You do realise EDF is essentially bankrupt? The cost of decommissioning their aging fleet is massively more than they can afford.
Might want to tell them that, they're bidding on the contract! FWIW though that's not strictly true, EDF Group as a whole isn't great but EDF Energy (the UK subsidiary) is doing alright for cash flow. Or were, we'll see how an unplanned 6 month (+?) outage pans out. But that's immaterial, the money for decommissioning is already there, it gets taken from every megawatt generated and paid back to the successful decommissioning bidder. SSEB, Scottish Nuclear and British Energy all paid into the pot. Finally, whilst there is no denying that age is definitely showing in the TNPG reactors (Hunterston B and Hinkley Point B) the NPC reactors (Hartlepool and Heysham 1) to my knowledge have shown no issues, the second tranche reactors (Torness and Heysham 2) have at least 16 odd years left before they get to the same age and Dungeness will probably still be "running" in 2118 for all the time it ever spends online. Oh, and Sizewell B? No idea, different reactor type.
It’s unarguable. EDF have only a limited liability for both waste and decommisioning. Simple fact
I'm glad we can agree on something at last. I never disputed that, where we differ is where we believe that liability begins and ends. I don't think it's unreasonable to say they shouldn't have unlimited liability subject to certain scenarios.
Mike - whataboutery. No one is denying that there is some subsidy to renewables and that it is needed - even tho its a fraction of the subsidy to nuclear and decommissioning renewables is a miniscule problem to that of nuclear.
However when people try to insist that EDF will be picking up the bill for all costs associated with Hinkley this simply is not true. No commercial operator ever could accept that open ended liability as no one knows what the costs of decommissioning will be. The government will be picking up the tab. they tried very hard to keep that fact secret and we do not know what the cap on costs actually is.
Squirrelking - you touch on a critical point. Its hard to find unbiased information. The government and the nuclear operators certainly do not provide this. Public statements made which are shown to be wrong time and time again - as in the decommissioning costs issue. Headline claims "EDF will pick up the tab" Small print " unless its too expensive then the UK government does" ~There are many examples of this all through the history of nuclear including the pretence that hinkley is on time when its already years late.
I far prefer information from outside the industry from people who are truely independent - but I accept a large pinch of salt is needed but people outside the industry are truthful far more often - again see the two examples above. without people outside the industry fighting to get the truth we wouldn't know that the EDF liabilities are capped.
I am glad you finally seem to agree that EDF are NOT liable for all decommisioning and waste disposal costs. Earlier you were arguing they were.
Developer, although repowering with the latest technology is what I would expect
But at some point, even after repowering, the foundations have to be lifted from the sea bed. That's where the wriggling will come. Taking off the turbines is cheap compared to the foundations. They'll be abandoned, just like the coal mines and the oil platform substructures.
Greybeard, I was just going from what I heard from someone who came from RR, it would seem that's as true only as far as it being small PWR's, the design appears to use conventional UO2 fuel.
Thanks for the link, squirrelking. That's interesting and might well work - but it's nothing like a submarine reactor.
However when people try to insist that EDF will be picking up the bill for all costs associated with Hinkley this simply is not true. No commercial operator ever could accept that open ended liability as no one knows what the costs of decommissioning will be.
How is that, how many reactors are under decommissioning so far?
It's almost as if you don't want to look this stuff up.....
I far prefer information from outside the industry from people who are truely independent
Independant perhaps but certainly not unbiased.
http://www.nuwinfo.se/waste2007lowry
http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/members/
I prefer my facts to come from empirical data. Or at least referenced in some way.
Well by the logic above the tax payer is liable and expected to pay for all of it.
Not sure what you mean, as part of the lease requirements with the crown estate the developer has to show they have costed for and have the funds for decom.
Not sure what you mean, as part of the lease requirements with the crown estate the developer has to show they have costed for and have the funds for decom.
Well to paraphrase above yeah but and stuff yeah and but....
Do they have to cost and account for boats not existing when they have to get rid of them? the Geo Repository clause is basically that.
Trouble is squirrelking - you don't get that from the industry either.
Mike how many generators of this type have been decommissioned? What are you going to do with the waste?
Mike how many generators of this type have been decommissioned? What are you going to do with the waste?
Oh my..... read it all? Firstly these are a new gen, based on the learning of all the other stuff, with all the learings we have gained from those 1950's stations.
The UK government needs to provide a stable geo storage for the existing legacy waste, they cannot avoid doing that which is the store for the waste from the new builds. Waste will be much lower as we have worked a lot more out. If the UK does not build geo storage then it's ****ed and is screwing up on the UK governments obligations. If you think that is a risk for EDF then you have no idea.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">tjagain
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
No commercial operator ever could accept that open ended liability as no one knows what the costs of decommissioning will be.
Well that's the thing with EDF, they've dealt with the costs of decommissioning by... er, putting their fingers in their ears and ignoring it. They plan on decommissioning costing 300 million euros per gigawatt, compared to the UK that plans on it costing 2.7 billion, or even germany's 1.4 billion. Obviously not all reactors are the same but pretty much nobody outside of EDF seems to think that's realistic. They're also on the hook for building Cigeo, whose budget has already doubled and whose start date keeps getting set back.
</div>
Squirrelking wrote,
"EDF Group as a whole isn’t great but EDF Energy (the UK subsidiary) is doing alright for cash flow. Or were, we’ll see how an unplanned 6 month (+?) outage pans out. But that’s immaterial, the money for decommissioning is already there, it gets taken from every megawatt generated and paid back to the successful decommissioning bidder. SSEB, Scottish Nuclear and British Energy all paid into the pot"
It's the French reactors that will bankrupt them, not the UK ones. EDF Energy doing OK won't help when EDF Group goes to the wall.
You're looking at the companies as the same when they are separate entities though. Legally our reactors are completely independent of those in France. Believe me, if EDF went under EDF Energy would be sold as a going concern with a relatively healthy balance same as Bruce Power was when BE went under. New name, same faces, same old routine. Hinkley would simply be passed on to a new operator.
Not sure about costs but France predominantly has PWRs whilst we have AGRs that require much more time (and money) to decommission thanks to the graphite core, they just need to remove the water and the moderator is gone then leave the vessel to "cool". I do agree that figure seems hopelessly optimistic though.
Well to paraphrase above yeah but and stuff yeah and but….
Do they have to cost and account for boats not existing when they have to get rid of them? the Geo Repository clause is basically that.
I don't think it has anything to do with a geo repository or non existant boats. I think I'm probably missing something.
The worst case scenario involves the government not having got round to building a Repository for the waste/spent fuel to go into. In terms of the liability most would accept it's unreasonable to expect EDF to account for or budget to build a repository for the waste as it's something the NDA should be delivering right now.
