Nuclear Power costs

[kenneal - lagger]

This is a good article on the costs of Nuclear Power:- http://www.energybulletin.net/49699

It seems the only way to get an accurate cost is to specify that the builder pays for cost overruns! How shocking!! Costs on that basis come out at over five times other estimates.

[emordnilap]

Well. Surprise, surprise.

[Blue Peter]

It seems the only way to get an accurate cost is to specify that the builder pays for cost overruns! How shocking!! Costs on that basis come out at over five times other estimates.

I don't suppose we'll be using that model in our next nuclear foray, will we?


Peter.

[woodburner]

It probably will be the model for the next build, underwritten by the government of course.

[PS_RalphW]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ower-bills

Government officials have drawn up secret plans to tax electricity consumers to subsidise the construction of the UK's first new nuclear reactors for more than 20 years, the Guardian has learned.

The planned levy on household bills would add £44 to an annual electricity bill of £500 and contradicts repeated promises by ministers that the nuclear industry would no longer benefit from public subsidies.

Is anyone remotely surprised?

[clv101]

This is a very bad article from the Guardian, talk about misrepresentation!

The "secret" proposal is not by any stretch of the imagination, a "nuclear tax". It's a carbon price floor - which is a thoroughly good idea. It artificially makes carbon intensive activities reliably more expensive and allows the subsidy (or just increased relative competitiveness) of lower carbon alternatives.

An obvious side effect of this is that nuclear receives a relative advantage over coal - an so it should from a carbon point of view. In the carbon/climate debate nuclear is a clear winner over coal.

Of course there are other problems associated with nuclear, but it's a sad day when the fact that nuclear is low carbon is used to criticise the positive move of putting a floor on carbon pricing. That is just the kind of legislation needed to drive the development of low carbon alternatives to coal.

[biffvernon]

Britain poised to lose jobs as £10bn nuclear power plant contract goes to US
Thousands of jobs that were to have been created in Britain to build the next generation of nuclear power plants could be heading overseas instead, after Westinghouse, the nuclear company sold by the government three years ago to Toshiba, chose one of its largest shareholders as the lead contractor to build reactors.

Westinghouse is expected to confirm this week that it has appointed US-based Shaw Group to head up its £10bn nuclear programme, passing over the favourite for the contract, rival engineering group Fluor.

Industry sources said that Shaw is likely to source far more reactor components from overseas than Fluor, which has close relationships with British manufacturers. The Unite union claimed that 10,000 new jobs in the UK would not be created as a result of Shaw being selected.

Shaw was one of the main contractors to build Total's controversial Lindsey refinery and made 51 workers there redundant this year, which sparked a series of wildcat walk-outs around the country over the use of foreign labour.

British-based manufacturers such as BAE Systems and Rolls Royce are also understood to be concerned that lucrative contracts to make reactor modules could be lost to Shaw's manufacturing bases in the US and Belgium. A spokesman for Westinghouse in the US confirmed that Shaw had been appointed but claimed that "up to 80%" of the components would be sourced from the UK. He admitted that this was not finalised as none of the supplier contracts had been signed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009 ... to-america

[2 As and a B]

One of the hidden costs of nuclear power.

Lest we forget the West's hypocrisy over Iran's nuclear programme.

The world’s nuclear plants today use 65,000 tons of uranium each year, with about two-thirds coming from mines and the rest from secondary sources such as reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium previously earmarked for warheads.

...

There are other supply risks. If global production is to be increased, the world will have to start relying on the politically uncertain regions of Niger, Namibia and Kazakhstan. Nuclear may be the most reliable form of low-carbon generation, providing a more stable source than wind or hydro power and less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels, but the world’s biggest uranium exporters will not be able to provide all of the world’s extra supplies.

It may be relatively cheap for now but plentiful and accessible uranium in the long-term would be too good for global energy security to be true – the nuclear equivalent of having your yellowcake and eating it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/mark ... wagon.html

[RenewableCandy]

If you try and find all that out, I'm fairly certain you'll run into a brick wall. It's a funny thing but nuclear power seems to bring out the worst in people, especially when it comes to secrecy.

[biffvernon]

Now who's been writing to the Yorkshire Post?

Wednesday's Letters: Nuclear power is the real subsidy junkie, not wind farms

Published Date: 10 August 2010
GEOFF Sweeting (Yorkshire Post, August 7) points out that the
Government is subsidising wind energy, and believes that it
is "inefficient".
I would like to point out that, through a variety of mechanisms, the Government is, in fact, subsidising nearly all forms of electricity generation, and that the subsidies for nuclear energy are particularly generous.

No insurance company has seen fit to provide cover for the nuclear energy sector, so that insurance cover is effectively being provided by the Government.

The disposal costs for all the waste generated during the long "research and development" phase for nuclear energy are also being met by the Government, to the tune of £72bn (and rising). There is as yet no agreed mechanism for the private sector to handle future waste costs.

The nuclear industry provides much of the material with which the Health and Safety Executive has to deal. This, again, is all done using Government money.

The supply chain for the industry involves the transport of various hazardous substances, such as refined uranium and radioactive waste products, by ship and rail. Should this have to continue in the event of any kind of "heightened terrorist threat", I would very much hope that members of HM Forces would be brought in to assure security. But, again, this would effectively be a "subsidy" by government.

Meanwhile, wind energy research and development, with very little Government help, has enabled the construction of 4GW of generating capacity (out of a total for the UK of some 70GW), with a further 2.5 GW under construction.

Their fuel, the wind, will never rise in price (because it costs nothing), run out, or prove dangerous in the hands of terrorists. Insurance, safety, security and decommissioning costs are all borne by the industry itself.

Their output is variable, but this is more easily handled by our present electricity grid than is the sudden failure of a nuclear power station such as that of Sizewell B, which resulted in power cuts in Lincolnshire in May 2008.

From: Dr Candida Spillard, Danum Road, York.

[kenneal - lagger]

Yup! Found out there, Candy.

[RenewableCandy]

I'd make a bog-awful spy, innit?

[JohnB]

I'd make a bog-awful spy, innit?

Especially as you told your Facebook friends about it

[2 As and a B]

Britain is struggling to power the nuclear revolution

Despite heavily subsidising to renewable energy, the Government is standing firm on a pledge not to spend a penny of taxpayers' money on equally low-carbon nuclear power. Nuclear is actually inexpensive in comparison to offshore wind farms, according to Matthew Farrow, head of energy planning at the CBI.

"In terms of power output and carbon saved, nuclear could be two to three times cheaper than offshore wind," he says. "Because of this we think it should take its place alongside renewables and fossil fuels as part of a balanced energy mix."

It is entirely possible that the UK will have backtrack on its refusal to subsidise nuclear plants, says Lakis Athanasiou, analyst at Evolution Securities: "The Government says it's not going to subsidise but if they introduce capacity payments for new plants, is that a subsidy or not? It's something that comes in the back door – there's a lot of semantics going on here."

He believes the best way is to follow the US and French model of simply providing guarantees for debt financing to soothe investors' fears about the possibility of default if nuclear costs run out of control. "The government should provide guarantees for debt," he says. "The minimum carbon price is just a joke. Forget about it. No one is going to invest when they won't get paid back before 2020 or beyond."

[biffvernon]

the Government is standing firm on a pledge not to spend a penny of taxpayers' money on equally low-carbon nuclear power

Disingenuous nonsense.

We can argue over the equally low carbon bit, but the half century of government R&D and the ongoing commitment to underwrite the insurance and the open ended obligation towards waste management fall upon the taxpayer.