that record. Flamanville has until 2025.
When was it first mooted? 9 years ago when did they say it would be completed? What is the completion date now? do you believe the completion date that they are giving now?
I bet it never produces any electricty because it will be cancelled and I bet its never completed.
I'd go that 10p from Northwind and TJ. As Squirrelking says, it's a proven design now, and all the worse problems, (and they were terrible) have been sorted elsewhere. Most of the delays have been during the planning and licencing stages.
How hard can it be?
Well, it's a nuclear reactor, so I'm going with "really about the hardest single installation type thing you can imagine and then some".
It can't be 10 years late as my missus did some of the ecological surveys prior to the licence being granted to proceed with planning and it wasn't a decade ago.
I think the main problem is like HS2. If you're honest about how long something takes you'd never get the job, instead they under quote and extend as necessary.
I can't see it being obsolete as it's operational life is measures in decades and any new project would take just as long to get going. We have a massive requirement for low carbon energy and until everyone stops needing it we'll need stations like Hinkley & Sizewell.
I think the main problem is like HS2. If you’re honest about how long something takes you’d never get the job, instead they under quote and extend as necessary.
Is that not what you call fraud?
I was thinking more of time rather than money and also the acknowledgement that massive projects like this take time and a setback can have big ramifications.
Time is money though and much of the cost will be from devex time as well as capex, all the companies involved will have bid as low as they can go on these large infrastructure projects and rapidly realised they can't do it for what they said, resulting in a cumulative overrun across the board that will keep spiralling...
10 years late? Pah, that's nothing. Our German friends are the European masters of construction delays and cost over-runs at the moment, with the farcical Berlin Brandenburg Airport project.
- Planning started in 1991.
- Construction started in 2006.
- Now planned to open in 2021.
- Cost estimated at €2.8b, currently at €6.9b.
German efficiency at its finest.
Time is money though and much of the cost will be from devex time as well as capex, all the companies involved will have bid as low as they can go on these large infrastructure projects
Worth having a read about what a "lump sum" contract is.... contractors will not be bidding as "low as we can go".
It won't be cancelled, not least because the government can't and won't let it fail. We have a massive energy shortfall that is only going to get worse. Aside from that EDF don't seem too worried about the project progress.
Sizewell C is still in the planning stages with the idea being that workers and resources are streamed to that site from Hinkley as they are freed up. That should introduce savings as it is an identical construction and the expertise gained from the first project will be passed to the second.
we don’t bid as “low as we can go”.
all your consultants will have though 😉
This wasn't a fixed price contract. Government, (well electric consumers actually) are paying a fixed price per generated kWh so any cost overrun will come out of that, reducing EDF's margin, which will fall to generous from excessive.
apart froom decommissioning costs which will fall on the taxpayer - yes I know theoretically EDF carry them - but in the small print its a limited liability and they will not tell us how much.
Hinkley is made up of hundreds of multiple contracts and there are many lump sum (fixed price) contracts, as well are target contracts and a few cost reimbersable contracts.
Under the contracts the majority of cost over runs are shared by both EDF and the civils contractors under a pre-determined % set before the contract commencement date. It's very possible for EDF to build the whole project and walk away with a loss.
They best hurry up, else it'll be underwater before they've finished...
Still, as long as Amber Rudd and chums make a pretty penny out of it, it'll all be worth it!!
https://twitter.com/nw_nicholas/status/954657442129997824
Chaps, I know there are a lot of eco-warrior, fk Tory it's a posh boys club types on here. But this is advancement and it needs to be done - I've seen enough seminars to know the power isn't there and it won't be made by 200 windmills off Scarborough coast.
Every big infra project ever will overrun. You guys needs context, billions is bugger all.
squirrelking
Member
It won’t be cancelled, not least because the government can’t and won’t let it fail. We have a massive energy shortfall that is only going to get worse. Aside from that EDF don’t seem too worried about the project progress.
Hinkley's part of the problem with the energy shortfall- we're going to pour a ton of money into that hole in the ground that could have been used elsewhere, and depending on when it connects to the grid, it might not even replace the older AGRs that are due to be retired.
And I don't mean let's spend it all on windmills- I think nuclear's great, but I don't think Britain should be building literally the most expensive building in the world (*), at this point, or putting so many of our energy eggs in one basket. I mean, the bloomin French have cancelled all of their own planned EPRs until the rev 2 design is ready.The design is proven, yes, and it's been proven to be a total pain in the arse and money pit.
I do think it probably will be completed and fuelled, due to Politics and "too big to fail", but I don't think that my 10p is a bad bet either... How about a side wager, that at least one modern SMR is generating before Hinkley is, for less £ per kw.
(* arguably the Great Mosque was more expensive but only if you include previous iterations)
I don’t think Britain should be building literally the most expensive building in the world (*), at this point, or putting so many of our energy eggs in one basket.
Oh I totally agree with that. Development money should have been invested in those small modular factory built reactors. Few of those dotted about the system would have been useful for all sorts of reasons. I do still think it'll be finished though.
It's hard enough getting NIMBYs to agree to one nuclear power station so the likelihood of getting a dozen smaller ones approved......
Eggs in one basket is unfair. Moorside was struck off when Toshiba nuclear went bankrupt and Hitachi suddenly decided to pull out of Wylfa. Both those designs were already viable and the ABWRs, whilst flaky, at least already existed in a commercial capacity when the approval was given. There was also the not insignificant problemof Npower losing their nuclear revenue stream whe Germany closed all their stations post Fukushima. As I said Sizewell C is still going through the motions and should work out more cost effective.
I do agree though that the whole situation is crap and could have been completely avoided with appropriate stewardship from successive governments who, instead of investing in our energy needs kicked the can down the road until our existing fleet passed its first lifetime extension.
SMRs aren't proven yet and after hearing a talk from GE I wouldn't bet on them not having the capacity to absolutely shaft the taxpayer. They are the next step though and hopefully something viable and cost effective can be built.
The worst thing we ever did was sell off our nuclear industry and at the moment if we leave euratom we are potentially kissing goodbye to royalty free fusion from the ITER project.
SMRs aren’t proven yet...
There's plenty of UK built (V)SMR's floating about in the ocean on nuclear subs which with a bit of imagination and investment could have been scaled up for power generation. Opportunities missed by the UK, Russia did it recently with their nuclear barge. Clearly you'd hope our regulatory environment would be massively more stringent, but as a technical project, I don't think it would be hugely problematical.
johnnystorm
Subscriber
It’s hard enough getting NIMBYs to agree to one nuclear power station so the likelihood of getting a dozen smaller ones approved……
You don't need a dozen power stations- you need more reactors but they don't have to be in different places. After all Hinkley C is 2 new reactors on top of 4 old ones in the same site.
That's not to say old school reactors can't still make sense even now- in fact a huge part of the problem is that we didn't keep on building reactors past 95. CPR1000 has its roots in a design that's decades old, as does the newer Chinese reactor design, and they're smashing those out now for IIRC about $4bn each. Sure, you need to build 3 for every 2 EPRs, and let's be honest building things in Britain ain't the same as building them in China, you can see that in the differences in how the reactor head issues were handled at Flamanville and Taishan, so there's a bit of apples and oranges there.
Basically there's a lot of room between "dozens of SMRs" and "world's most expensive building"
squirrelking
Member
Eggs in one basket is unfair.
Unfair, maybe. True, pretty much.