do you know what the costs of decommissioning are? Do you know what the solution to storage of the waste is?
Deep dark geologically stable, simple answer.
Repo was a good idea but butter fuel means it'e not needed and saves a lot of hassle.
Any other questions TJ?
<div class="bbp-reply-author">squirrelking
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
And who owns EDF Group?
France, mostly. And?
</div>
and I have to say 10 years playing with nuclear waste did nothing bad to me
Well to make it explicit, do you think France will be bankrupt by then? Personally I don't so frankly I'm not worried.
Plus the cost of waste storage which the UK government will pick up and that link is putting a positive spin on it. EDFs contribution to decommissioning is capped but the true costs are not known and EDFs liability does not include large parts of the decommissioning.
so what you said about EDF paying for all the decommissioning is just wrong.
As usual, the public are not actually asked the correct questoin, which is a choice between:
Option 1) Cheap renewable 'lecy, but the lights (and freezer, and internet, and water, and your boiler, an dyour EV charger, and everything else driven by your 'lecy) will go off when there ain't enough to go around
or
Option 2) Potentially more expensive Nuclear 'lecy, which might cost you more in the long run, but your lights will stay on all the time
Given this (accurate) question, how many people would vote for option 1) ???
Plus the cost of waste storage which the UK government will pick up and that link is putting a positive spin on it
Good they need to, they are storing all the UK's legacy waste first and maybe some Japanese ILW/HLW swaps, a bit more will be a tiny amount on the bill
EDFs contribution to decommissioning is capped but the true costs are not known and EDFs liability does not include large parts of the decommissioning.
That is fine, it will help employ the well trained decommissioning people after we do the old stuff, think of it as enhanced dole.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">mikewsmith
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">do you know what the costs of decommissioning are? Do you know what the solution to storage of the waste is?
Deep dark geologically stable, simple answer.
</div>
So no answer then. Where? How? Who , when? any answers or is this like your answer to "how do we pug the hole in future generation? No answer at all Wishful thinking will not do
So no answer then. Where? How? Who , when? any answers or is this like your answer to “how do we pug the hole in future generation? No answer at all Wishful thinking will not do
Honestly TJ that explains a lot, fingers in the ears don't want to know, don't want a solution. You know a bunch of people much cleverer than you are working on this and coming up with serious answers. Though your first reaction is to object to whatever it is. Anyway if you get an independent Scotland I reckon something just south of Carlisle would be perfect.
Anyway just checking do you live on a radon spot?
As previously stated, we're currently liable for a whole heap of spent fuel that is going to be around for a hell of a long time, this will be a drop in the ocean. Of course said fuel is also viable for a future breeder programme soooo...
<div class="bbp-reply-author">squirrelking
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Well to make it explicit, do you think France will be bankrupt by then?
Probably not. But EDF is (mostly) owned by France; it isn't France. To make it explicit.
</div>
yes mike it does explain a lot. when asked for solutions to problems all you have in answer is wishful thinking. Two difficult questions.
"how would you cover the future shortfall? " and " How would you dispose of high level waste? "
To both of those the only answers you have are wishful thinking.
TJ not sure why you keep hammering the how to generate more energy point.
I've said it multiple time we needs as much as we can get, we should build the tidal schemes, and the solar, and the wind and the nuclear. Even if you replace Hinkly with something else we still need more. So we need to build all of it.
AS for waste - in the same place as the UK will put it's current HLW, we all know that has not been built yet but it will be as it needs to be. That is non negotiable so there will be a repository.
Wrong again, the presentation concerned the present EDF fleet. The condition of the takeover from British Energy was that they were responsible for the defuelling and decommissioning but that the governement had the option of appointing another agent.
I don't think I'm wrong, it seems widely stated this will be the first one where the developer will have responsibility to cover decom. Did EDF develop their current ones then? They are the current operator I thought, having taken over existing developments.
<p>Right, got you now. Yeah I guess, unless of course they sell it along with any liabilities as SSEB and CEGB did. Not sure why it's newsworthy to be honest as it's always effectively been the case, the difference with the Magnox stations being that they were decommissioned after privatisation and the contract went to tender. In the case of the AGR fleet and SZB they were sold with the liabilities meaning EDF are on the hook for defuelling and decommissioning unless the government feel another party can do it better.</p>
Mike - because you keep trying to hammer me on how I would cover future shortfall but when I put the same question to you I got a wishful thinking answer " In an ideal world more nuclear"
If you want to hammer me on specifics then you need to be specific as well and we are not in an ideal world. New nuclear cannot be built on time to cover the shortfall and you proposal for waste of "bury it and forget about it" is not a solution either.
If you want me to be specific then you need to as well. So where for the waste. Who by? When? How?
These are two difficult questions that you have ducked.
It cuts both ways
Mike – because you keep trying to hammer me on how I would cover future shortfall but when I put the same question to you I got a wishful thinking answer ” In an ideal world more nuclear”
Simply because you want to stop a massive source of energy and can barely replace that as a source with your tidal idea.
Shortfall needs to be met by building more of everything. It really is that simple.
So where for the waste. Who by? When? How?
The NDA are on that at the moment
As you would expect as they have to build on for the existing HLW in the UK and the ILW Sub arrangements.
You can choose to ignore this if you want. But it will be built.
More wishful thinking. there is no plan for the disposal of the waste. None. Just pie in the sky. Where will it be built? When? Who by?
New nuclear cannot be built quickly enough to stop the shortfall. simple fact.
This means that your answers to these difficult questions are simple wishful thinking.
Now until you either admit you have no answers that are practical and possible then your position is nonsensical
Shortfall needs to be covered by efficiency and energy savings.
My position is simple. reduce consumption by converting the entire economy and taxation system to that of carbon taxes. the polluter pays. Yes we may need higher carbon commissions for electricity but this could easily be clawed back and more in other energy savings. Make energy waste uneconomic. all those big heavy cars burning fossil fuels transporting one person. all those office building with lights left on 24/7/365. All those houses that leak heat. etc etc etc Savings far in excess of the amount of carbon saved by nuclear power could easily be made.
More wishful thinking. there is no plan for the disposal of the waste. None. Just pie in the sky. Where will it be built? When? Who by?
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority - a government body in charge of this stuff
New nuclear cannot be built quickly enough to stop the shortfall. simple fact.
Probably true, but it's not a reason not to build it. We need lots of new generation being built now. Building other stuff does not stop Hinkly, building other stuff doesn't impact on Hinkly. It does not have to be an either or.
This means that your answers to these difficult questions are simple wishful thinking.
My position is simple. reduce consumption buy converting the entire economy and taxation system to that of carbon taxes. the polluter pays.
LOL you are going to reduce it and hope you can cover what you need?
Laughable.
Currently the user/polluter pays, energy is not free, it's a major cost in a lot of businesses who are working really ****ing hard to reduce their use to get their costs down. It's happening all over the country.
More wishful thinking. there is no plan for the disposal of the waste. None. Just pie in the sky. Where will it be built? When? Who by?
That question is entirely and utterly moot since we are already stuck with a legacy of high level waste that NEEDS a solution. Whether or not that pile gets added to makes no difference whatsoever since it will exist whether or not Hinkley does.
Really good to see this device performing well, the chap was just setting up the company back when I lived in Orkney. Think it's a real clever approach given the expense and difficulty of attaching turbines to the seabed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-45246445
Last sentence here sums it all up really http://renews.biz/112195/scots-tidal-hits-milestone/
“We are dismayed that there is a total lack of market support here in the UK for our technology and we have no option but to focus our business on overseas opportunities.”
It's unfortunate that right now that generators down south are paid to transmit whilst those up north pay progressively more. When (hopefully) this changes we may see the tide turn.
Yep, in the current energy game every contribution welcome
What? So a turbine is considered a success because it has generate more electricity than any other turbine before it, when actually, the only ones installed before it were small prototypes conducting small scale studies, rather than aiming to generate useable power for the grid?
what they fail to mention is exactly what each of those GWh actually cost?
So, lets see the numbers, it's done 3 GWh in a year, it lasts 20 years, we just need to know what it cost to build and install, and how much it costs to run / maintain, divide one by the other and there's a figure for the cost of the 'lecy. And yet, where is what figure?
Building other stuff does not stop Hinkly, building other stuff doesn’t impact on Hinkly.
Its heavy reliance on public subsidy brings it into competition with other forms of energy generation needing the same. So, whilst it's true that building other stuff does not stop Hinkley, building Hinkley may stop other stuff being built.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">maxtorque
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
So, lets see the numbers, it’s done 3 GWh in a year, it lasts 20 years, we just need to know what it cost to build and install, and how much it costs to run / maintain, divide one by the other and there’s a figure for the cost of the ‘lecy. And yet, where is what figure?
You realise it's a prototype, right?
</div>
what they fail to mention is exactly what each of those GWh actually cost?
if you'd read the links at all you'd see it's their first full scale prototype undergoing testing, so its costs won't be comparable to any market-ready device. Jesus this is how we ended up with brexit.
Ex magnox reactor worker here so you may think I’m biased.
This country needs nuclear. It needs nuclear to keep your lights on. Renewables are needed as well and do a good job topping up what we need. But ultimately they are not reliable enough and will never be reliable enough to be the ultamite answer to our energy needs.
This country is on the verge and quite possibly too late to stop the lights goin off. Industry is given a cheaper unit price if the NG can switch them off. How long untill its households?
I don’t think that the hinkley reactor design is the best. But its what we have and its better than nothing. I don't like the fact that the turbines are dirty. This makes maintenance a pain and expensive compared to other designs.
This country used to be at the forefront of inovation and engineering. It’s a disgrace that we are relying on the french to build our reactors. But succesive governments have made sure that we don’t have the capability to build these.
Public opinion is also an issue. Too many thick unknowledgeable people have too great an opinion and ultimately power to stop the UK from ever being at the forefront of nuclear power generation. We could sell the technology globaly. Make the UK a hub of inovation. Have a product to sell to the world post brexit. Create high paying employment for thousands of people.
But no. Nuclear=bad. End of story
Its heavy reliance on public subsidy
Say what now? Guaranteed strike price is not public subsidy, it's consumer funded. The other stations at Wylfa and (potentially) Moorside, THEY have pulic subsidy in the form of a governement stake.
I don’t like the fact that the turbines are dirty. This makes maintenance a pain and expensive compared to other designs.
That's BWR you're thinking of (Wylfa), Hinkley is a PWR with the same secondary coolant loops as the Magnox and AGR reactors so shouldn't have any contamination issues unless you got a boiler tube leak at low pressure.
Say what now? Guaranteed strike price is not public subsidy, it’s consumer funded
If you honestly believe that Contracts for Difference are not a subsidy then the word has no meaning. How else should we describe a government-negotiated contract giving a doubling of wholesale power prices, to be paid for by levies?
I never said it wasn't a subsidy.
I said it wasn't a [b]public[/b] subsidy which is something entirely different. I even went to the trouble of explaining that it wasn't publically [b]funded[/b] (out of government funds if you really need an explainiation of what that means) and that the costs would be met by [b]consumers[/b] (through energy bills).
As for a doubling, that's already been eroded, the strike price is about 40% above todays prices and with the state of the energy market in years to come (all the coal gone and the AGR's scheduled to come offline from 2023 onwards) that's only going one way. Unless someone brings cheap energy to the market and fast I can't see the difference being that great.
I said it wasn’t a <strong class="bbcode-strong">public subsidy which is something entirely different. I even went to the trouble of explaining that it wasn’t publically <strong class="bbcode-strong">funded (out of government funds if you really need an explainiation of what that means) and that the costs would be met by <strong class="bbcode-strong">consumers (through energy bills).
So it's not a public subsidy, but a subsidy funded by the public. Gotcha.
If you need the definition of a public subsidy explained to you then really you have no place in this conversation.
If you need the definition of a public subsidy explained to you then really you have no place in this conversation.
You are of course free to continue the pretence that a subsidy funded by the public is not a public subsidy.
Wylfa II is going ahead no matter what the govt say. They are doing the prelim work now around it (I rode past it on Sunday) and there have been pretend public consultation exercises about the pylon routes for over 2 years now. It's all done and dusted and no amount of discussion or protest can stop it now.
Wylfa isn’t a bwr. It has a graphite core cooled by Co2. The turbine side is clean. I should know. I worked there.
[quote=bigjim] it's a prototype
I know it's a prototype (the tidal turbine). That is my point EXACTLY! It's why i was suggesting that claiming it's a massive success is pre-emptive in the extreme...
For example, in my home county of Oxfordshire, there are currently precisely zero badger powered generators, so i could install such a device, and then proclaim "my badgerator (tm) is the most biggly successful super generator ever, it's made 1 million times more badger derived energy than ever generated before" despite it only making 3whr in total.
People can moan "how come XXX (<< insert new tech here) hasn't taken off, it is a conspiracy by the industry/politicians/deepstate/media (delete as appropriate)" as much as they like, but simple capitalism is the reason new, un-proven and low return technologies don't take off immediately if at all. Financiers with money are always going to put most of their money into proven tech with secure returns
so you're saying it's actually an unsuccessful prototype? What must the first prototype achieve to be a successful exercise?
What must the first prototype achieve to be a successful exercise?
For me it's a prototype so a long way from full scale deployment or production, costs are to be determined and there is uncertainty.
While people feel the need to bash Hinkly for it's price or delays elsewhere I've not seen a ready to go solution that will take it's place.
and your bizarre closing paragraph shows exactly why emerging technologies require support and investment from eg government etc??? that's the whole gist behind technology companies complaining about the recent lack of government support and investment....
bizarre? Or true, it's good judgement to build Hinkley, it's a sensible proposition at the moment. It should not stop development of other technologies or funding of them. But aside form just cash it provides the ability to have stable generation while we experiment with those technologies.
[quote=bigjim] are you saying it's an unsuccessful prototype
no. i am saying it's too early to draw conclusions. To be "successful" any prototype must demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the technology it demonstrates is viable. For a tidal turbine, the things that matter are going to be the cost to build, the cost to install, the cost to maintain, it's realistic life time, and both the total energy generated (£ per GWhr) and the actual capacity factor averaged over a year (ideally, longer). On top of that, we get practical factors like available morning sites, effect on marine traffic and marine life, ease and availability of power interconnects. The list goes on and on.
So really that gets back to my initial point, which was to say this prototype is a "phenomenal result" (Andrew Scott, chief executive officer of Scotrenewables) simply because it has generated more power than any other tidal turbine, when no other large tidal turbine has ever been installed or trialed for as long, is rather pre-emptive wouldn't you agree?
Wylfa isn’t a bwr. It has a graphite core cooled by Co2. The turbine side is clean. I should know. I worked there.
I was referring to the new one which will be a Hitachi ABWR, apologies.
You are of course free to continue the pretence that a subsidy funded by the public is not a public subsidy.
Could you show me on a diagram where the money is being drawn from the public purse (ie. government funding)? Your logic is arse backwards, it is not subsidised by the public, it is subsidised by consumers. You are free to take all your energy from off-grid sources, pay all your taxes as normal and bask in your own smugness that you are NOT subsidising Hinkley C. Therein lies the difference.
The closest analogue I can think of would be Ineos building a new refinery that would be paid for via an extra tariff on fuel charged at the wholsesale level when it started producing up to a certain ceiling. No production, no money. Only product users are affected.
simply because it has generated more power than any other tidal turbine, when no other large tidal turbine has ever been installed or trialed for as long, is rather pre-emptive wouldn’t you agree?
but that's not what he said, and there are other large tidal turbines that have been installed, some for many years longer eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaGen . Your first paragraph also shows you have no understanding of existing, historic and planned developments and the processes that have been developed to support their development from the initial site selection work through the planning system which address the rest of your random list. Go read the meygen EIA for example.
It's a fantastic result for a great little British engineering firm that started as an idea in a garage and will hopefully go on to great success even with minimal UK support.
I seem to remeber mini reactors being prposed on here as a solution.
Article in the Grauniad showing they are ot. Not possible to be on line for 20+ years, need huge subsidies, rubbish designs,
Backers of mini nuclear power stations have asked for billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to build their first UK projects, according to an official document.
Advocates for small modular reactors (SMRs) argue they are more affordable and less risky than conventional large-scale nuclear plants, and therefore able to compete with the falling costs of windfarms and solar power.
But the nuclear industry’s claims that the mini plants would be a cheap option for producing low-carbon power appear to be undermined by the significant sums it has been asking of ministers.
Some firms have been calling for as much as £3.6bn to fund construction costs, according to a government-commissioned report, released under freedom of information rules. Companies also wanted up to £480m of public money to help steer their reactor designs through the regulatory approval process, which is a cost usually paid by nuclear companies.
Electricity generation is expensive $3 Billion to construct a 960 MW coal plant then ongoing fuel costs, externalised pollution costs ( NOx, CO2, particulates, radioactivity all not paid by the generator).
The big advantages of SMRs in my view is that the upfront cost is relatively low. The risky part of nuclear build is construction. Current 1GW projects tie up masses of capital for a long time in the riskiest phase. An SMR can get the first 300MW online before committing capital to the next.
Which is why that money needs to go into tidal instead.
£3.6bn is not a lot of money when you consider this is arguably the world's most important industry- and if Rolls Royce or others can get ahead of the competitors (which should be easier now with Westinghouse being screwed and EDF being bankrupt) then it's going to be worth billions more to the UK to be the leader- just as with tidal. Not to mention having a potentially world-changing effect on carbon output. Instead we're pouring money into the literal exact opposite
It shouldn't be a case of that or tidal, we can afford both and we'd benefit from both. The two complement each other and neither can hope to benefit from us vs them- the enemy is government's refusal to invest and support critical industries not the other generation method.
Murray - they are asking for 4 billion subsidy up front.
It would be frustrating if the money was doled out to the nuclear industry but not the renewables industry. Funding for renewables in the UK will be in the order of millions, in lots of little dribs and drabs, but certainly not on that scale or what O&G received.
Deleted.
Thats my point big jim. with limited investment funds available why is the vast majority spent on nuclear when we have other cheaper stuff that can get on line in years not decades
44 million already given to the nuclear companies by the government for these small nukes. That much money would make a huge difference in the renewable industry
44 million already given to the nuclear companies by the government for these small nukes.
Now now, what have we discussed about being honest?
phase 1: funding (up to £4 million, excluding VAT) to undertake a series of feasibility studies for AMR designs. Contracts are worth up to £300,000 (excluding VAT)
phase 2: subject to phase 1 demonstrating clear value for money and government approval, a share of up to £40 million (excluding VAT) could be available for selected projects from phase 1 to undertake development activities. Up to a further £5 million may also be made available to regulators to support this
That money has not been given yet. Phase 1 has barely begun. Mind you, from the tone of the article I'm not sure facts were at the forefront of anyone's mind, particularly Mr Lowry. Rolls Royce for example are essentially proposing submarine reactors which are neither discredited nor unproven. Sure there are some like the thorium reactors or sodium breeders that are further down the line (and some royal piss takers like GE who wanted to double charge us to deweaponise our plutonium stockpile) but some of these have been in development for years and are now becoming technologically viable. Same as fusion, same as tide, same as solar.
And "nukes"? Gimme a break.
Sorry - not already given - already allocated. that do? Again it shows how distorted the electricity market is and how nuclear gets funding that is denied to renewables
Why the government is so pro nuclear and so anti renewables is hard to fathom
Yes its better as the bulk of it will only be awarded subject to it presenting value for money which is an important factor. How many renewables schemes have had a value for money criteria attached? How many renewables schemes had feed in tariffs?
Now I'm not arguing against these as clearly they encouraged uptake and development where applied appropriately. As someone pointed out in another thread Scotland is generating most (54%) of its electricity via renewables so its hardly a struggling industry. I just don't understand this mentality where it has to be one or the other.
That article was talking so much crap it was unbelievable. Yeah they may have asked for the money (4 billion or whatever the figure was) but did they actually get it? Its lazy agenda driven writing (not really fit to be called journalism) based around nothing more than the opinion of a talking head, I've seen similar output from a local paper. No wonder they have a begging bowl if that's the standard.
Could you show me on a diagram where the money is being drawn from the public purse (ie. government funding)? Your logic is arse backwards, it is not subsidised by the public, it is subsidised by consumers. You are free to take all your energy from off-grid sources, pay all your taxes as normal and bask in your own smugness that you are NOT subsidising Hinkley C. Therein lies the difference.
Give over. The money would not be available without the government making it available. If the government makes it available then it is a public subsidy because the government is a public body. That's why the government needed approval from the European Commission under State Aid rules.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> Your mistake is to assume that public subsidies must take the form of direct taxes. They do not.</span>
<p><p>Jesus, fine, call it what you like but it's still not coming from government funds. My taxes are not funding this and I am not being taxed on anything to fund this, as far as I'm concerned it's a consumer-side subsidy. It's essentially the TV Licence argument and the same thing that allows the BBC to say it is independent and not government funded.</p></p>
Jesus, fine, call it what you like but it’s still not coming from government funds. My taxes are not funding this and I am not being taxed on anything to fund this, as far as I’m concerned it’s a consumer-side subsidy
It's being funded through the direct action of the national public authority. That is a public subsidy by any sensible measure.
It’s being funded through the direct action of the national public authority. That is a public subsidy by any sensible measure.
If you want to call it that then you should probably point out where the funds are coming from - if not you could be seen to be using semantics to mislead and I'm sure that is not what you are trying to do.
If you want to call it that then you should probably point out where the funds are coming from – if not you could be seen to be using semantics to mislead and I’m sure that is not what you are trying to do.
Where the funds are coming from is immaterial: public subsidy can take many forms as anyone familiar with state aid rules will be aware.
So we can agree this is not coming from government funding then......
So we can agree this is not coming from government funding then……
It's a subsidy, conferred on a selective basis by the national public authority. It's difficult to see how that doesn't constitute government funding.
It's worth noting that state aid can take a variety of forms, for example the provision of assets, contracts, tax reliefs, etc. At heart, they all amount to the same thing.
Its not coming from private investors. Its a public subsidy - same as the public willbe picking up the decommissioning costs after a capped figure - another public subsuidy
If the government didn't give that money to the nuclear industry it would have that money for other things. Like investment in renewables.
Renewables get a tiny fraction of the money given to nuclear.
When investment funds are limited and most is given to one part then yes - its one or the other.
Well frankly it's tough shit time, it's the direction that things are going in and it's getting built.
If you want more funding for renewable vote in a government who wants to deliver that.
if not you could be seen to be using semantics to mislead and I’m sure that is not what you are trying to do.
Exactly my thoughts.
Oh, decommissioning?
<div>Funding of Decommissioning</div>
<div>5.3.1</div>
<div>The costs for decommissioning, waste and spent fuel management and disposal would be</div>
<div>funded through a Funded Decommissioning Programme (FDP), approved by the Secretary of</div>
<div>State, which must be in place before the operator us</div>
<div>es the site by virtue of the site licence. This</div>
<div>ensures that EDF Energy sets aside funds over the operating life of the power station to cover</div>
<div>these costs in full.</div>
<div>5.3.2</div>
<div>A legal framework that implements this policy</div>
<div>has been established through the Energy Act</div>
<div>2008 and Government also publis</div>
<div>hed a consultation on draft FDP guidance in February 2008</div>
<div>(Ref.5.6), providing further detail on what an</div>
<div>FDP should contain. Further consultations on the</div>
<div>arrangements for setting a fixed price for wast</div>
<div>e disposal and the regulations under the 2008</div>
<div>Energy Act were issued on March 2010.</div>
<div>5.3.3</div>
<div>The UK Government has created the independent</div>
<div>Nuclear Liabilities Financing Assurance Board</div>
<div>(NLFAB), to provide impartial scrutiny and advice</div>
<div>on the suitability of the FDP, submitted by</div>
<div>operators of new nuclear power</div>
<div>stations. NLFAB would advise the Secretary of State on the</div>
<div>financial arrangements that operators submit fo</div>
<div>r approval, and on the regular review and on-</div>
<div>going scrutiny of funding.</div>
Squirrelking - we have been thru this before
EDF are responsible for decommisioning and waste disposal costs only up to a capped figure. anything above that becomes the responsibility of the government
Instead the document explains that there will be a “cap on the liability of the operator of the nuclear power station which would apply in a worst-case scenario”. It adds: “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.”
Separate documents confirm that the cap also applies should the cost of decommissioning the reactor at the end of its life balloon
The level of the cap is unclear. But Dr David Lowry, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who made the FoI request, said it was clear that the risk of footing the bill for a significant cost overrun had been transferred from Hinkley’s operator to the taxpayer.
Instead the document explains that there will be a “cap on the liability of the operator of the nuclear power station which would apply in a worst-case scenario”. It adds: “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.”
Separate documents confirm that the cap also applies should the cost of decommissioning the reactor at the end of its life balloon
The level of the cap is unclear. But Dr David Lowry, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who made the FoI request, said it was clear that the risk of footing the bill for a significant cost overrun had been transferred from Hinkley’s operator to the taxpayer.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/30/hinkley-point-nuclear-waste-storage-costs
Unsurprisingly the government fought hard to keep this cap secret as it shows that EDF will NOT be liable for the full costs.
And the worst case scenario is?
Lowry again. Do you have another source that can present facts objectively? I've helpfully included the previous paragraph which you omitted for some reason. It's almost like you're doing your damnest to misrepresent the facts.
it states that “unlimited exposure to risks relating to the costs of disposing of their waste in a GDF [geological disposal facility], could not be accepted by the operator as they would prevent the operator from securing the finance necessary to undertake the project”.
Now, I for one can't understand why an operator should be exclusively footing the bill to dispose of waste in a facility that should exist but doesn't thanks to successive governments kicking it into the long grass. That looks like a sensible commercial decision to me.
Correct
Without the government picking up the bill EDF would not accept the contract
To state tho as you keep on doing that EDF are liable for all costs is simply false
It's not just waste this applies to. It's also decommisioning
You keep insisting on accuracy. So be accurate on this. EDF do not cover this liability
It's all a waste of money and effort anyway as solar (plus storage of course) is going to have taken over by then.
It’s all a waste of money and effort anyway as solar (plus storage of course) is going to have taken over by then.
What area of solar is needed to provide 24hrs of power from about 6hrs of sunlight?
EDF do not cover this liability
EDF do not cover the liability of the government failing to provide a Geo Repository which is entirely sensible.Same as you are not liable for the provision of sewage treatment facilities when you build a house just that you will connect to a bigger system.
It’s not just waste this applies to. It’s also decommisioning
He warned that an accident that could force the closure of the reactor, either because of problems with it or at another plant, as happened in Japan, would leave the taxpayer having to pay billions of pounds for the clear-up years after it ceased generating revenues.
So if the regulator were to force them to shut down before they had generated enough to pay for decommissioning they are not liable for for the difference. Again, that's not entirely unreasonable.
And the governemnt is not "picking up the bill". Enough of the spin, this is proper Daily Mail grade pish you're spouting. The government is picking up the difference in the event of a "worst case scenario". Not normal business. I already linked to the document that says EDF Energy is liable for all decommissioning costs of Hinkley Point C in full (ie. normal costs and liabilities).
Squirrel
It's unarguable. EDF have only a limited liability for both waste and decommisioning. Simple fact
You do realise EDF is essentially bankrupt? The cost of decommissioning their aging fleet is massively more than they can afford. They won't be around in their current form when Hinkley needs decommissioning so arguing about their liability is just pissing in the wind.
Seems important to some....
If they do go south and the UK government can take on hinkly then they can head someway back to being in control of generating power which seems to have scared various governments shitless and left is in this situation.
If a government backed guaranteed price is a government subsidy, then so is the FIT for renewables.
Decommissioning costs for coal fired generation (ie, mines and waste tips) have mostly been paid out of public money. Not sure who who will end up paying for removal of offshore wind turbines, and there seems to be a get out for oil platforms.
I'm puzzled by Rolls Royce, if they think an SMR based on submarine reactors is viable, as they use very highly enriched uranium fuel that I can't imagine any civil operator will be allowed to have. All the research reactors have had to be modified to use low enrichment. Something like the pebble bed reactor, where it's physically impossible to get the fuel out of the pebbles, is the only way you could use HEU.
Not sure who who will end up paying for removal of offshore wind turbines
developer, though repowering with the latest technology is what I would expect.
developer, though repowering with the latest technology is what I would expect.
Well by the logic above the tax payer is liable and expected to pay for all of it.
