OT Hinkley Point Nuclear Reactor

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/hinkley-point-c-is-already-an-economic-disaster/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The problem is that you have to plan for the long term with nuclear. After all decomissioning is a huge amount of the cost of it. Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/10/2015 18:00, Brian-Gaff wrote:

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. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/11663518/Swansea-Bay-tidal-energy-lagoon-gets-green-light-from-Amber-Rudd.html
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 cost you. At least until they crack fusion. :-)
Great fact for you ..... Britain spent more on text messages last year than it did on Fusion research !
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes.

That's not right.

Nope.

That’s not so true of gas with fracking.

Same with fuel for the nukes, tho that is certainly a minor part of the cost of operating them.

But Britain gets very little of its gas from Russia.

And they are currently keeping the price of that down in an attempt to kill off fracking and tar sands etc.
And oil isn't used for power generation much anymore except in the most remote places.

The problem with fusion isn't what is being spent on research.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/10/15 18:00, Brian-Gaff wrote:

no, it isn't. 15% at most
The main cost is employing armies of box ticking consultants to get approval to build and operate it.

--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They do actually, wait for them to decay naturally.

Just as true of any power station, particularly the ones some loon decides to turn into a Grand Designs house etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, 26 October 2015 18:00:47 UTC, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Except for Thorium, The bulk of the cost with them is government stooooopidity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/10/2015 17:31, harry wrote:

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.
--
Colin Bignell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/10/2015 09:46, Nightjar <cpb wrote:

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 picture.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/10/15 09:46, Nightjar <cpb wrote:

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 deciplicate.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_%28nuclear_reactor%29
--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/10/2015 12:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

How many of those have been finished?
--
Colin Bignell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/10/15 18:13, Nightjar <cpb wrote:

To date, none ;-)
Actually it will be the fifth. Two in china, one in France and one in Finland.
--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.