PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Planned Somerset nuclear plant on hold ? or not ?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 5766
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2016 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some reports suggest that the power from Hinkley may be exported to France.

QOUTE FROM ANOTHER SITE BEGINS

Electricity from planned nuclear plant 'could all end up being
exported to countries with fewer renewables, like France, at a price
massively subsidised by Britain's hard-working bill payers' It is a
claim that, if true, would mean Britain is about to make one of the
biggest economical mistakes in its history, a blunder that would
damage our country's finances for decades and almost inevitably cause
the Government to fall. For, according to Keith Barnham, an emeritus
professor of physics, the total subsidy paid to the planned Hinkley
Point nuclear power station by the British taxpayer could reach a
staggering 53 billion over its lifetime - and the main
beneficiaries will be French. He argues that such is the likely growth
of renewables that the UK will not actually need the Hinkley's
electricity, so it will be sold abroad. And, he says, the most likely
customers are in France, home of energy giant EDF, which is expected
to build the plant. Professor Barnham, of Imperial College London,
argues that the expansion of renewables will mean that by 2029 there
will be "no demand for continuous and expensive nuclear power in the
UK".

Independent 9th May 2016

QOUTE FROM ANOTHER SITE ENDS
_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13425
Location: way out west

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2016 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The phrase 'hard working' (usually taxpayers) is always a giveaway. Laughing

Many of those who don't work hard pay tax too.
_________________
The human appears to have no idea what its ideal diet should be; has self-inflicted diet-related diseases; causes extensive environmental destruction through basic food production & creates pathogenic infestations that widely infect its food supply.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9477
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2016 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And many of those who don't work hard don't pay any tax at all and I'm not referring to the unemployed here!
_________________
BLOG

"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18610
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That other nuke

http://www.reuters.com/article/areva-finland-tvo-idUSL5N18N3K5
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
PS_RalphW



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 5140
Location: Cambridge

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2016 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/30/edf-hinkley-point-deal-radioactive-waste-sparks-anger

Government refuses to disclose costs of nuclear waste contract.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alex



Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 61
Location: Cannington Somerset

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2016 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PS_RalphW wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/30/edf-hinkley-point-deal-radioactive-waste-sparks-anger

Government refuses to disclose costs of nuclear waste contract.


Apparently - according to a senior ex employee - the used fuel rods known as candelas for the EPR type reactor needs to be wet stored vertically for 100 + years; they are 8m in length and cannot be cut down. This means storage on site as not easily transportable.

Oh dear!
_________________
If it wasn't for pick-pockets & frisking at airports, I'd have no sex life at all .................Rodney Dangerfield.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7390

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2016 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's by the coast... maybe sea level raise can take care of that requirement! Twisted Evil
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18610
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeremy Leggett on Hinkley C:

http://www.jeremyleggett.net/2016/06/the-nuclear-white-elephant-that-stands-in-the-way-of-green-growth/
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
PS_RalphW



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 5140
Location: Cambridge

PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/07/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant-costs-up-to-37bn

Quote:
But experts said the extra money, if the cost did remain at 37bn, would have to come from somewhere, probably the taxpayer, or be shaved off other DECC budgets available for different energy projects such as wind farms and solar arrays.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 5766
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

adam2 wrote:
To get back on topic, it was announced last night* that the cost of the proposed new nuke "could reach 21 billion" was not it only about 18 billion a few months ago ?
Presumably this will require either a bigger subsidy towards the capital costs, or a higher price for the electricity produced, which is already expected to be 92.50/MWH.

*BBC TV news, west country edition.


That was bad enough, but now 37 billion ! This is getting (even more) ridiculous.
_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PS_RalphW



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 5140
Location: Cambridge

PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The pound has fallen 10% in the last week or so. I wouldn't be surprised to see this figure rise more as a result.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PS_RalphW



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 5140
Location: Cambridge

PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This report says only 30B, but renewables would be cheaper.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/13/hinkley-point-c-cost-30bn-top-up-payments-nao-report

Then, as suggested on a separate thread, maybe Hinkley will be a hidden subsidy for our military nuclear reactors so we can fuel replacement nuclear warheads off the balance sheet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9477
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not so much the warhead explosive, Ralph, it all the testing, regulation, maintenance, training, personnel, safety and disposal infrastructure that's required to underpin the military installations and equipment.
_________________
BLOG

"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7390

PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PS_RalphW wrote:
This report says only 30B, but renewables would be cheaper.

I think cutting demand might be cheaper still.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3204

PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2016 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And that could be done, maybe, but first you'd have to stop the increase in demand, which could be done by stopping people arriving in such large numbers from overseas, incliuding but not exclusively, the rest of the EU
_________________
If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 16 of 18

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group