Chinese nuke

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 18 Oct 2013, 10:58

emordnilap wrote:
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.

Well, to be fair, that does depend on the market price for the energy produced. One can imagine a world in which oil and gas prices continue to rise in the face of demand from the emerging economies, and fossil-fuel based energy sources are heavily taxed as governments wake up (too late) to the realities of climate change. In that scenario, nuclear energy could become profitable. Not suggesting that would be a good thing though.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 18 Oct 2013, 11:03

Tarrel wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
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.
Well, to be fair, that does depend on the market price for the energy produced.

OK, then tell me what the price should be to cover storage costs of nuclear waste for - let's be optimistic - the next 10,000 years. Oh, don't forget to factor in the climate change costs involved in the production of fissile material (the energy costs between two points - from thinking about exploiting a reserve to getting it to the point of electricity production - are huge). While you're at it, factor in the cost of deaths from nuclear weapons use (which is, after all, nuclear's prime purpose).

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 18 Oct 2013, 11:16

emordnilap wrote:
Tarrel wrote:
emordnilap wrote: 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.
Well, to be fair, that does depend on the market price for the energy produced.
OK, then tell me what the price should be to cover storage costs of nuclear waste for - let's be optimistic - the next 10,000 years. Oh, don't forget to factor in the climate change costs involved in the production of fissile material. While you're at it, factor in the cost of deaths from nuclear weapons use (which is, after all, nuclear's prime purpose).

Agreed on all counts, E. But to include those factors in the profitability equation would require a new economic paradigm in which environmental costs are not externalised. Unfortunately, we don't have that paradigm in place (yet). I was looking at it from the point of view of a potential investor in nuclear power, based on the current situation and trends being extrapolated.

FWIW, I don't think that's how things will pan out. There is far too much scope for disruptions and tipping points for anyone to be able to predict where we'll be economically in, say, ten years. But the capital currently invested in fossil fuel extraction will have to go somewhere once everyone realises such fuels will have to stay in the ground, and it could be tempted into nuclear.

Post by **adam2** » 18 Oct 2013, 11:35

stumuzz wrote:Question.

- - - -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?

Even with demand destruction I can not forsee an electricity surplus.
I doubt that there will be any question of paying for power that is not required.
Even if several new nuclear plants are built, they will still produce a relatively small % of UK electricity demand.
If the new nuclear plants produce say 10% of the present demand, then even if demand halves, that means that the nuclear plants would only produce 20% of the reduced demand.

Unless the world ends, I dont forsee much electricity demand destruction, indeed demand may go up.
Electrification of railway routes means electricity displacing diesel fuel, similar arguments apply to electric trams, trolley buse, and battery vehicles.
Office buildings are increasingly all electric, with a significant increase in electricity demand, but no gas used.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 18 Oct 2013, 11:44

Wind power, in places like the British Isles, and solar power in sunnier climes, will be cheaper than nuclear, the gap getting larger into the future as improvements in renewables technology and costs of dealing with nuclear waste and finding the remaining uranium increase.

It doesn't matter whether or not there is a surplus of generation capacity; at the point of investment decision the industry only cares about the marginal cost. If investment in new nuclear gives a lower return than investment in renewables then the decision is clear.

That's why Hinkley III will never be built, unless someone tips the market place playing field, but that's corruption, not capitalism.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 18 Oct 2013, 14:15

And how many % of the demand will wind turbines satisfy, and when? Many days are damn cold in the winter, but there's very little wind.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 18 Oct 2013, 15:36

woodburner wrote:And how many % of the demand will wind turbines satisfy, and when? Many days are damn cold in the winter, but there's very little wind.

I been thinking of this criticism for a while now, the Torygraph seems to be full of comments that wind turbines just about produce enough leccy for a microwave. Putting aside the fact that on windy days, they are nearly supplying the same as nuclear.

The way I look at them is this. Imagine small mountains of coal ready to be loaded onto wagons to be transported to a power station, or thousands of cubic metres of gas stored in a huge gas tank.

When, the turbines are producing this coal and gas is not being used. So, for every Kwh produced by wind is a Kwh not produced by coal or gas is a Kwh that can be used by future generations or not used at all.

Another mental picture is the size of the coal mountain that wind has replaced. If we assume that 1KG of coal produces approx 2 Kwh then add up all the installed wind output over the years and the mountain is huge and getting bigger.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 18 Oct 2013, 15:53

Exactly right stumuzz.

And nobody ever claimed wind can do it all, though 25% of installed capacity would be a good place to start from when deciding what to do next.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 20 Oct 2013, 20:50

A long list of reasons why Hinkley C will never be built: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... lear-plant

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 20 Oct 2013, 21:27

It looks like a wish list of reasons to try and stop the building. Given this government's record of considering people or the environment, I wouldn't build my hopes too much.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 20 Oct 2013, 22:59

Hands up all those who think Hinkley C will 'only' cost £14bn and start in 2023? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... inkley-edf

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 21 Oct 2013, 01:36

If it's not going to be built it may cost just a bit less. If it's built it will cost near £70bn, but no worries, bills will be adjusted, and you can blame the badgers for moving the goalposts.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Oct 2013, 07:56

Yeah, the badgers are sure to undermine it.

The table at the bottom of this page is interesting:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/cons ... nts_en.htm

It shows the insurance liability for nuclear accidents across the EU. In Germany the operator liability is unlimited whereas in the UK it is 157 million euros.

At that level one may as well assume the thing is uninsured.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 21 Oct 2013, 08:02

Just like the government and royal household vehicles when they are flying the union flag.

I don't see the problem, you can drink the water. After all, it is well known two heads are better than one.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 21 Oct 2013, 13:04

I'm just wondering if there was a properly conducted public poll how many people would consider £93/MWh inflation protected a reasonable price for electricity locked in for 30+ years?

All these complaints about 10% price rises makes me think that most would not.

If we start paying that price in 2023, it would require electricity prices to rise 7% more than inflation each year to bring in price parity.

Edit

I guess the government knows the game is up with fossil fuels, and we are entering permanent energy scarcity.