Planned Somerset nuclear plant on hold ? or not ?

Post by **adam2** » 20 May 2016, 09:23

Some reports suggest that the power from Hinkley may be exported to France.

QOUTE FROM ANOTHER SITE BEGINS

Electricity from planned nuclear plant 'could all end up being
exported to countries with fewer renewables, like France, at a price
massively subsidised by Britain's hard-working bill payers' It is a
claim that, if true, would mean Britain is about to make one of the
biggest economical mistakes in its history, a blunder that would
damage our country's finances for decades and almost inevitably cause
the Government to fall. For, according to Keith Barnham, an emeritus
professor of physics, the total subsidy paid to the planned Hinkley
Point nuclear power station by the British taxpayer could reach a
staggering £53 billion over its lifetime - and the main
beneficiaries will be French. He argues that such is the likely growth
of renewables that the UK will not actually need the Hinkley's
electricity, so it will be sold abroad. And, he says, the most likely
customers are in France, home of energy giant EDF, which is expected
to build the plant. Professor Barnham, of Imperial College London,
argues that the expansion of renewables will mean that by 2029 there
will be "no demand for continuous and expensive nuclear power in the
UK".

Independent 9th May 2016

QOUTE FROM ANOTHER SITE ENDS

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 24 May 2016, 10:25

The phrase 'hard working' (usually taxpayers) is always a giveaway.

Many of those who don't work hard pay tax too.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 24 May 2016, 14:27

And many of those who don't work hard don't pay any tax at all and I'm not referring to the unemployed here!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 26 May 2016, 22:49

That other nuke

http://www.reuters.com/article/areva-fi ... SL5N18N3K5

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 30 May 2016, 19:05

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... arks-anger

Government refuses to disclose costs of nuclear waste contract.

alex · Post by **alex** » 31 May 2016, 19:49

PS_RalphW wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... arks-anger

Government refuses to disclose costs of nuclear waste contract.

Apparently - according to a senior ex employee - the used fuel rods known as candelas for the EPR type reactor needs to be wet stored vertically for 100 + years; they are 8m in length and cannot be cut down. This means storage on site as not easily transportable.

Oh dear!

Post by **clv101** » 31 May 2016, 20:53

It's by the coast... maybe sea level raise can take care of that requirement!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Jun 2016, 21:48

Jeremy Leggett on Hinkley C:

http://www.jeremyleggett.net/2016/06/th ... en-growth/

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 07 Jul 2016, 22:24

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... up-to-37bn

But experts said the extra money, if the cost did remain at £37bn, would have to come from somewhere, probably the taxpayer, or be shaved off other DECC budgets available for different energy projects such as wind farms and solar arrays.

Post by **adam2** » 07 Jul 2016, 23:04

adam2 wrote:To get back on topic, it was announced last night* that the cost of the proposed new nuke "could reach £21 billion" was not it only about 18 billion a few months ago ?
Presumably this will require either a bigger subsidy towards the capital costs, or a higher price for the electricity produced, which is already expected to be £92.50/MWH.

*BBC TV news, west country edition.

That was bad enough, but now £37 billion ! This is getting (even more) ridiculous.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 08 Jul 2016, 06:10

The pound has fallen 10% in the last week or so. I wouldn't be surprised to see this figure rise more as a result.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 13 Jul 2016, 15:09

This report says only £30B, but renewables would be cheaper.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... nao-report

Then, as suggested on a separate thread, maybe Hinkley will be a hidden subsidy for our military nuclear reactors so we can fuel replacement nuclear warheads off the balance sheet.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 13 Jul 2016, 17:03

It's not so much the warhead explosive, Ralph, it all the testing, regulation, maintenance, training, personnel, safety and disposal infrastructure that's required to underpin the military installations and equipment.

Post by **clv101** » 13 Jul 2016, 21:53

PS_RalphW wrote:This report says only £30B, but renewables would be cheaper.

I think cutting demand might be cheaper still.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 14 Jul 2016, 02:33

And that could be done, maybe, but first you'd have to stop the increase in demand, which could be done by stopping people arriving in such large numbers from overseas, incliuding but not exclusively, the rest of the EU