You also have to plan for reliable consistent energy ... Nuclear gives
that ... on a very cold foggy morning I drove past a huge installation
of wind turbines - all stationary .... so on a cold dark morning... when
peak energy needed ... no wind, and no solar.
No wind also means no waves .. so that's 3 environmental options out of
the way .... that means oil, coal or gas as the alternatives ... none
of which we have much of, we are reliant on imports ... and as we know
Russia is quite happy to turn off the gas when it feels like. Oil is at
the mercy of whatever is going on in Middle East.
Less than 1 mile from my house is a proposed 6 mile tidal lagoon .......
given the go ahead at a 1Billion £ build ... and history shows on
capital projects that it will jump by 30% as soon as they put the first
rocks in the water.
Like Nuclear they are demanding a huge fixed price guarantee ... but
much higher than nuclear.
So if you want confidence in electricity supply in the future - it will
At least until they crack fusion. :-)
Great fact for you ..... Britain spent more on text messages last year
than it did on Fusion research !
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 08:22:47 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nobody knows the cost of decommissioning.
None have ever been completely decommissioned.
They put the hard to deal with bits into temporary storage.
Because they don't know how to deal with them.
Or the cost.
It is a first of kind design. They are always more expensive than
subsequent builds. The projected costs for Nth of kind are comparable to
other conventional power sources and a lot cheaper than renewables.
Indeed. The UK civil Magnox plant were also first of a kind, and never
expected to be economic. In spite of derating, after the admittedly high
inflation of the 1970's, and in spite of the relatively high staffing
cost they became the cheapest generation on the system. It can be
debated whether sufficient allowance was made for decommissioning costs
(though as TNP says at least part of that is changing standards). For
some years, BNFL advertising referred to them as "Britain's Nuclear
Workhorses". Those who moan about projected NDA costs fail to account
for their past clear economic benefits.
One of the old CEGB sites had on display a typed "final statement of
build costs" for Berkeley Power Station; the original forecast was
around £45M, and the out-turn around £55M, IIRC. Don't know if it is
still there, but I'll ask someone on the site and see if I can get a
No,. it isn;t,. Its the fourth being built.
The costs are down to the fact that it needs to meet a regulation load
of about ten million words.
Most of which make no difference to safety whatsoever.
They are always more expensive than
The only way to meet the regulatory burden is via SMRs whereby the hope
is that type approval of a factory made design will avoid the need to
have every single part of a large reactor inspected and approved in
60-90% of the cost of a reactor is not in the building of it, but in
the cost of meeting regulations, and in the interest on te capital
needed to do that years before it actually produces anything at all.
Its essentially down to the leguslation inspired by anti-nuclear
campaigners and the hysteria in the media.
Areva is building that reactor design in the far east almost on time on
budget and at less than half the cost.
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.