Keeping the lights on

[Andy Burns]

Sounds like National Grid are having sensible talks behind the scenes to give the finger to the LCPD this Winter and fire-up the "hours expired" coal stations if needed ...

[Dave Liquorice]

Cite?

[Andy Burns]

Interview with their chief exec on 'Today' this morning (who it seems has the engineering background to go with the job, rather than just being a management "suit").

[Brian Gaff]

Well I think that is a good idea. After all it makes sense as the low number of hours that will hopefully need will add precious little to the pollution issues.

Brian

[Tim Streater]

And FoE apparently is now no longer opposed "in principle" to nuclear power - but they'll continue to oppose on cost grounds.

[John Williamson]

Next thing we know, they'll be admitting it *is* possible to deal with nuclear "waste" safely and relatively cheaply. That'll annoy harry.

[philipuk]

How will that work if they have pulled them down / fired all the staff?

Philip

[Tim Streater]

Run the bloody film backwards, can't you? And so rebuild the cooling towers. Look, I've got a degree in media studies, OK, so I know you can do this.

[Jethro_uk]

But most of those costs are due to their opposition in the first place, forcing the nuclear industry to gold plate everything.

[Tim Streater]

Just shows the hypocrisy of these groups.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I have actually read (gasp) bits of the formal regulations on coal fired power stations. There is a force majeure clause.

So its within the letter of the EU law...

[The Natural Philosopher]

This applies to the ones where they haven't.

there's a couple of dire coalers and IIRC a couple of OIL fired stations that can and do isochronally belch puff and spin up a few hundred MW.

Staffing costs are not that great, nor is maintenance. And if the grid tosses em 'capacity payments' just to be there in case, there's no reason to close em completely.

Meanwhile Australia is busy having rational debates as to how to build some nuclear power stations...

[Tim Watts]

Ah - when faced with the choice of being comfortable and taking the high road, or actually getting a taste of going mediaeval, even the greenies have a line...

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yup.

strip out the UNNECESSARY regulations and you can have nuclear power cheaper than coal.

Especially if current interest rates are in play.

At 7% on capital over a 40 year lifetime the total debt serviced cost of the plant is 15 times its actual capital cost

at 3% its just three and a bit times.

Likewise if the actual build cost is less, because you don't have so many regulatory hoops to jump through, it gets even cheaper.

And if the maintenance is less, because its better designed and doesn't have so many hoops to jump through, the operational costs come down too.

There is MASSIVE scope for cost reduction in nuclear. It could be even cheaper than old coal - which is sort of around the 3p-4p mark.

If the public wanted it, we could be >100% nuclear base load with electricity at 5p unit by 2030

[tim.....]

whilst you might be able to make a argument for this scientifically,

the chances of you making it politically are virtually nil.

And when looking for re-election, it's the latter that counts

tim

[John Williamson]

I was working on the theory that as one of the main opponents of nuclear power has now said they're not against it in principle, it'll not be long after the lights start going out that they go all the way and admit that nuclear power is the environmentally friendly solution that most well informed people consider it to be now, and start admitting that their FUD programme was only marketing.

Unfortunately, by then it'll be a couple of decades too late to start building the power stations we should have been planning since we knew the oil was getting harder to extract and building for the last 20 years or so.

[newshound]

Cost + time + waste disposal, but *not* regarded as unsafe any more. Sitting on the fence as to whether to approve as a strategy for global warming. This was UK FoE on the radio today.

[News]

In message , John Williamson writes

I'm not sure too many people will describe nuclear power as an environmentally friendly solution, but it is certainly the only sensible and viable solution.

Indeed. Roll on Sizewell C.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Compared to windmills solar panels and water up a hill it most certainly is a lot more friendly. Kills less wildlife and damages less habitat and covers over less land.

[Nightjar]

Per TWh, it produces a lot less CO2 than wind farms (i.e. needs a lot less concrete to build), it takes up less land space and it kills far fewer humans.