Nuclear Power for Caithness

[RagnarRocks]

Ok so now the govt has committed to 2 new nuclear power stations one in Somerset and one in Norwich. Does this mean that England will be having the benefit of more nuclear stations and cheaper fuel, whilst Scotland whether it be independent or no is still ploughing ahead with wind farms.Should Scotland have nuclear and should Dounreay be reopened

[Bobinovich]

Ok so now the govt has committed to 2 new nuclear power stations one in Somerset and one in Norwich. Does this mean that England will be having the benefit of more nuclear stations and cheaper fuel, whilst Scotland whether it be independent or no is still ploughing ahead with wind farms.Should Scotland have nuclear and should Dounreay be reopened

Firstly you can pretty much assume that nuclear will not bring cheaper fuel to anyone - regardless of the cost of producing energy it NEVER seems to bring reductions. The generating & supply companies always seem to find something to blame the increases on (other than to increase their already vast profits for the benefits of their shareholders) so prices are just gonna continue to rise regardless.

Secondly Scottish independence does not guarantee that the SNP will be the party in power and therefore does not guarantee that Scotland will be forever anti-nuclear, however, even if Scotland does vote for independence and a pro-nuclear party takes control, I very much doubt they'd ever reopen Dounreay. Dounreay was an experimental site, not a generator, and it would make much more sense to open any new nuclear power plants where the bulk of the population is - i.e. in the south of Scotland thus limiting transmission losses (although pro-wind campaigners seem to feel it makes sense to litter the Highlands with turbines even though they suffer the very same losses *)

Edit: * However, having read that there are significant transmission line upgrades currently taking place to the north, maybe Dounreay could have an actual generating reactor built. I'm certain that, between operating, security & other personnel required, it would help offset jobs being lost at the site...far more, I would imagine, than any amount of turbines being built (figures from the latest nuclear announcements is about 25000 during construction & 900 permanent for the plant's 60 year lifespan).

[outsidethebox]

Something I saw on the news over the past few days suggested that the new power stations will have a guaranteed price of £90 per MWH, compared to current wholesale price of £50 per MWH, so certainly not cheap electricity!

[gerry4]

what is never mentioned is the cost of decommissioning the plant and the storage of the waste for 1,000's of years. How much does it cost to decommission wind turbines?

Remember the generating companies get all the profits but it is us the taxpayer who pays for the waste storage & commissioning.

[Tubthumper]

Safe, clean and cheap. Apart from the accidents, contamination and huge expense involved.
Nuclear power would be 'too cheap to meter' if I remember correctly...

[captain chaos]

Your statement is wrong Gerry4 in that if it is a nuclear Power station and not like Dounreay or Sellafield, then the generating company(owner) is responsible for decommissioning costs.

Dounreay and Sellafield were never designed as Power Stations, but as experimental reactors for future commercial builds.

Yes you and I are left with the cost of these places but not with the actual Power Stations.

Tubthumper I seem to remember almost the same said when the first windturbines were fitted , people would get free electricity it would be sooooo cheap.

[Scout]

I note all the comments on the subject but one little thing is missing and I can not wait to see anti wind farm group response as they always keep on about Wind Farm being subsidise now the Government has announced that they will do this on Power Stations so it seems the anti wind farm group will not be having happy Christmas this year as they do not agree with any power that has been subsidise

[ducati]

I note all the comments on the subject but one little thing is missing and I can not wait to see anti wind farm group response as they always keep on about Wind Farm being subsidise now the Government has announced that they will do this on Power Stations so it seems the anti wind farm group will not be having happy Christmas this year as they do not agree with any power that has been subsidise

And don't forget foreign, so all the vast profits will be leaving.

[Rheghead]

Ok so now the govt has committed to 2 new nuclear power stations one in Somerset and one in Norwich. Does this mean that England will be having the benefit of more nuclear stations and cheaper fuel, whilst Scotland whether it be independent or no is still ploughing ahead with wind farms.Should Scotland have nuclear and should Dounreay be reopened

Cheaper fuel?

What is the new guaranteed strike price of nuclear electricity compared to the average price?

If your real interest in energy is really the price then you'd be investing in more wind farms.

[captain chaos]

Raghead quotes

Cheaper fuel?

What is the new guaranteed strike price of nuclear electricity compared to the average price?

If your real interest in energy is really the price then you'd be investing in more wind farms.

Really!! Wind is cheap, pull the other. If you include all the subsidies given to the producer you will come to the following costs

The average "strike" cost at present is around £52 per MWh, the new Nuclear plants are to be given £92 per MWh in 10 years time and with wind at todays price of £76 per Mwh never mind the inflation increases for the next 10 years, there aint going to be much difference in cost between the two ..... The most expensive generator at present is onshore wind power.


Oh and not forgetting they grab £180 per MWh from the grid to stop producing electric, where as the other's coal, gas, and nuclear have to pay the grid to stop producing

[Rheghead]

Raghead quotes


Really!! Wind is cheap, pull the other. If you include all the subsidies given to the producer you will come to the following costs

The average "strike" cost at present is around £52 per MWh, the new Nuclear plants are to be given £92 per MWh in 10 years time and with wind at todays price of £76 per Mwh never mind the inflation increases for the next 10 years, there aint going to be much difference in cost between the two ..... The most expensive generator at present is onshore wind power.

You spelt my username wrong.

Wind power is the one of the cheapest forms of energy available. Any proper study backs that up.

You can even work out the cost of wind right now if you care to work that out but I suspect you don't want to prove yourself wrong publically on this forum.

The cost of wind and other renewables is dropping year on year. It has to, there is no fuel to buy. duh. By 2023, the cost of the overuns, the £14billion needed to build Hinkley will go up as it always does with these sort of things. It was £4 billion only 5 years ago.

[Rheghead]

The only reason why wind farm developers get money from ROCs is that there is a shortfall between what energy is produced and what the RO target current stands.

So if paying 'subsidies' to wind farm developers was your real concern in the energy market then you should be speaking up for more wind farms. But I suspect you won't.

[gerry4]

Your statement is wrong Gerry4 in that if it is a nuclear Power station and not like Dounreay or Sellafield, then the generating company(owner) is responsible for decommissioning costs.

Dounreay and Sellafield were never designed as Power Stations, but as experimental reactors for future commercial builds.

Yes you and I are left with the cost of these places but not with the actual Power Stations.

I think we will have to disagree as I and sure that decommissioning costs are not the responsibility of the generators. http://www.newstatesman.com/business...-power-station

[captain chaos]

Sorry Rheghead for the name change!!

If you dont belive me then here is the official point to download the Department for Energy and Climate change 2013 report on cost. These are the levalised costs so there can be no counterclaims.

As for working out the cost's and being shamed in public . let the report speak for itself.



https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-_24_07_13.pdf


Gerry4 also apologies. What i was meaning is that the new generation of stations that were announced the other day, must include putting aside so much per MWh to pay for the decommissioning in 20 or 30 years time.
Not all the old mix of reactors out there.

Hope this clears up a couple of points

[ywindythesecond]

I note all the comments on the subject but one little thing is missing and I can not wait to see anti wind farm group response as they always keep on about Wind Farm being subsidise now the Government has announced that they will do this on Power Stations so it seems the anti wind farm group will not be having happy Christmas this year as they do not agree with any power that has been subsidise

Every day UK imports large volumes of French nuclear generated electricity because it is good value for money. We have no ongoing responsibility for French nuclear decommissioning or waste storage, so it is a reasonable assumption that the French are happy with the price they charge.
New nuclear in UK is going to be much more expensive, not because it is dearer to generate, but because a false market has been created by subsidy to renewables and the closing of conventional generation before any reliable substitute is in place. If you were EDF would you agree to take say 6p per unit of reliable electricity (which would give a reasonable return), when wind gets 10p for unreliable electricity?
The answer is no. We are in this ridiculous situation because the market has been distorted first of all by ROCs and then by FiTs.
Nuclear will not be subsidised. Nuclear has a market advantage. Nuclear just has a tight hold on our vulnerable parts and is squeezing hard!
Don't blame EDF. Blame successive Governments for failing to have viable energy policies and also blame yourself and those of your persuasion for wilful blindness to reality.

[ywindythesecond]

You spelt my username wrong.

Wind power is the one of the cheapest forms of energy available. Any proper study backs that up.

You can even work out the cost of wind right now if you care to work that out but I suspect you don't want to prove yourself wrong publically on this forum.

The cost of wind and other renewables is dropping year on year. It has to, there is no fuel to buy. duh. By 2023, the cost of the overuns, the £14billion needed to build Hinkley will go up as it always does with these sort of things. It was £4 billion only 5 years ago.

You confuse, probably deliberately, the cost to the generator with the cost to the consumer, two very different things.

[Scout]

I think you are wrong

• Magazine
• Subscribe
• Advertise
• Classifieds
• Courses
• Shop

Why UK Government's Proposed £420 Billion Subsidy is Nuclear Madness

Donnachadh McCarthy |
Tuesday, 22nd October 2013
UK Government have proposed a £420 billion (minimum) subsidy for a French/Chinese consortium to build 12 nuclear production plants. We publish former Deputy Chair of the Liberal Democrats, Donnachadh McCarthy's letter giving 16 persuasive reasons why this is a both ecological and economic madness.




Former Deputy Chair of the Liberal Democrats, Donnachadh McCarthy, has written directly to Lib Dem DECC Secretary of State Ed Davey
Dear Ed ,
I hope this finds you well?
Re: Nuclear assault on Poor, Workers and UK Economy
I could hardly sleep last night thinking about the enormity of the crime committed yesterday by you, George Osborne and Ed Miliband over your agreement to massively subsidise China and EDF to build poisonous nuclear plants in the UK.
The proposed £420 billion (minimum) subsidy for 12 nuclear poison-production plants, would have created huge employment in the UK's energy efficiency and renewables industries.
This nuclear subsidy will to go to foreign firms as we no longer have the technological capacity in this old 1950s dirty technology.
This figure does not include the massive free open-ended blank cheque for free insurance to the French/Chinese consortium nor the increase in subsidy if/when renewables fall below current grid-price.
Thus the decision was a direct attack on UK workers with thousands of jobs sent overseas.
Secondly the decision means millions of the UK poor who could have had their energy bills eliminated through energy efficiency and home and decentralised renewables will now be kept in fuel-poverty for another generation.
Yesterday's announcement of the tearing up of the Lib Dem and Tory manifesto promises, and the coalition agreement for no subsidies to nuclear was accompanied by no basic cost/benefit analysis.
Where is the comparison for jobs created, carbon saved, fuel poverty eliminated and UK jobs created by investing £420 billion in nuclear poison creation v energy efficiency/regulation/renewables?!
Any responsible political party not in the pockets of their in-house party nuclear-lobbyists, would carry out such an independent analysis and publish it for scrutiny.
But the sorry fact is we have no such party of government - as all 3 parties are infected with internal bought nuclear lobbyists.
The list of other reasons why yesterday should be marked as a black day for the UK and its people is overwhelming:
* Nowhere to store the nuclear poisons
* Nuclear poisons will have to be stored "safely" for generations to come
* Over 90% of DECC (The Department of Energy and Climate Change) budget already consumed with storing / dealing with already produced nuclear poisons, with costs escalating every year, with no end in sight to this inflation.
* 1 in 100 nuclear plants have disastrously failed
* the nuclear plants proposed is a new unproven design
* the nuclear plants proposed are already years behind in Finland and France
* the nuclear plants proposed are already billions over budget in Finland and France
* Safe reliable existing alternative technologies already exist
* France, Germany and Italy all have rejected this 1950s technology and are pursuing renewables and energy efficiency instead thus creating thousands of jobs for their citizens
* Nuclear plays an irresponsible catastrophic Russian Roulette with our nation. A Fukushima catastrophe in Somerset would cause permanent evacuation of large areas of the county
* A Fukushima in Somerset would destroy offshore fishing industry of UK, Ireland and Scotland
* Nuclear power stations are a national existential terrorist security risk - the costs of making them safe from a Jumbo Jet suicide mission is enormous
* Many of the nuclear power stations are being built on low-lying coastal land that cannot be protected without huge costs to future generations, from the sea levels now inexorably rising due to the climate crisis
* The Glinsk renewable energy storage project in Ireland has the capacity of 2 nuclear power stations without any of the over-whelming risks and disadvantages above
* Every day of the week in my work as an eco-auditor, I encounter colossal waste of energy, from pointless daylight lighting to energy systems on in offices 24/7 to innumerable empty fridges to air-conditioned stores with wide open doors.
I am in no doubt you are building nuclear power stations to provide energy to be criminally wasted.
The list goes on and on. This is one of the largest ever criminal attacks on the UK state and the UK public by The Prostitute State.
Could I implore you to re-think this disastrous nightmarish decision and respect the promise to oppose nuclear white-elephants that you made each time you stood for election?
Yours sincerely
Donnachadh McCarthy FRSA
Donnachadh says: Please engage with your local MPs or those whom you know on this hugely important issue. Please feel free to use the letter I sent to Ed Davey as a basis if you wish.

[RagnarRocks]

Lots of naysayers for nuclear power but I note most of it is on price not safety, once again we've gone from being a world leader in this technology to just a poor cousin buying from elsewhere.

[ywindythesecond]

I think you are wrong

I picked out this:
"* The Glinsk renewable energy storage project in Ireland has the capacity of 2 nuclear power stations without any of the over-whelming risks and disadvantages above".

Apart from the fact that Glinsk has not yet been built, it will be a 6GWH 1200MW plant. http://www.organicpower.ie/pdf/glinsk/T1S5O3-slides.pdf
That means that it can provide 1200MW for 5 hours, and then it needs to wait till the wind picks up and refills it, and, as it is a "renewable energy storage project" it presumably only needs to be used when there is a shortage of renewable energy so it might be some time before it gets back up to speed. Meantime, the lights wont go off because we still have to have fossil or nuclear generation.

Being able to match the output of 2 nuclear power stations for 5 hours is not the same as having "the capacity of 2 nuclear power stations". That is the quality of Mr McCarthy's argument.

[Rheghead]

Sorry Rheghead for the name change!!

If you dont belive me then here is the official point to download the Department for Energy and Climate change 2013 report on cost. These are the levalised costs so there can be no counterclaims.

As for working out the cost's and being shamed in public . let the report speak for itself.



https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-_24_07_13.pdf


Gerry4 also apologies. What i was meaning is that the new generation of stations that were announced the other day, must include putting aside so much per MWh to pay for the decommissioning in 20 or 30 years time.
Not all the old mix of reactors out there.

Hope this clears up a couple of points

Oh the irony. You think you are settling some confusion and then you compare the current 'costs' with nuclear costs in 2023. You give no credit for the continuing reductions in costs of renewable energy over that time gap.