Chinese nuke

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 17 Oct 2013, 07:55

Hinkley Point grabs a Chinese straw.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24561325

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 17 Oct 2013, 07:57

Osborne's a ***t.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 17 Oct 2013, 09:12

Telegraph wrote:But an announcement on the £14bn EDF plant at Hinkley Point has still yet to be made - and could apparently be delayed for another year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... power.html

Looks like Biff's assertion that no new nuke power station will be built is still on course.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 17 Oct 2013, 09:47

I cannot see the Chinese economy staying on the rails long enough to see the construction through to completion.

Sooner or later the West is going to default on its debts big time and then the Chinese will have no further use for a colony on the other side of the world which has already exhausted its natural resources.

AT least I hope that is the case - otherwise they will simply walk away and leave the core to overheat and melt its way back home.

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 17 Oct 2013, 10:16

woodburner wrote:Osborne's a ***t.

Yes, that pretty well sums it up.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 17 Oct 2013, 10:22

Also the article had this sting in the tail, -

The Government could, however, face difficulties on the subsidy issue when it seeks clearance from Brussels for the Hinkley deal.

EU regulations bar direct state aid. Moves to relax the rules by introducing guidelines have been blocked by France, Germany and other states .

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 17 Oct 2013, 11:05

From the beeb: What does China own in Britain?

...more Chinese money is invested in the energy sector than in any other in Britain...

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 17 Oct 2013, 11:29

stumuzz wrote:
Looks like Biff's assertion that no new nuke power station will be built is still on course.

The scenario in which I would be wrong involves:

1. the Chinese being stupid enough to think Hinkley is a sound investment
2. Osborne being stupid enough to agree a strike price that allows nuclear electricity to be sold at a price higher than the market would otherwise support and
3. the EU being stupid enough to not notice that this is a subsidy.

I suppose history is littered with coincidences of stupidity.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 17 Oct 2013, 12:09

Question.

We are ten years into the future and wages have not gone up much, inflation has carried on its upward march and energy has risen exponentially.

Most people if they had carried on with their present energy consumption would be paying 40% of their income in utility bills.

The logical reaction would be to super insulate, cut down on use etc.

So, we have demand destruction in domestic use.

If Osbourne in his desperation agrees a large strike price and the customers are not buying the expensive nuke juice, will we still need to pay for the power we are not using? or, will we as a nation be contracted to buy whatever they can be produce? Would the grid cope with a reduction in demand?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 17 Oct 2013, 12:49

You have a point stumuzz. Interesting. Guarantees by the government (aka you and I, the taxpayer) are locked into many deals. Think PFIs, incinerators, toll roads. Private risk is increasingly offloaded until there is none apart from the public going broke (why not?). Monbiot had quite a virulent piece recently about this usurping.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 17 Oct 2013, 13:50

This trend towards nationalising risk whilst privatising profit seems to be occurring in several areas, all contributing to the increasing gap between rich and poor.

I suppose almost the whole of the UK population has not the foggiest notion of what a strike price is let alone how it affects the viability of a nuclear power station.

(I only have a foggy notion.)

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 17 Oct 2013, 14:20

stumuzz wrote:........Most people if they had carried on with their present energy consumption would be paying 40% of their income in utility bills. ..........

We are already paying about 40% of our income for a mortgage/rent in many cases so with 40% on fuel and then council tax and a few other odds and ends that can be taken from your wages many people supposedly affluent people will not be eating much.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 17 Oct 2013, 20:16

Here's a bit of an explanation regarding the amazing scale of the subsidy that Osborne is about to donate to the nuclear industry:

http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.co.u ... -post.html

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 17 Oct 2013, 20:24

.......... the key Government commitments to financial competitiveness and previous refusal to 'underwrite' nuclear costs........

The only commitment is to self-serving greed.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 18 Oct 2013, 10:43

biffvernon wrote:Here's a bit of an explanation regarding the amazing scale of the subsidy that Osborne is about to donate to the nuclear industry:

http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.co.u ... -post.html

It was always a lie for them to say 'no more subsidies'.

We are running a capitalist society, ie, capital makes a profit or else. So...

Self-evident fact no. 1: it is impossible to make a profit from nuclear energy. The two key words: im-possible.