[Closed] Hinkley - non merci

building that kind of Nuclear power station is very expensive, more than the company (EDF) is worth, so it's a bit risky.

They'd need to pay out more money than they're worth, many years before they'd start earning any income from their investment.

(This is where the Chinese backers got involved)

They've been promised a handsome return, but would you put [u]your[/u] company's future in the hands of someone else? They'd be relying on our government to keep paying over the odds, for decades.

(yes, there are contracts, but, contracts get broken every day)

I'm not sure what your question is, are you asking why it might jeapardise EDF? If so yes as above I think the project is so ridiculously expensive already that the cost is more than the company is worth, I think I read they're not entirely sure if they can actually succesfully build it yet either so costs will probably spiral.

I think EDF are largely state owned so with the massive cost of electricity from this reactor we are basically subsidising the French taxpayer. I imagine as usual the british taxpayer will have to pay the billions in decom costs too rather than the company itself. There used to be a good list of the costs of decommissioning our reactors on the NDA website but they've taken it down now.

It's almost as if nuclear power is a really, really expensive option and we should be looking at cheaper alternatives.

I imagine as usual the british taxpayer will have to pay the billions in decom costs too rather than the company itself.

It's almost as if nuclear power is a really, really expensive option and we should be looking at cheaper alternatives.

BJ - just smiling at the vitriole of 2 years ago, when the argument that this was not a good deal for EDF did not go down too well 😉

Definitions of "handsome" seem to spark some controversy too!!

from the bbc:

The company (EDF) has debt of more than €37bn (£28bn), its share price has more than halved in the past 12 months and the new nuclear power plants it is building in Finland and Flamanville, northwestern France are running late and are significantly over-budget.

I'd be a little uneasy about going into another scheme off the back of those numbers.!.

When (if?) it's fully up and running then the £/KWh which zee French will receive will be a complete steal for the UK taxpayer if oil prices are at about $450 / barrel.

🙂

scotroutes - Member

It's almost as if nuclear power is a really, really expensive option and we should be looking at cheaper alternatives.

Small Modular Reactors.

rather than designing / making / decomissioning each power station as a one off (like now) each stage is productionised - economies of scale, etc.

SMR's seem to be the way the wind is blowing...

[quote=ahwiles said]the way the wind is blowing...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Wind_Blows_(1986_film)

😆

It's almost as if nuclear power is a really, really expensive option and we should be looking at cheaper alternatives.

But Gideon's donators and chums won't get rich then.

Perish the thought people try and reduce their energy consumption instead...

Yep reduce but that still only touches on the fact there has been **** all serious investment in UK power gen for decades. The but where not making a decision was an option is over and the problems are coming in.

Perish the thought people try and reduce their energy consumption instead...

How?

Go on then, turn your laptop off and go live in a cave by candle light.

And don't even think about those eco friendly electric cars, or anything made from aluminium for that matter.

Perish the thought people try and reduce their energy consumption instead...

Or use any water for that matter, I think Scottish Water are the largest energy user north of the border. Reduction and micro-generation go some way, but peak load and industrial usage will need high capacity for some time.

How?

Go on then, turn your laptop off and go live in a cave by candle light.

Seriously? I don't spend enough time in this dark side of the forum to know if I'm being trolled by a big hitter or not

Here is a starter anyway http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/domestic/

Many more resources online.

As has been said already, the pay off if it all goes well is good, however to get there EDF risk potentially overextending themselves which causes cashflow problems and could lead to them becoming insolvent.

As the other 2 plants are delayed it means that they arent in the position at this point in time they would have expected to be during negotiations. It's not a good situation for anyone.

Estimated cost... £18 Biiiiilllion. 😯

And 😯

... For another £3 billion you can get your own fusion reactor - ITER project 2014 prices. (If it ever works).

scotroutes
It's almost as if nuclear power is a really, really expensive option and we should be looking at cheaper alternatives.

There are no cheaper alternatives.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the later 1700's, we have been living off energy that was conveniently and cheaply (free!) stored away in a cheap and easily accessible form (coal, oil and gas) by Nature. You literally just had to dig a hole and out it popped.

i.e. Nature, over millions of years converted the energy in sun light into hydrocarbon fuels.

Now we know that burning vast quantities of these easily accessible fuels causes climate issues, the pressure is on to move away to a more renewable and low carbon alternative. But those alternatives ALL require us to carry out the energy conversion and storage phase, that was previously done from free by Nature herself.

As a result ALL future energy is going to be more expensive, at a minimum twice as expensive and more like 4 or 5 times as expensive because "best practice" is now a lot more involved and complex.

So the actual options really are:

1) Cheap energy, but not much of it

[b]OR[/b]

2) Lots of expensive energy

[quote=bigjim ]Perish the thought people try and reduce their energy consumption instead...

Unfortunately right now we need both - people could instantly reduce their consumption by a significant amount and we'd still have a crisis. Don't think I'm against the suggestion - IMHO we should be investing lots of money in that, as the payback is far better than building power stations, but right now we have to build new power stations anyway.

It is the extent of project that is his issue, he supported a 33% participation. From this one can assume that he is comfortable with the upside downside ratio but not the size of the downside in the context of their balance sheet.

Thing is though EDF are owned primarily by the French government and they want this deal to go ahead. This is supposed to demonstrate EDF's capabilities outside France and let them go win business elsewhere. And in reality does it really ruin EDF's balance sheet, when the French government could just inject more money if required, albeit at a cost to the French tax payer.

If every building in the uk had a solar panel how much electricity would it supply versus 1 nuclear power station?

At 7:30pm in winter when everybody switches on their kettles after Corrie finishes?

Is storage of renewable energy such a problem that the billions of pounds that are needed for Hinkley wouldn't be able to sort it out?

Seriously? I don't spend enough time in this dark side of the forum to know if I'm being trolled by a big hitter or not

Go read the Cynic-Al spoon thread.

Here is a starter anyway http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/domestic/

Many more resources online.

LED bulbs, TV's, and whatever else runs on electric in your house aren't going to makeup the shortfall though are they? They're important, but not the solution.

Then there's the dwindling supplies of gas, so more homes are going to need to be heated by electricity in the next 50 years.

Likewise combustion engined cars are going to disappear, which is going to put electricity consumption through the roof, in the same way broadband had a shaky start with providers simply not having the server capacity to back up the speeds they were selling to customers.

It's an inevitability that energy usage will go up, even if you somehow cut it per person, what do you do when the population increases?

Is storage of renewable energy such a problem that the billions of pounds that are needed for Hinkley wouldn't be able to sort it out?

Simply put, yes.

How do you propose storing up all that solar energy from the summer to see us through heating homes all winter?

Yes you could spend that on £1000 for each home in insulation etc, that's great, but it still doesn't power the kettle let alone the car.

At 7:30pm in winter when everybody switches on their kettles after Corrie finishes?

Isn't this supplied by Ben Cruachan and other hydros as they spin up in about 60 seconds?

Perish the thought people try and reduce their energy consumption instead...

Problem is the 'rebound' effect shows it often doesn't really work, as the savings in one area often lead to increases in another area e.g. turning up the heating in a newly insulated house or driving more often in a new fuel efficient car.

The future of energy is the same as it always was, mixed sources, and nuclear can and should be a key player IMO.

Cruachan expansion plans:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ca3f4fe6-dbd9-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html#axzz42JpIqoZO

UK regulators have said pumped storage can help increase the power network’s efficiency, but have struggled to balance a desire to encourage expansion with reluctance to introduce subsidies.
SSE, one of the UK’s biggest power groups, has dropped two of three pumped storage schemes it had been considering and said in November that “current policy and market signals?.?.?.?do not favour investment” in such plants.

Isn't this supplied by Ben Cruachan and other hydros as they spin up in about 60 seconds?

The total amount of wave and tidal stream energy in UK and Irish waters is estimated at 935 TWh/year. Of this, some 98 TWh/year of marine energy resource has been assessed as being economically recoverable with [b]today’s[/b] technologies.

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/uks-marine-energy-reserves-are-too-promising-to-be-ignored/

Places like Dinorwig Power Station do provide the necessary 'kick' at peak times, but overall is a net user of energy.

NB: Gas plants are good at enabling a managing of demand.

If marine is so great why is no one rushing to develop it?

If marine is so great why is no one rushing to develop it?

At 7:30pm in winter when everybody switches on their kettles after Corrie finishes?

maybe they could arrange to broadcast it at staggered intervals across the country?

I'm assuming our leaders care more about their business chums than our country.

Really, you'd think if there was money to be made in marine than people would be there, government support or not.

maybe they could arrange to broadcast it at staggered intervals across the country?

Interestingly catch up does mean things like Corrie are no longer as important as before. However, sports like the World Cup or 100m final will still be watched in real time and that isn't going to change.

They're important, but not the solution.

I don't think anyone's claimed it's any kind of solution, but part of the big picture.

How do you propose storing up all that solar energy from the summer to see us through heating homes all winter?

There are many potential ways of storing renewable energy, from simple pump storage, which we basically do already, to things like liquid metal batteries. I think the future is quite likely to involve a supergrid type scenario where generation can be distributed easily across great distances. I've worked on a couple of international HVDC projects that will export/import energy as required, eg one from Norway to Scotland that will supply from Norway to here in summer when they have an excess of hydro, and in winter from here to there when we have an excess of wind/hydro and their hydro is frozen. Existing HVDC interconnectors have been very succesful.

If marine is so great why is no one rushing to develop it?

There is development going on, but because it is a relatively unproven emerging technology that is poorly supported by government it is hard for developers to attract good investment to move it forwards. The UK were pretty much leading the field until the last two years when funding was cut and we've lost many of our leading companies who had been developing the technology for many years. Personally tidal energy is a no-brainer, we can predict exactly when and how much power is available for a very long time in the future, and tide times vary greatly around the country.

One of the more advanced pioneering projects is Meygen http://www.meygen.com/ , and a unique interesting one is http://minesto.com/deep-green/ . You can keep abreast about the rest of the industry here http://renews.biz/tag/wave-tidal+europe

I don't think anyone's claimed it's any kind of solution, but part of the big picture.

Indeed, but it still a big picture, coloring's it in with a fineliner isn't going to help.

I think the future is quite likely to involve a supergrid type scenario where generation can be distributed easily across great distances.

You still need something at the end of the grid doing the generating, however efficient it is there are still days when the sun doesn't shine, the lakes are frozen and there's no wind. But I still want a cup of tea.

And we need it now, not after a gazillion planing disputes over wind farms, another study into a tidal barrage at Bristol and Scotland proclaiming "we're all right jack, you can't build power stations here".

If we're talking about storing renewable energy, we need something that can supply nationally significant amounts (gigawatts), for hours if not days.

Our pumped-storage stations don't even touch the sides. Yes we could build more, but millions of people would object passionately if we started flooding large valleys - which tend to be in places like the Lake District...

do the calc's yourself if you get bored:

use: power = pressure x flowrate

and: pressure = density x g x height

Q1) how much water, dropping through a 200m high 'penstock', do you need to provide 1GW for 1hour.

Q2) how big a lake is that?

Q3) where in the uk can you find a valley big enough, and high enough?

(the 'qualitative' answers are:

Q1) = chuffing loads

Q2) = chuffing massive

Q3) = Good Luck.

Factor in the new reactors are being built by a foreign owned comapny using money borrowed from another country, using untried technology to produce if it all works at huge cost power to keep your tv on for Hollyoaks, thats without the huge costs and delays if stuff doesnt work and even higher costs if it all goes boom.

whats needed is energy conservation, switch off all motorway lighting, all no essential floodlighting, ban coronation street, etc

Some good info here
https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/hinkley-point-c

I think we will just have to accept that is gonna cost a lot more and take a lot longer than we've been told
Ultimately it seems we are dependant on French largese and enticing Chinese investment

[quote=project ]ban [s]coronation street,[/s] STW forum etc

THM - if you were an accountant and not an economist you'd know that companies go bust due to cashflow, not profits 🙂

This website is powered by Hamsters.

Surely more hamsters are the answer? They don't tend to last long though, so breeding rate may not be able keep up with death rate.

thisisnotaspoon - Member

And we need it now, not after a gazillion planing disputes over wind farms, another study into a tidal barrage at Bristol and Scotland proclaiming "we're all right jack, you can't build power stations here"

Well it's just as well it only takes 5 minutes to build a nuclear power station and they're completely uncontroversial and straightforward then eh.

Correct me if I'm wrong but even if Hinckley C goes live in 2025 (and I bet you 20 scottish pence it doesn't, since it's in the exciting position of being behind schedule before it's even financed, while the other reactors of the same design currently under production seem to get no closer to generating), then it still isn't enough to replace the nuclear capacity that's scheduled to close by then.

(course, it's possible that the older AGRs will be life-extended again despite their defects; maybe even by long enough for Hickley's delayed live date in 2030 or whenever it turns out to be)

I think nuclear is part of the solution personally but like EDF I'm yet to be convinced that this is how do to it. Flamanville 3 is hardly an example of excellence so far, especially since the current issues with the reactor vessel seem to have been known about for 10 years.

Tidal lagoons make so much sense- lets just get on with them ffs!

I would make the tidal lagoons the government's top priority.
It would be funded by the tax payers and never ever sold off.

Factor in the new reactors are being built by a foreign owned comapny using money borrowed from another country, using untried technology to produce if it all works at huge cost power to keep your tv on for Hollyoaks, thats without the huge costs and delays if stuff doesnt work and even higher costs if it all goes boom.

The 'great' thing is we don't have to pay for them, we're simply saying "we'll pay you 2x todays price for 50 years", hands up who doesn't think energy prices are set rise enough to make that a bargain?

Well it's just as well it only takes 5 minutes to build a nuclear power station and they're completely uncontroversial and straightforward then eh.

Correct me if I'm wrong but even if Hinckley C goes live in 2025 (and I bet you 20 scottish pence it doesn't, since it's in the exciting position of being behind schedule before it's even financed, while the other reactors of the same design currently under production seem to get no closer to generating), then it still isn't enough to replace the nuclear capacity that's scheduled to close by then.

Land use is a big problem with pv's, 11+ acres operating for a whole year only equals 1 hr of operation for Hinckley point C

garyfisher
Is storage of renewable energy such a problem that the billions of pounds that are needed for Hinkley wouldn't be able to sort it out?

The thing people maybe don't realise is just how GROSS our consumption of cheap energy has become!

Hinkley Point C, a [b]single[/b] station has a capacity of 3.2 GW. That's 3,200,000,000 Watts.

Turn it on for just one hr, and it produces 3.2GWHrs of electricity. As a comparison, if you attached a generator to your bike, and pedaled like mad, you'd have to do that for around 1800 years to make the same amount of energy!!!

You need 640 full sized off shore wind turbines in a decent gale for an hr to provide the same amount of energy

You'd need to drop 3600000000000 litres down 320 meters (assuming you had a magic 100% efficient system) to get the same amount of energy

Nuclear IS the future of our energy needs simple because it harness the highest power density currently possible in our practical understanding of physics!

What it isn't is cheap........

So the solution is build even more?

A solution is to commission reactors built to proven designs, preferably modular rather than bleeding edge tech that can only be built on site. We've left it too late to have the luxury of messing about with unproven technology.

thisisnotaspoon - Member

So the solution is build even more?

Quite possibly. But do it in a way we're all confident works, that won't leave us (for example) with a builder on a shoogly peg, dependant on uncertain finance, to build a reactor which is as yet unproven, whose other developments have been and remain fraught with issues.

You don't have to be anti-nuclear to look at the Hinckley plan and wonder if this is a smart move. OTOH I think you have to be an incredible mug to believe it's going to go smoothly- frankly based on the story so far, the financial picture, and developments at Taishan and Flamanville, the question is just how badly it's going to go.

And that's the fun part- if you believe it's essential for the country then we don't have the option of just standing back and letting the project go bad- it will be our problem regardless of what the contract says. Hurrah for too big to fail.

French government could just inject more money if required, albeit at a cost to the French tax payer.

Or The Government of this country could just build it. Yes, I know a Government of this ilk is opposed to the state doing anything like that.

We have had two decades of the privatised power industry, and it has been gutted for profit, like all the other utilities, built by the state using taxpayers money, and sold off at our expense, and big decisions put off due to cost. How anyone actually believed the private sector was ever going to fund these sort of infrastructure projects needed their heads seen to.

So we ended up with the clusterf*ck of state owned EDF with Chinese money with the leccy being sold to us at a high price, but now its too expensive even for them.

So the state should build it. It doesn't matter whether it runs over budget as such, its about the benefit to the nation long term that matters.

This is what happens when your energy policies are only ideologically driven.

...there has been **** all serious investment in UK power gen for decades...

THM - if you were an accountant and not an economist you'd know that companies go bust due to cashflow, not profits

You learn something everyday!! Gee, thanks Doc, must google cash flow 😉

But not sure of the reason for the post or the link to the actual issue???

So the state should build it. It doesn't matter whether it runs over budget as such, its about the benefit to the nation long term that matters.

Phew

Scotland proclaiming "we're all right jack, you can't build power stations here".

Good point, maybe independence isn't such a bad idea 🙂

Thames valley would be a good tidal lagoon...

"THM - if you were an accountant and not an economist you'd know that companies go bust due to cashflow, not profits"

You learn something everyday!! Gee, thanks Doc, must google cash flow

But not sure of the reason for the post or the link to the actual issue???

The link is surely that EDF may worry about running out of cash even if the ultimate profit on the project may be large.

Indeed, quite possibly, which is why I argued two years ago that the idea that we selling out to the French was ridiculous. It was quite a punchy thread back then!!!

OK - maybe I misinterpreted your OP

If we're being told before work has even started that it's going to cost c£20bn than you can be sure by the time it goes live that will be £60 billion.

Yes I predict double build time, double budget. I don't know if the strike price is set in stone either or if they'll manage to push that up too.

Mis-read the thread title - I thought it was Hin[u]c[/u]kley.

If it had have meant Hinckley near Leicester I would have been in full agreement - dreadful place. Full of pissed-up, drugged-up, highly aggressive, knuckle-dragging, inbred halfwits.....

Storage is a very good option to facilitate higher levels of renewable energy at a lower price than new nuclear.

Costs are falling (LiIon due to fall another 50% over next 3 years) and technology improving.

Have a look at:

The first report of the government's new [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/505218/IC_Energy_Report_web.pdf ]National Infrastructure Commission calling for work on interconnectors, storage and DSR[/url]

[url= http://www.eunomia.co.uk/investing-in-uk-electricity-storage/ ]Eunomia report[/url] on potential for energy storage, including large ramping up of capacity.
[img] [/img]

Or some practical examples with some [url= http://cleantechnica.com/2014/12/16/europes-largest-energy-storage-plant-began-trial-run/ ]big grid tied batteries in Leighton Buzzard[/url] or some [url= http://www.britishsolarrenewables.com/news/2016/01/07/new-%C2%A31-million-energy-solution-in-store-for-the-uk/ ]big batteries attached to a solar farm in Somerset.[/url]

All of this is fairly new and needs to be tested but the basic technology is there and ready to be rolled out more widely. There are lots of regulatory barriers at large scale and this is ultimately down to government. But as noted our current government can't see beyond fossil fuel and nuclear (mini-nukes FFS!).

But we're probably not thinking big enough yet. We do need to be at multi-GW scale to make an impact.

Oh and if you've got solar on your roof but tend to be out during the day, then house batteries are starting to look promising too. [url= https://www.bre.co.uk/nsc/page.jsp?id=3431 ] I worked on this report a few weeks ago[/url], aimed at providing good quality info on consumers of domestic and small commercial systems

Interesting stuff.

where are you going to put all these renewables? buildings only account for less than 3% of the UK land mass, less than 1/2 of the roof area would be suitable.

where are you going to put all these renewables? buildings only account for less than 3% of the UK land mass, less than 1/2 of the roof area would be suitable.

there's a bit more to renewables than people's roofs (rooves?)

when thinking about energy generation it's best not to think about only one source, it makes for dramatic statements/headlines/stw arguments or whatever, but it isn't how things work in the real world.

its good to consider if they are credible and if you have space

wonny_j:

mini-nukes FFS!

Actually, nuclear power stations have far, far [b]more[/b] nuclear material in them than your average “nuke”…

Rachel

This seems like the wrong scheme. I am not against nuclear, but Hinkley seems like it is doomed for failure.
Also, lets stop mucking around and get some tidal lagoons built in the Severn estuary.

Also, lets stop mucking around and get some tidal lagoons built in the Severn estuary.

Tidal Lagoons? Where the cost of electricity is far higher than Hinkley Point Nuclear and four times higher than gas generated electricity.

Tidal lagoons where for long periods of the day generation is zero as the lagoon refills.

Finally, how much storage would be needed to convert the tide power generated over this period into baseload generation so that it can compete head-to-head with nuclear, as some of its backers claim it can? It comes out to approximately 500GWh, over fifteen times current UK pumped hydro capacity,

http://euanmearns.com/a-trip-round-swansea-bay/

cheap energy, sounds good to me

T1000 - Member
where are you going to put all these renewables?

On all unshaded carparks for a start:
[url= http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/nsc/Documents%20Library/NSC%20Publications/BRE_solar-carpark-guide.pdf ]Link to solar car parking report[/url]

This is the roof of Bentley motors in Crewe, 100% comsumed on site.

[img] [/img]

This is the roof of Bentley motors in Crewe, 100% comsumed on site.

is it really a good idea to build machines we cannot control?

nuclear energy is a disaster waiting to happen (again) not a solution.

What are you basing that on?
Nuclear energy is controllable. A modern reactor and fuel rod is much different to the early tech.
The majority of the waste issues is from rapid historic and unplanned developments.

What is the disaster that can happen to a power station - do you think those risks are not considered and mitigated. In the UK there is no Tsunami risk to the stations, they are designed to meet the seismic conditions and then some, things like chernobyl were a combination of poor design and human error - neither is allowed in the designs these days.

Want to give some details about why you think what you do, whats it based on?

Also worthy of a read
http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/risk/risk.htm
Energy Source Death Rate
deaths per TWh/ deaths per GWy
Coal – world average 161/ 1410 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278/ 2435
Coal – USA 15/ 131
Oil 36/ 315 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4/ 35 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12/ 105
Peat 12/ 105
Solar (rooftop) 0.44/ 3.85 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15/ 1.31 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10/ 0.88 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqia 1.4/ 12 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04/ 0.35 (5.9% of world energy)
Source: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html from different e

[quote=iffoverload ]is it really a good idea to build machines we cannot control?
nuclear energy is a disaster waiting to happen (again) not a solution.

Go on then, list the major nuclear accidents which have happened at UK nuclear power stations and how many people have died due to nuclear accidents at UK power stations?

I note that the number of deaths due to other methods of power generation isn't zero.

Go on then, list the major nuclear accidents which have happened at UK nuclear power stations and how many people have died due to nuclear accidents at UK power stations?

Careful, we're not exactly swimming in gory in this country (Windscale being a fine start).

Iffoverload - Nuclear is very controllable, these days it's just more about getting it going rather than getting it to stop that's the issue. Breeders shut themselves down if you try to run them too hard and fusion is literally a flick of a switch to knock it out (just stop providing fuel). Both are looking viable in the near future. Gen III+ reactors are all designed along similar lines.

Careful, we're not exactly swimming in gory in this country (Windscale being a fine start).

Yeah my point was that we HAVE had accidents in the UK.

(I'm pro BTW, just lending some perspective)