Same old, same old: Taxpayer will pick up cost of Hinkley C waste storage

More guardian 'should' 'could' 'might' anti nuclear bollocks.

Of course. It's a bad idea to be in the EU because we must have control over our own destiny. So let's just leave one of the largest projects in our history in charge of foreigners.

People can be very negative regarding nuclear power, papers whingeing on about taxpayer liability for what are remote chance events should be outlawed.

Just because the British public have to cough up, people are apt to lose sight of the benefits to the many people gaining from the fiasco.

AB

En el artículo , Chris Hogg escribió:

I'd bet my life savings that come 2083, EdF and CGNPG won't pay a penny for dismantling and cleaning up. Pity I won't be around to collect :)

But £7.2bn is peanuts compared to the money they'll make over 60 years. Do the calculation (I'll try here, but I always lose track of the naughts in going from squillions to gazillions, so no guarantees and someone had better check the result!)

HPC is rated at 3200MW. Assume 90% capacity factor, so 2880MW in reality. We know they'll get paid £92.5 per MWh for the first 35 years, but beyond that the figure is unknown, so calculate for just the first 35 years. In that time they'll earn 2880x24x365x35x92.5 = £8.16 x 10^10 = £81.6bn (I think!). Take off say £25bn for construction and finance cost and £7.2bn for dismantling, and you're still left with £49.4bn. And that doesn't include the profit they'll make for the remaining 25+ years of life after the CFD finishes. OK, so it's a simple calculation and doesn't account for the running cost, refueling etc., but by any standard, £7.2bn for dismantling is no big deal.

I doubt it's even factored in to any of the business planning.

How much would you pay now for the benefit of £7.2B in 70 years time? :-)

I'm not negative about nuclear power. But very negative about a 'deal' with a couple of countries using untried and untested technology.

And those who benefit from any fiasco will be China and France. The usual thing when it goes massively over budget 'well we've spent so much we might as well just carry on regardless'

Actually, technology already failed in Finland and France. And EDS financial director resigned over the issue.

ogg

They'll have gone bust long before that. They should put the money up front.

Think about what was once untried and untested..

medicine aeroplanes cars houses farming ..

Ah. Of course. Silly me. Didn't realise it would be the very first nuclear power station.

The way the world is going any contamination may be insignificant from other open air nuclear reactions that have taken place anyway. Probably written in the small print. "We won't be responsible for dismantling and cleaning up if the site has already been rendered unusable.

G.Harman

Hmm however, I do think we need to look at nuclear. The problems are not insurmountable its just that nobody wants the non process radioactive waste on their doorstep. It does show us though how little we know about the geology of our planet that we cant say for certain that if you burry it 'here' for 10000 years it will be disturbed or cause issues. Brian

A more pertinent question is to wonder why it should soar.

Well, who else is there to cover it?

NT

En el artículo , Tim Streater escribió:

Yucca Mountain: $9 billion and counting. Unused (abandoned)

Construction started in 2002, project abandoned in 2009. "the federal government owes utility companies somewhere between $300 and $500 million per year in compensation for failing to comply with the contract it signed to take the spent nuclear fuel by 1998"

WIPP: $19 billion and counting. In use

"Deep geological repository" aka big hole in the ground. In 2014 a barrel of waste from Los Alamos packed with the wrong kind of cat litter exploded and contaminated part of the plant. Radioactive waste was spread by the ventilation system and vented to the outside.

I think it would be safe to say that $9bn/$19bn is "soaring".

Sigh. More guardian scare stories. More received wisdom. Zero original thought.

Even so, his view that to be left of centre means to also be 'anti-science' (whatever that means) is totally without foundation or proof.

That may well be true, but you appear to lack the ability or interest to look past that for the nub of the matter.