[Closed] Hinkley - non merci

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

<div class="bbp-reply-content">

Torness broke ground in 1980 and was commissioned by 1988, Similarly Sizewell B was completed in 8years between ’87 and ’95. 2017 to 2025 is not ambitious by any means.

Hinkley has been described by one of the contractors as being "like building a cathedral inside a cathedral", there's a reason it's going to be one of the most expensive construction projects of all time.

</div>
Its sister Flamanville commenced construction in 2007 and was supposed to be online by 2012. They're now hoping- hoping!- to be producing by 2020, meaning that the overrun alone is almost as long as your unambitious goal.

Construction of Taishan 1 started in 2009 and it was completed and started producing on schedule in 2013. Oh no wait, it was actually completed in 2018, over 100% overschedule, and still isn't generating

Have EDF issued a revised overdue delivery date for Hinkley? Last I saw it was first criticality in late 2026.

I bet you 2 scottish pounds it isn't connected to the grid and producing full power in 2025.

Hinkley is already more than 2.5 years late.  Its not going to be on line in ten years.  I thought base load was around 20 % of consumption? ie about what all of hinkly could produce or about all of what tidal coule produce? crap memory syndrome from me again?

So what are your figures for how much it will produce and from how much area? How much can it expand after that?

What are you taking as the requirement to get the 20% baseload - 20% of this instant is about 6.5Gw

Is that demand going to rise or fall?

At this point we need to replace the current 8-9Gw that Nuclear is putting in, there is 17Gw of CCGT that will be susceptible to gas shortages, so lets say to maintain status quo of demand now you need to be hitting 10Gw - when will that be online?

As temps increase then we have more issues with higher demands during summer to cool buildings and other infrastructure.

Anyway, what makes you so sure Hinkley will either never come on line or it will be more than ten years in construction?

The simple answer is he doesn't like Nuclear. It's OK being all for balanced, evidence based decision making but when your declaring one option out before the start it's a little hypocritical.

Anyway, what makes you so sure Hinkley will either never come on line or it will be more than ten years in construction?

the fact that it is already running 4 years late.  the fact that EDF admit that they will not be producing any electricity by 2025.  The history of nuclear power worldwide where reactors always take far longer to build than they claim.  Read northwinds post.

Mike - you keep moving the goalposts.

Hinkly is not needed beause for   in the timescale for it to come on line for the same money tidal flow could provide the same baseload.  I gave you links to this.

Good quality academic research shows that to get the 9GW from tidal is perfectly possible using the tech we have available now.  Thats developing the pentland firth and the sound of Islay

the other issues you raise equally apply to nuclear.  Given that what 5 years into the hinkly project its already 3-4 years late how on earth can the shortfall be made up from nuclear.  ?  If yo want nuclear to take over from gas then you will need several more hinklys.  20+ year lead time

INuclear simply cannot be built quickly enough.  Hinkly proves this.  It produces the most expensive electricity generation we have.  fuel supply is subject to the same constraints as gas.

<p>

Construction of Taishan 1 started in 2009 and it was completed and started producing on schedule in 2013. Oh no wait, it was actually completed in 2018, over 100% overschedule, and still isn’t generating

Its sister Flamanville commenced construction in 2007 and was supposed to be online by 2012. They’re now hoping- hoping!- to be producing by 2020, meaning that the overrun alone is almost as long as your unambitious goal.

the fact that it is already running 4 years late.  the fact that EDF admit that they will not be producing any electricity by 2025.

If yo want nuclear to take over from gas then you will need several more hinklys.  20+ year lead time

TJ out of interest how do they harvest the energy in tidal flow are they proposing to use underwater turbines?  I can remember the figures for the overall power of the flow through the Strait of Corryvreckan which was vast.  The big problems were producing a turbine (or turbines) robust enough to survive a useful length of time in those conditions and then creating a fixing or anchorage to the sea bed when optimistically the safe working day in the straight was perhaps two two hour periods.  I would guess that if we threw the same amount of money we were throwing at Hinkley neither would be a insurmountable.

I’ve seen trial schemes in the sound between Ramsey Island and the St David’s Peninsular but the conditions in the two locations you are taking about are several magnitudes more extreme

There's a hell of a lot of waffle here... meanwhile, Costa Rica ran on 100% renewable for over 300 days last year.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/costa-rica-electricity-renewable-energy-300-days-2017-record-wind-hydro-solar-water-a8069111.html

<p>Waffle how?</p><p></p><p>And good for Costa Rica, presumably they have a completely different grid system and power need to ourselves.</p>

Waffle as in blah blah blah, renewables aren't a viable solution

It's totally viable and highly worthwhile, however:

Ritchie

As I understand there are two designs ready to use now and Mygen actually has a pilot plant running in the pentland firth.  There are numerous other designs some of which have been running for a decade or more

Yes its basically an underwater windmill.  Some are horizontal, some are vertical, some are ducted.  some are very large, some are quite small.  corryvreken is not suitable for some reason - from faulty memory its too shallow or something?

https://simecatlantis.com/projects/meygen/   ( looks a bit out of date - they now have a small commercial size array running)

https://www.power-technology.com/projects/strangford-lough/

More links here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator

Scotland is running more than half its total annual electrricity usage from renewables.  On target for 100% before hinkly is opened ( yes back up is still needed for that pesky winter high pressure event.)  IIRC this summer the has been a few weeks where the UK did not use any fossil fuels

Well done Costa Rica. The article shows it's 78% hydro. Is that achievable in the UK?

Oh and of course there is always a caveat, in this case:

Costa Rican clean development adviser Dr Monica Araya said earlier this year the extent of Costa Rica's renewable electricity generation is a “fantastic achievement".

<!--Apester ads for mobile -->

But she added: “It hides a paradox, which is that nearly 70 per cent of all our energy consumption is oil.”

<!--Apester ads for mobile -->

The 99 per cent figure only refers to electricity usage, not gas used for heating or fuel used in vehicles, for example.

@Richie_B there's various technology solutions in development, seabed mounted turbines currently the most developed option, eg existing first phases of the commercial array at Meygen up north, see the video playing in the background here for example https://simecatlantis.com/

There's also floating turbines, which I think are a great solution as fixing anything to the seabed is very expensive to install and maintain, see http://www.scotrenewables.com/

Then there's other solutions such as this one, currently a demonstrator project under development in Wales https://minesto.com/our-technology

lots more at http://renews.biz/tag/wave-tidal

<p>Jive - good job nobody has said that then isn't it?</p><p></p><p>Renewables absolutely are viable but not in isolation, they have to be part of a mix. As TJ has repeatedly said you need something for when conditions just aren't working out (which are more often than he seems to be aware of). Where we differ in opinion is that I believe nuclear offers a better solution than burning fossil fuels.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately that something isn't obvious right now. Talking about DC connectors to Norway* is fine until the grid collapses and then we are talking DAYS to get power back**. Not minutes. Not hours. Days. Imagine for a moment what the economic and social consequences of that would be. Our grid is not built to deal with the completely different demands renewables place on it and to change that would take decades. We can barely supply enough power to it at times as it is without the additional strain electric heating, cars etc. would place on it. Wholesale prices are up at the levels of several years back because there is such a shortfall in supply.</p><p></p><p>*Brexit notwithstanding</p><p>**In Scotland at any rate since Longannet was closed and we lost all black start capability.</p><p></p><p>TJ - not had time to read your links but presumably there has been an impact assesment on seabeds where these generators are anchored? I'd imagine at any rate they would be ideal for sowing oyser beds and the like since you couldn't trawl the seabeds around them. Maybe not good for fishing but certainly for sustaining populations.</p>

To be fair, I think everyone on here does have some valid points on both sides of the argument; I'm more concerned that the planet is going to shit as a result of the energy policies of Her Majesty's Governments around the world, the majority of which are decided in pursuit of short term profit, rather than long term sustainability of the climate situation and the environment as a whole, regardless of any sugar coated PR.

<div class="bbp-reply-author">bigjim
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class=""></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">

maxtorque – in case you didn’t realise that chap you link is a fanatical anti renewables loony with a massively polarised site and from what I read before my eyes started bleeding and I lost the will to live it seems to have cherry picked a very small range of sites etc, in fact it doesn’t seem to cover any tidal flow sites like pentland firth. The high tides on one side of orkney are over an hour different from the other side alone for example, never mind around the UK. Always form your own opinion, don’t swallow others blindly and believe wild claims, this is how we ended up with brexit and trump!

</div>

Everyone has there own side to a story, but the site i linked to has what looks to be valid objective base data, and at least a basic 1d simulation to show that if we were to build tidal barrages in the optimum locations for maximum return (highest tidal range) then there is no simple way of that resource providing a continuous baseload output.

You say "don't swallow stuff blindly" so lets see YOUR objective analysis.  Get the data, do the math, prove to me it can be done???  You can't just say "Pentland Firth and the Orkneys can provide the UK's power needs" without backing it up.

Or, if you can't do the math, link me to suitable study that's already been done to show that the Forth is a viable (in terms of capability and cost) solution?

(it's also worth noting that providing the UK's base load from the remote Pentland Firth plus the Orkneys carries the massive penalty of having to then transmit all that power hundreds of miles to the main users. That is both expensive, lossy and time consuming, whereas a power resource in the Bristol Channel is much better placed for a more direct interconnection into our existing grid.)  (Current average Grid losses are between 7 and 11% of generation depending on voltage transformation steps (UK domestic has highest loss because it operates at lowest voltage))

squirrelking - the infrastructure has already been built  scotland has it not - or some of it.  the new beuly to denny line was to cope with the renewables from the pentland firth at least in part and isn't there one down the west coast ( which broke?) for the sound of islay.

I am completely aware of the problems of intermittent supply.  Nuclear is not much good for that either is it not?  takes a while to get up to full power?  fine for the two week winter high pressure event , not so good for everyone putting the kettle on at half time in the world cup final at the same time as the wind drops?

the problem with nuclear is it simply cannot be built / come on line quickly enough which means it cannot be the solution.  thats before we get to the fuel running out, the problems of waste  yackity yackity yack 😉

Short sighted politicians really do not help this and politicians also like big projects not small dispersed stuff.

Maxtorque - I have linked to the data. The site you linked to uis utter garbage dressed up as science.  It does not even mention the two main sites for tidal flow which as linked to above using current tech can prioduce 20% of the UKs energy needs in a nice steady baseload.

Also please note Bigjim has worked in the area of low carbon electricity for a long time and is an actual expert with real world knowledge.

<p>On transmission, the Western HVDC Link is, again, delayed and only operating at a fraction of it's total capacity due to problems during commissioning. It may or may not be fully running next month and has cost in the region of £1Bn. So it's not just nuclear that gets it expensive and wrong.</p><p></p><p>This isn't to rain on anyones parade, I'm just pointing out that anything new is liable to run into problems.</p>

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/469/2157/20130072

<h2>Concluding remarks on power potential of the Pentland Firth</h2>
<p id="p-69">The maximum available power from the Pentland Firth will depend upon the maximum permissible turbine blockage and the minimum incremental power generated per swept area of turbine that is commercially viable for each new row of turbines. These limiting values are open to debate. However, taking the largest viable blockage as 0.4 and the minimum incremental power per swept area as 1 kW m⁻² (equivalent to an offshore wind turbine), the estimated maximum available power is about 1.9 GW. To approach this level of power generation, the turbines must extend completely across the Pentland Firth, be able to accommodate large variations in power over the spring–neap cycle, and impose minimal additional drag resistance to the flow beyond that used for power generation. Moreover, changes to the flow rate through the Pentland Firth of up to 30% must also be acceptable. Further refinement of this upper bound requires many further assumptions, however, it is unlikely that a refined estimate will exceed 1.9 GW of electricity,</p>

Hmmm, falls far short of the 3.2 GW from just HinkC, drops to zero twice a day, and has large monthly variations due to neep/spring tides etc.

So, whilst Tidal Turbines are undoubtedly one of the solutions to leveraging Renewables, it's reasonably clear, imo, that they are not a golden bullet, or in fact, simple able to replace nuclear generation assets on a like for like basis.

<p>Nuclear is not for spinning up, no. It sits in the background and provides a constant supply (baseload) and at present is ideal for grid balancing. Believe it or not it is helping renewables stay online. That is also true for the throrium and fusion reactors you mentioned before. Nuclear is good for the grunt work, adding VA's when large reactive consumers come online and balancing loads as renewables cut in and out, generally just chugging along being used as an anchor.</p><p>That infrastructure you mentioned doesn't do anything if the grid loses power and shuts down in self defence, it's just a load of cables. We need something that can be floated and bring the grid back quickly, probably a gas turbine of some variety (if it burns, it spins). We need it to have enough capacity to bring back the sub grids and then bring any other sources back that need assistance. Obviously the use of nuclear precludes this (not stable enough at low loads to run itself) and renewables simply cannot perform that job (it's not technically possible right now, there simply isn't the storage capacity) so this is where the energy mix comes in.</p><p>I also work in the energy sector and have done some studies relating to renewable and sustainable energy during my degree. I have the real world knowledge of people interecting with the grid on a daily basis and it would seem we all had better knowledge of black start post-Longannet than our First Minister who had no clue until the grid was put under serious threat. As far as bias goes I'm actually more against large scale hydro than anything else - it's an environmental disaster. Everything else is fine as part of a sustainable mix.</p>

^^ Transmission losses for our 275kV and 400kV network.

Running 1.9GW from the very north of the country to say Manchester is not a simple task, and will bring significant (likely to around 10% depending on voltage conversion steps required)) further losses.

TJ may well work in Renewables, but that doesn't mean Peer review becomes unnecessary!  I work in low carbon transport, but that doesn't make me god either... lol!

<p>

has large monthly variations due to neep/spring tides etc.

Mike – you keep moving the goalposts.

Hinkly is not needed beause for   in the timescale for it to come on line for the same money tidal flow could provide the same baseload.  I gave you links to this.

Good quality academic research shows that to get the 9GW from tidal is perfectly possible using the tech we have available now.  Thats developing the pentland firth and the sound of Islay

No the need for power is growning, you claim we can get 9Gw from Tidal, that leaves us currently a lot short of the total needed. All that replaces is the current Nuclear power plants.

You can’t just say “Pentland Firth and the Orkneys can provide the UK’s power needs” without backing it up

I never have, and they can't and won't, however tidal energy is an immense highly predictable low carbone energy resource which it's crazy we don't make use of. This thread is a ridiculous trail of people not understanding what they are discussing, not reading each others posts and ranting on like deaf old men in a pub.

<p>^This.</p><p></p><p>The whole forum actually, it's like any other thread in that respect.</p><p></p><p>Your point about tidal is equally true.</p>

I do not work in renewables.  Its Bigjim that does IIRC.

Maxtorque - I gave you a link above to proper studies showing much larger than that possibilities for the pentland firth.  Its the accepted consensus.  Add in the sound of islay and its a nice smooth baseload.  That quote you give shows the lack of understanding of the author as he is still talking about a barrage not what is actually planned and being installed.

Squirrellking - that work of providing the baseload is exactly what the tidal could do.  Unlike other renewables it provides steady baseload which is why its so important it is developed.

MIke - thats exactly what I mean - the 9gw possible from tidal from those two large sites replaces the nuclear we have.  thats why there is no need for more.  How are you going to plug the gap?  Building more nuclear is not th eanswer as it won't be available quickly enough.

MIke – thats exactly what I mean – the 9gw possible from tidal from those two large sites replaces the nuclear we have.  thats why there is no need for more.  How are you going to plug the gap?  Building more nuclear is not th eanswer as it won’t be available quickly enough.

And the CCGT? What about any increase in demand?

That independent article on Costa Rica is terrible. It does point out that the figures do not include fuels used for heating and cooking so are misleading but this

Coal and natural gas together made up nearly two-thirds of US electricity generation and nuclear power provided the remaining 19 per cent.

The maths is not strong here... looks like some copy and paste with poor editing

It sometimes seems like renewables are sabotaged by the established players in the fossil fuels industry... surely that couldn't extend to the press though, could it?

<p>It's not just nuclear that needs replaced though, it's the coal stations as well. Plus more demand as fossil fuels are replaced by electric alternatives. I accept your point that tidal is always available however it's a little more nuanced than that; baseload needs to be capable of constant, consistent, steady output which can be used to regulate everything else. If your "baseload" is constantly shifting and running up and down your grid won't last long before it collapses. This is why you either use a steady source or some sort of storage mechanism that acts as a middleman which, again, we don't have. If it was easy as just having something that always runs, believe me, it would have been done by now.</p>

TJ, please show or link to data showing that 9GW is available with existing technology for extraction and is available 24-7  & 365.

I can't find any data that shows this.  The study i linked too, was a peer reviewed study, with what looked to be decent model based assumptions, using actual recorded tidal data, conducted by Oxford University, and it suggests that using tidal turbines even under best case conditions, there is both nothing like (practically speaking) enough energy available and that energy is hugely cyclical both in terms of short period (daily) and long period (monthly) in the Pentland Firth to replace existing baseload assets.

(I'm not saying that there is not a HUGE amount of tidal energy available, spead around the UK coastline, but i am saying that converting it, transmitting it, and having it available 24-7 & 365 is currently not feasible from a technological and financial perspective)

Wind and Solar dominate because both are mature, scaleable and most importantly, defined risk technologies. Tidal power, be that from barrage or streamflow are none of those things, and so, very few people are going to invest in them yet.  The failed Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon is a case in point.

Maxtorque - I have already posted the links.  Its there, its 24 hour a day and not subject to huge daily fluctuations when you figure in the two sites and the piece you linked to is obvious nonsense and unless you posted something I did not see is not peer reviewed

googl;e is your friend.  Estimates for the pentland firth alone are 2 - 4.5 gw of extractable energy.  sound of Islay is a bit less.  Add in all the other sites and you have that 9 GW available easily and probably much more.

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

<p>
<div class="bbcode-quote">

Construction of Taishan 1 started in 2009 and it was completed and started producing on schedule in 2013. Oh no wait, it was actually completed in 2018, over 100% overschedule, and still isn’t generating

</div>
</p><p>Except it is generating as of 6 weeks ago as I have repeatedly stated!

</div>
Is it? It's connected to the grid but still low-load testing as far as I can see?

Not that it makes the slightest difference, it was still disastrously overschedule. Meanwhile you keep saying Hinkley could generate in 2025 but EDF seem to think otherwise.

TJ here:

Considering I was told by a station director I'd say my source is good. Yes Taishan was well over schedule as well as Flamanville and the Finnish place I can never remember but they were the first and had technical hurdles that have now been overcome.

Low load testing is still generating, not sure how you could argue otherwise. Rods have been pulled and megawatts are being made.

Well I'm not an expert but have worked on many onshore and offshore low carbon projects covering wind, tidal and wave, as well as international HVDC interconnectors.

re pentland firth, Meygen's lease is for up to 398 MW 
https://simecatlantis.com/projects/meygen/  
Unfortunately because of devolution everything is split between two organisations now but interesting maps and info here

https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/maps-and-gis-data/

http://www.crownestatescotland.com/maps-and-publications

I'm not sure if there's anywhere still showing the historical tidal/wave lease areas which have been awarded then died with companies losing funding etc

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

<div class="bbp-reply-content">

Low load testing is still generating, not sure how you could argue otherwise

OK, admittedly I spoke loosely there, I meant generating to plan- ie productive full load. Testing is testing not production.

</div>

Well then yeah, it's not to plan. My point was that it IS generating which the doom mongers told us an EPR would never do. It's proven itself.

I'm not sure many people said an EPR would never generate power?

TJ has a few times 😉

I'm talking about early days scepticism, I'm not sure many thought the EPR would actually generate when the project was announced given the huge issues in Flamanville and Olkiluoto (I googled it!).

Myself included FWIW

I certainly didn't.  I said I thought hinkly never will generate any power because if sensible decisions are made on a cost and need basis it will be cancelled as the white elephant it is

By who? The people investing billions in it's construction (EDF and CGN)?

Aye, okay then.

 because if sensible decisions are made on a cost and need basis it will be cancelled as the white elephant it is

Is that based on your case or all the available information? It's obvious you have made up your mind without all the evidence being considered. There are other factors, such as security, environmental impact, longevity of supply, security of supply etc. Don't worry it's miles from Scotland, just hope you don't live in a valley they want to flood for more hydro storage.

Just to be totally clear - what I said and meant was that it would never produce any power because of political decisions not technical issues.  Its already going to be 3-4 years late and the project has 8 or 9 years left to run.  those delays will inevitably increse so in a couple of years time when its clear that it is going to be further delayed and when the political cost of producing the worlds most expensive electricity with all the risk being taken by the Uk government and all the costs spiralling out of control it will be scrapped.  Hopefully.

there is certainly zero chance of it producing any electricity by 2025 - which is already 2 years after it was supposed to be online.

all the risk being taken by the Uk government and all the costs spiralling out of control it will be scrapped. Hopefully.

there is certainly zero chance of it producing any electricity by 2025 – which is already 2 years after it was supposed to be online.

So that still leaves us very short of energy, your tidal is only replacing (just if your numbers add up and its implemented in the next couple of years) current nuclear that is getting too old. Why should we stop hinkly? It will generate a massive amount of energy consistently and allow for heaps of other schemes to be run.

2 years that were delayed due to final investment decisions, as already stated. Construction proper only started last year and they're not even due to start pouring concrete till next year. There have been no technical delays from which you could draw any informed opinion on the timescales.

And I'm not sure what politics has to do with it; the dotted line has been signed, everything from here on is commercial.

Pretty sure your risk ideas are well out the ballpark as well, try again. I'll give you a clue, none of the risk is being carried by us. Maybe in other projects, but not this one.

By who? The people investing billions in it’s construction (EDF and CGN)?

Aye, okay then.

You obviously didn't read about the massive furore it caused within EDF!

I'm more than aware of that, even more reason not to pull out now it actually works!

Mike - nope I have read a lot around it and come to a different conclusion from the same data as you.  You still have not said how you would meet this shortfall

Squirrelking?  who is paying the decommissioning costs?  Why is it the most expensive electricity contract ever with a minimum price thats a lot more than the wholesale price of electricity?  Guarenteed profits?  What risk is EDF taking?

I(ts not just commercial decisions still.  Lots of political ones and given that no reactor of this design has been buiklt in the timescale you think this one will be I love your optimism that this one can be built more quickly than ever before.

You still have not said how you would meet this shortfall

I did, ideal world build.nuclear way faster. Where we are now build whatever we can. No matter what we do there will be a shortage

<p>EDF is taking the risk in constructing it, owning it and operating it. CGN will be expecting a return on their investment. That 20Bn construction cost has to be clawed back somehow. Maybe if successive governments hadn't sidestepped the issue for decades and (until recently) refused to take any stake they wouldn't have been in such a strong negotiating position but that's not their fault. They came in with a mad offer and someone was mad/desperate enough to accept it. Bearing in mind that present markets mean you can be selling your electricity for well below the daily wholsesale price because it was sold years in advance you can see a method to the madness. I don't think they have a hope in hell of repeating that for Sizewell C if/when it goes ahead especially since Horizon and NuGen are negotiating much cheaper deals in exchange for a government stake.</p><p></p><p>Decommissioning liabilities are paid through the life of the station, it doesn't just come from nowhere. Part of that strike price will be going back for that. My optimism in build times is down to the fact that (hopefully) all the technical issues that have held up the other projects have been overcome and this one can just get a straight run without having to go back to the drawing board. My personal opinion is that they have a lot at stake at Hinkley, with the previous track record they need to get this right if they ever want to sell another EPR.</p>

Decommissioning liabilities are paid through the life of the station, it doesn’t just come from nowhere. Part of that strike price will be going back for that

are you sure? that's not how previous nuclear power stations here have worked - the public are footing an astounding and ever increasing decom bill as it stands just now.

are you sure? that’s not how previous nuclear power stations here have worked – the public are footing an astounding and ever increasing decom bill as it stands just now.

Then and now are very different things.

Also historic nuclear decommissioning is mostly due to taking things apart we had no plant to take apart and no idea how to handle any of it when it was put there. Early costs also incorporate a huge amount of R&D and Weapons development. Which was not exactly planned well either.

"Nuclear is not for spinning up, no. It sits in the background and provides a constant supply (baseload) and at present is ideal for grid balancing. Believe it or not it is helping renewables stay online. That is also true for the throrium and fusion reactors you mentioned before. Nuclear is good for the grunt work, adding VA’s when large reactive consumers come online and balancing loads as renewables cut in and out, generally just chugging along being used as an anchor."

https://qz.com/1348969/europes-heatwave-is-forcing-nuclear-power-plants-to-shut-down/

https://ensia.com/features/coastal-nuclear/

TL;DR for Paton's link.

Sea levels are going up, the sea wall is 12.5m high. It doesn't actually give any evidence that 12.5m isn't enough.

It may as well also include the fact that the wall is 12.5m high and kittens are cute.

Sea levels will rise and fat bikes make you more attractive to the opposite sex.

Fukushima almost caused the evacuation of 50 million people and singlespeeders have more fun.

Having actually read some of the UK nuclear tsunami assessment it was a long document considering the lack of fault lines ....

There’s a hypothesis the Great Flood of 1607 was a Tsunami.

There’s a hypothesis the Great Flood of 1607 was a Tsunami.

Good to know....

Still the Japan stats speak for themselves, in the event of a tsunami the impact of a nuclear power station failure is tiny compared to the scale of death and destruction.

Paton, all those stations are landlocked and being fed off rivers, coastal stations are doing just fine.

Also, Fukushima didn't just fail because the sea wall wasn't high enough, it failed because the cooling systems were in a stupid place and all clumped together. EPR's are designed with diversity from the start, nothing is grouped and will all be supplied either independently or from different routes. Plus, JER. Also, Greenpeace, a well known unbiased source if ever I saw one.

Bigjim - yes I'm sure, I attended a presentation about it 5 weeks ago.

Thermal power plants, such as nuclear or coal, use high-temperature steam to turn turbines, which convert heat energy into electricity. In the process, the steam’s temperature falls, so it can no longer be used efficiently to move the turbine again. To raise its temperature back up, the steam first needs to be condensed into water, because liquids absorb heat better than gases.

I don't think even a GCSE student would get a mark for that heap of bollocks. Just as an aside.

Thermal power plants, such as nuclear or coal, use high-temperature dry steam to turn turbines coupled to a generator, which convert the resultant kinetic energy into electricity. In the process, the steam’s temperature falls and it begins to condense, so it can no longer be used to move the turbine without damaging the blades. To raise its energy back up, the steam first needs to be condensed into water, because liquids can be easily and efficiently pumped unlike gases. This has an added benefit of raising the vaccum within the turbine space and thus the efficiency.

For more information, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle

yes it seems this will be the first nuclear power plant the developers will have to pay to decom. 2083, wonder if they'll have it running by then?

velopers will have to pay to decom.

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

<div class="bbp-reply-content">

Still the Japan stats speak for themselves, in the event of a tsunami the impact of a nuclear power station failure is tiny compared to the scale of death and destruction.

Well, we had this earlier in the thread but the impact of fukushima was huge... The evacuations were massively disruptive and were linked directly to 573 deaths but also it all had to be done at the same time as the rescue and recovery operations after the tsunami so that was a massive extra strain on resources and the impact on the rescue efforts is immeasurable. And there's no reliable stats for the further impact on mental health and suicides etc in the displaced population. People keep trying to account for the impact of fukushima purely in nuclear-disaster direct deaths but that makes no sense.

(of course, Hinkley is not Fukushima, and is not in a tsunami zone, so direct comparisons are pointless. Hinkley's probably one of the safest coastal reactors in the world. If we ever have to deal with, frinstance, a runaway iceshelf collapse and resultant fast sealevel change then we're going to wish all the other reactors were built the same...)

</div>

<div class="bbp-reply-author">bigjim
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class="bbp-reply-content">

yes it seems this will be the first nuclear power plant the developers will have to pay to decom. 2083

EDF'll be bankrupt long before then- the cost of decommissioning their existing network is already more than the company's worth.

</div>

yes it seems this will be the first nuclear power plant the developers will have to pay to decom. 2083, wonder if they’ll have it running by then?

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.

It's also worth noting that as of today the nuclear fleet has only been in private hands for half of the operating life of most stations and that it was orginally built as a public venture. So the developers (the tax payer) WILL be paying for decommissioning as will the owners who have been paying the NLF a percentage of revenue over the life of their ownership.

Well, we had this earlier in the thread but the impact of fukushima was huge… The evacuations were massively disruptive and were linked directly to 573 deaths but also it all had to be done at the same time as the rescue and recovery operations after the tsunami so that was a massive extra strain on resources and the impact on the rescue efforts is immeasurable. And there’s no reliable stats for the further impact on mental health and suicides etc in the displaced population. People keep trying to account for the impact of fukushima purely in nuclear-disaster direct deaths but that makes no sense.

Yep 15,000 dead, nearly 7,000 injured then.

The issue of building a nuclear power plant with a very old design on a coastline vulnerable to Tsunami was a bad one, that was the mistake not nuclear power.

It makes no sense to treat it as something outside of the massive natural disaster that it was. More people would have been killed if there was a town there.

But as said there is nothing comparable in the UK in any way. For all the claims the nuclear industry remains very safe.

EDF’ll be bankrupt long before then- the cost of decommissioning their existing network is already more than the company’s worth.

What value was delivering this power to France and the UK?

The biggest problem here is power is not a national industry.

EDF’ll be bankrupt long before then- the cost of decommissioning their existing network is already more than the company’s worth.

EDF Energy and the EDF group are not one and the same.

returning to the OP - yes, it's going to happen and will be energised in 2025 (-ish).

National Grid have just awarded a contract for an underground cable link on this route from Hinkley C to Bristol with contract award for a c£210 million new 400kv overhead line on the same route imminent.

It's happening - and it's the right thing to do.

Their liability for decommissioning is capped - and capped at well below the real cost.  the reason for this is they would not take on the contract if they had to face the full cost of decommissioning.

Read the documents carefully.

  the reason for this is they would not take on the contract if they had to face the full cost of decommissioning.

What is the full cost of decommissioning?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/30/hinkley-point-nuclear-waste-storage-costs

http://www.if.org.uk/2016/11/04/hinkley-point-c-new-information-shows-future-generations-could-shoulder-clean-up-costs/

Just a simple skim of the government documents shows this without even needing to see the "secret " stuff.

Mike - storage and disposal of the waste, any cost overruns in the decommissioning of the site  all down to the taxpayer.  Not EDF

Go on have a read up on it.  all the documents are available on the net and its blindingly obvious

EDF would not take on the contract without the cap

so we have the most expensive electricity ever produced, we have the taxpayer picking up the bills at the endand there remains next to no chance it will be on time.  all other reactors of this type have been hugely delayed.  this is already several years behind shedule and they have only just started work on it.

Go on have a read up on it.  all the documents are available on the net and its blindingly obvious

It's something I know a little about don't worry, thought you might have an actual number there for all your certainty.

so we have the most expensive electricity ever produced, we have the taxpayer picking up the bills at the endand there remains next to no chance it will be on time.

You still seem to think that cost is the only factor in energy for the future. Even if it late it will be producing a serious contribution to the grid for a long long time. That is needed.

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

<div class="bbp-reply-content">

EDF Energy and the EDF group are not one and the same.

Well, correct, but what's your point? EDF Energy is wholly owned by EDF Group, and EDF Group is ****ed.

</div>

We cannot have a number as we do not know how much decommissioning will cost and we still have no idea how to dispose of the waste nor any plans to do so

And who owns EDF Group?

So TJ, basically you're complaining about if's, but's and maybe's? In a worst case scenario.

Ah good to know, you don't know.

The reason we have no certainty on waste disposal (we have plans) is a huge anti nuclear scare mongering crusade.

People have been happy to pollute all over the place but not address sensible storage plans. The huge attempt to confuse historical legacy with future has not helped either.

What is the waste ratio for new builds?

No one knows hence the cap - but we do know that EDFS liability is limited to a lot less than the known costs of decommissioning and the UK taxpayer picks up the rest.  so again another factually incorrect statement from the nuclear proponents stating that EDF will pick up the bill.  That is simply wrong

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

but we do know that EDFS liability is limited to a lot less than the known costs of decommissioning and the UK taxpayer picks up the rest.

Er, from your own link no less:

[There will be a] cap on the liability of the operator of the nuclear power station which would apply in a worst-case scenario…The UK government accepts that, in setting a cap, the residual risk, of the very worst-case scenarios where actual cost might exceed the cap, is being borne by the government.