Well, I hope so, but I'm pretty sure Private Eye's "Keeping the lights on" column said otherwise. ISTR it said that the only operator left bidding for the contract to build new nukes - all the others have pulled out - are negotiating with guvmint to build and operate but not to handle waste. Either that or they wanted huge subsidies to handle waste.
From wonkypedia (I know...)
formatting link
"It is current UK Government policy that the construction of any new nuclear power stations in the UK will be led and financed by the private sector.This transfers the running and immediate concerns to the operator, while reducing (although not eliminating) government participation and long-term involvement/liability (nuclear waste, as involving government policy, will likely remain a liability, even if only a limited one)."
"In 2010 The Daily Telegraph reported that additional incentives, such as capacity payments and supplier nuclear obligations, would be needed to persuade companies to build nuclear plants in the UK"
But I think you need to be clear about financial and physical responsibility.
We are all, through council taxes, financially responsible for our waste disposal, but we are not physically responsible.
The government remains physically responsible to at least oversee and regulate disposal of nuclear waste, but the cost will be borne by some levy on the nuclear operators - generally that's a uranium tax .. or perhaps they will be required to pay e,g. Sellafield to take used rods away and deal with them.
It is more of the way that governments evade taking financial responsibility whilst ensuring that they control physical responsibility. Just like wind farms. They are not subsidised by GOVERNMENT but by consumers, who have their free market choices removed by legislation.
I think that the more honest of the people at DECC are really struggling to find ways that are not too devious to create new policy frameworks that embody 'the tax payer wont pay' even if the actual effect is to make consumers pay.
Oddly, that is actually worse for the lower paid. Since they pay less taxes but still have to pay for 'green' energy.
Law of unintended consequences yet again.
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc?-ra-cy) ? a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher escribió:
Apparently the goalposts have moved:
"Renewables will be supported with 20-year contracts rather than nuclear's expected 40 years and the unknown costs of nuclear waste and accidents will also be placed on customers via government."
in other words, the consumer will now pay for waste disposal, not the utility company.
The whole article is worth a read:
formatting link
nuclear-reactors
"Renewable energy providers to help bear cost of new UK nuclear reactors
Experts say decision to share cost of accommodating Hinkley Point reactors among providers amounts to subsidy for nuclear"
""Nuclear reactors need back-up, which is expensive and which its advocates tend to forget," said Doug Parr, policy director at Greenpeace. "The spreading of the cost is another implicit subsidy to get huge nuclear plants built that people will be paying for without even realising it."
Nuclear is base-load; however could renewables act as back-up for it? It's renewables that need backup.
It's saying that there needs to be contingency for when a nuke suddenly has to go off-line, for example when it ingests a load of jellyfish or seaweed into its cooling system (as has happened), or a fuckyoushima- style tsunami.
The bigger the station, the more contingency backup needs to be available for when it suddenly goes offline.
Of course not. Its just another renewable Big Lie. Nuclear generators don't need backup at all.
tend to forget," said Doug Parr,
subsidy to get huge nuclear plants
renewables that need backup.
Exactly. you have basically seen through what amounts to pure propaganda by greenpeace - the use of the Big Lie, to accuse others of the thing you are most guilty of yourself, on the basis that no one will believe anyone has the bald faced effrontery to tell such a monumental porkie.
Incidentally I did get a reply from David Mackay on asking him to clarify why we appeared to be needing such a monumental amount of electrical capacity.
He referred me to a 2011 DECC document "The Carbon Plan: Delivering our low carbon future" in which the routemap to slashing our carbon emissions to close to zero is laid out.
It appears that the rationale is that the only reasonably practical way to have energy at any sort of efficiency that is consistent with technology that more or less actually exists, is to go more or less all electric.
So all domestic and industrial space heating and cooling is envisaged to be electric - direct or heat-pumped. Trains take the strain and battery cars and hybrids.
An array of bollocks technology is also included to try and offset the intermittency of renewables - that's the smart grid, electric cars, hand wavey inter-connectors and storage that are total pie in the sky probably, and realistically, huge amounts of nuclear power, and unrealistically, huge amounts of renewable energy.
The document contains several errors of fact. Wind power in 2011 was apparently 50% higher then it demonstrably generated last year with more windmills than ever - for example, and the logical fallacy of deploying nuclear AND intermittent renewables* is simply swept aside.
But if you like science fiction, its a good read.
All in all it probably means less than nothing - by the time we are ten years into the plan the game will almost certainly have changed beyond recognition anyway. The important thing is that some money is being tipped towards nuclear research AND development...and that its got a Limp Dumb signature on it.
Of course 95% of it will be wasted, but 5% may just conceivable do some good. Which is more than you can say for windymills.
So whilst its clear that DECC and the coalition are at lest taking nuclear seriously, they are still wedded to the erroneous notion that renewable energy 'has a part to play' beyond burning rubbish, using a bit of hydro, and having the odd shit digester to turn bullshit into natural gas.
As I said, although not so detailed, I prefer Roger Helmer's policies altogether.
Which are 'bollocks to emissions, bollocks to technology specific subsidies, let's generate power using what's cheapest now and in the future, and spend a little money on *investigating* a few alternatives that actually may conceivably be cost effective ways to keep the lights on, all the time bearing in mind that nuclear coal and gas, are here now technologies that work, and nothing that can't compete with nuclear, is likely to be a long term 'sustainable' option, and that means windmills and solar panels'.
*As you point out, nuclear doesn't need backup, nor does using less of it than you have available use one iota less fossil fuel or reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. And saving uranium is hardly relevant in either emissions or cost terms. So a nuclear/intermittent renewables grid could be replaced with an all-nuclear grid, with no intermittent renewables, with no emissions penalty. But HUGE cost savings. I have pointed this out to David, but he remains fond of the renewable dream. "80% nuclear 20% wind" is what he whispered in my ear last time we met, as if telling a dirty joke.
The point is that the proposed new nukes are going to be massive, and so the contingency needs to be increased to suit. Realistically, this is going to have to be OCGT or oil.
"The new reactors planned by EDF for Hinkley Point are significantly larger than any existing power stations, meaning the national grid has to pay for extra standby electricity to stop the grid crashing if one of the reactors unexpectedly goes offline."
"Currently, the grid's back-up system plans for a major loss of up to
1,320MW a few times a year. But the two new reactors planned by EDF will have 1,600GW of capacity each, meaning the grid will have to increase its back-up to 1,800MW."
Its true, but its scarcely relevant. For proper power stations. The day to night demand variation is around 8 nuclear power stations worth. One more power station going down makes that 9, a mere 12.5% increase. But total wind farm capacity is over 8GW now if you include all the tiddlers that aren't metered and so on, and that is getting close to doubling the potential dispatch requirements. When one power station goes down unplanned, , its one power station and it probably happens at most once a month, when the wind drops its ALL the windmills out or at least well down the power curve.
Wind energy in the UK has 'lost' a GW a day this week, from 5GW on Sunday, to 4GW on Monday, to 3GW on Tuesday,iveed impact of 3GW - two and a half nukes - off the grid in three days. The liklihood of that happening is close to zero with conventional plant, its absolutely the norm with wind power.
Such events cost money and fuel. They happen once a year with conventional plant., They happen every 3-4 days with wind.
It is simply green renewable lies and distortions and selective reportage.
The greens are only on the side of themselves and their power base, and they are firmly on the pockets of the renewable/gas profiteers.
*actually its probably 40% more than that, if you take unmetered into account.
Total bollocks. Sizewell C is 1.6GW. As I pointed out diurnal demand fluctuations are ~10GW. We have the capacity already to back up the plant.
Assuming they all crash together. But they wont. Not unless greenpeace sabotages them.
Any other event that takes out more than one power station unexpectdely is likely to be massive enough so that the loss of 10% of our supply will be the least of our worries.
Currently we have the ability to backup the loss of 8GW of wind.
That is already costing us dear. dumping that for a reliable set of nukes will reduce costs, not increase them.
Its a simple smear job by renewable UK or greenpeace ore whichever other organisation is in charge of GreenAgitProp.
Who only a year or so ago were claiming that 'wind wont need extra backup, because it already exists to cover day to night demand variations and the loss of a fossil/nuclear power station'
I.e. extra backup costs only applies to a competitive technology...
The same distoirtiosn were used by the Guardian to refute the Hughes report which in simple terms said 'if we GO ON adding wind, the most likely plant it will displace, is high efficiency CCGT, and there is a risk that we will build cheap OCGT to cover peaking demands. The giuradian claimed to have refuted this, by looking at gridwatch or Bmreports and noting that in fact we haven't used any existing OCGT plant at all. And FAILING to note that in 2012 and 2013, CCGT gas - the most efficient and low emission plant we have, FELL dramatically and was replaced with wind and COAL. Exactly as Hughes predicted.
Now the closure of coal plant being forced on us by the Greens will inevitably lead to hihher electricity prices. And several genarators are closing old but efficient CCGT plant. It only a mater of time befre they start banging in really cheap fuel guzzling OCGT to cover peak demands, rasing emissions and electricity prices..
Total hatchet job, but the faithful heave a sigh of relief, that they have a straw left to cling to in their reliogion of whirlygigs and evil carbon dioxide.
100% load factor from the moment you press "start" to the moment,
60 years later, when you press "stop"?
No refuelling, no break downs, nothing wearing out and needing to be replaced, no unexpected trips?
One would have of course more than one and you'd have enough capacity to ensure that one of the fleet could be offline without demand exceeding supply but that is just all the others providing back up for the one off line. I guess you can also refuel during the summer and have more than one offline but again they are still being backed up by the others.
27 May 2008 Longannet and Sizewell B. Only 1510 MW or at an educated guess about 3% of demand. If 10% dropped off without warning I suspect we'd be into black start mode. Wind, though variable, doesn't go from 5 GW to 0 GW instantly.
Sods Laws states that if something can go wrong it will and all random, unrelated, events add up unidirectionally for maximum distruption.
Nope. Planned outages planned months in advance generally for warmer weather times and designed not to overlap.
its an entirely diferent scenario to wind.
Which is why I prefer te them co-operate. wind needs to co-operate with a dispatchable power source. Nuclear just needs a bit of overcapacity. Maybe 10%. wind needs 100% capacity near enough.
And whilst de mothballling some wheezy old inefficient oil burner once a year for a week doesnt break the bank fuel wise, having to keep a mountain of fast acting kit on permente standby and ready to go, does cost.
Its the usual renewable energy lobby trick of comparing apples and oranges and making invalid comparisons between things that cant be compared, because they are not the same.
The only thing that counts is ultimately cost. 10% more nuclear than ytou need more or less adssdd 10% to teh cvost of electrcity. So makyeb
89 to 8.8p cost?>?
adding backup to 14p wind costs far more. Maybe 2p a unit, because of the amount of backup you need. taking it to about 16p a unit(onshore). For example.
The renewable lobby disregards backup costs for wind, but complains it will be impossibly expensive for nuclear.
The renewable lobby complains about the decommissioning costs of nuclear, but ignores that cost for wind.,
The renewable lobby complains about subsidies for nuclear, whilst being the most heavily subsidised technology in the market place.
The renewable lobby says 'it cost as much to buil a 1GW nuclear power station as a 1GW wind farm' but neglects to point out that te nuke will last 4 times as long and gerenate 16 times more electricity over its life and wont need 100% backup on permanent standby.
Th erreneable lobby claim that it needs subsidy because 1000 year old technology is 'new' and 'needs help' whilst saying that nuclear - especially thorium - doesn't qualify because its 'well established'.
The renewable lobby says that thorium is so new and untested there is no guarantee it will work.
The renewable lobby raises fears over long term waste disposal of a quantity of waste that would fit into a small hall. Meanwhile it ignores the environmental impact of 200meter tall bird choppers that can be seen for 50 miles , disrupt radio TV and cellular transmissions, radar, and aircraft. whilst also destroying tourism and the lives of people nearby,and the attendant pylons needed to carry the power - on occasion when the wind does actually blow, miles and miles to where it may possibly be needed.
No we wouldn't. Dinorwig can push 2GW into the grid for long enough to get CCGT up and running, and that's not all there is, hydro wise - there's at least 600MW of diesel out there somewhere buried under hospitals, telephone exchanges and data centers, and there is at least another 500MW that you can tell certain customers to 'shut down' . low voltage can shed a few more hundred MW as well.
Instant response is to get the water power flat out - that's probably
2GW - for 15 mins till; you can shed the load and call up every emergency diesel et there is. That buts you the 15 minutes you need to get the few hundred MW of OCGT running and any CCGT that you have spare. You could also chop 250MW off the export link to N Ireland
I'd say that losing 5GW off the grid suddenly is just about capable of being absorbed at a pinch., 3GW certainly.
What is far MORE serious is simple lack of capacity in cold still; weather. With everything up and then a station goes down.
The arguments is not - despite your attempts to make it so - about ability to cope with occasional transients. Its about the cost of dealing with constant massive transients day in and day out - especially with solar. Its not that it cant be done, its the horrendous COST in doing it.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.