Hinkley Point C - C stands for CON

[SirGalahad]

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/hinkley-point-c/

Today’s report finds that the Department has not sufficiently considered the costs and risks of its deal for consumers. It only considered the impact on bills up to 2030, which does not take account of the fact that consumers are locked into paying for Hinkley Point C long afterwards. It also did not conclude whether the forecast top-up payments are affordable.

The government’s case for the project has weakened since it agreed key commercial terms on the deal in 2013. Delays have pushed back the nuclear power plant’s construction, and the expected cost of top-up payments under the Hinkley Point C’s contract for difference has increased from £6 billion to £30 billion. But the Department’s capacity to take alternative approaches to the deal were limited after it had agreed terms. The government has increasingly emphasised Hinkley Point C’s unquantified strategic benefits, but it has little control over these and no plan yet in place to realise them.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...demns-risky-expensive-hinkley-point-c-nuclear

Under the terms of the 35-year contract, EDF is guaranteed a price of £92.50 per megawatt hour it generates, twice the wholesale price.

The subsidy is paid through energy bills, which the government estimates will translate to a £10 to £15 chunk of the average household bill by 2030.

At the heart of the spending watchdog’s criticism is the coalition government’s failure to look at any alternative financing model, such as taking an upfront stake in the £18bn project.

This is either ineptness on a grand scale or corruption.

If Theresa was any sort of leader she would have cancelled this.

 

[Ihavenojob]

Or we could do nothing & suffer blackouts.

 

[Doggit]

This is either ineptness on a grand scale or corruption.

Just unadulterated ineptness, pure and simple - with the inevitable amount of corruptness somewhere along the line.

Or we could do nothing & suffer blackouts.

Actually, Kanks got a point; there are alternatives. I listened to a very interesting discussion on the radio, whereby they have mini reactors putting out 300 megawatt at a time that are already developed. They could be installed quickly, but you'd need more of them, and they have to be situated in places that would make some very nervous.

 

[crystal ball]

There are quite a few already installed near to population centres, AFAIK there have been no major problems, just happen to be on submarines

 

[Doggit]

And they are a lot smaller, moveable, and not very well advertised; and I doubt if the general public even realises what's in a nucleur sub. But the points well taken.

 

[wobs]

Part of me thinks "just build the thing!". We can complain about the way it was funded etc. but we've been (or politicians have) talking about it for years. Because if we don't, where would that leave us? More interconnectors to Norway/France etc, and more energy costs, or more carbon emissions.

We don't have time to develop our own, and there are only a few alternatives out there. Modular systems aren't really appropriate IMHO, owing to the scale of the issues at hand.

In the meantime, look to a PRISM system to use the plutonium up (please!) in addition to HP C.

An interesting discussion on options here:
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/the-alternatives-for-uk-nuclear/

 

[SirGalahad]

Actually, Kanks got a point; there are alternatives. I listened to a very interesting discussion on the radio, whereby they have mini reactors putting out 300 megawatt at a time that are already developed. They could be installed quickly, but you'd need more of them, and they have to be situated in places that would make some very nervous.

There are also WAMSR that are being developed. The ridiculous cost and ongoing commitments for decades makes Hinkley C a waste of resources.

 

[SirGalahad]

Or we could do nothing & suffer blackouts.

I suggest you read up on alternatives and form a coherent opinion.

 

[SirGalahad]

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/chart/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb

There has been a trend in electricity production with a move towards smaller scale and closer to the point of consumption - ie you can have a wind turbine or solar panels on your property to potential small scale Nuclear power plants nearer to urban areas.

Building Hinkley C seems to fly in the face of this for no benefit other than it being another vanity project like HS2.

 

[wv62]

I suggest you read up on alternatives and form a coherent opinion.

The only real viable alternative to nuclear is to build more CCGT sites. Renewables (solar & wind) are NOT a viable alternative. We already have small diesel generator sets scattered around the country which put out more pollution (and which are subsidised). We struggled to meet demand last winter. With some of the older CCGT sites now getting near to expected life end it's time we did something and fast.

 

[JohnD]

The only real viable alternative to nuclear is to build more CCGT sites.

What a pity we don't live on an island surrounded by water. We could use the tides and waves to generate power if we did. I'm pretty sure that tides flow every day of the year, day and night, summer and winter.

Of course it would need to be an island with some quite big bays and estuaries that could have a barrage built. Even a country with a substantial coastline would do.

Do we know any countries like that? If there were, I'm sure the idea of a barrage would have been identified, oooh, let's say, at least fifty years ago. Maybe a hundred. Let's hope the government of such a country wasn't influenced by the huge, wealthy, fossil fuel industry and the nuclear lobby.

 

[wobs]

What a pity we don't live on an island surrounded by water. We could use the tides and waves to generate power if we did. I'm pretty sure that tides flow every day of the year, day and night, summer and winter.

Of course it would need to be an island with some quite big bays and estuaries that could have a barrage built. Even a country with a substantial coastline would do.

Do we know any countries like that? If there were, I'm sure the idea of a barrage would have been identified, oooh, let's say, at least fifty years ago. Maybe a hundred. Let's hope the government of such a country wasn't influenced by the huge, wealthy, fossil fuel industry and the nuclear lobby.

I'm quoting yours, but Kankerot suffers from the same misunderstanding of the issues.

Nuclear power provides a different type of supply than most renewables. This includes tidal, solar or wind. We have had a demand for 63GW in the past, and with economic growth, that will only increase (no matter how much we push for efficiencies).

The intermittency of renewables means that they cannot supply baseload supply effectively. They are not designed for it, and there is no reason to pretend that they are. Tidal is also intermittent, albeit predictable, but with few viable locations (see also wave). Solar and wind are great for the type of supply they provide, as long as we have a gas supply as well, and given we currently burn more gas than anything else (over 17GW earlier today), we need to cut this use ASAP, and move nuclear for baseload supply, so gas can be used to address the variable demands.

Nuclear power is the only option the UK has for a low carbon baseload supply. We have no large scale hydro, we have no storage on that scale that is viable (and if we did it would just addd to the cost of any intermittent supply), and we need to cut carbon emissions.

The opposition to nuclear power is based upon fear. And nothing else.

 

[JohnD]

Tidal is also intermittent, albeit predictable, but with few viable locations

I'm interested in your suggestion that tidal flow is intermittent.

Please give me a time of day, today, when you think there would be no tidal movement in or out around the coast of GB.

Your idea that GB has few bays and estuaries is such nonsense that I shall disregard it.

 

[wobs]

I'm interested in your suggestion that tidal flow is intermittent.

Please give me a time of day, today, when you think there would be no tidal movement in or out around the coast of GB.

Your idea that GB has few bays and estuaries is such nonsense that I shall disregard it.

A tidal range has two slack times.
Locations are limited, as you need the right conditions. Obviously, the Seven would be a good location, but few other estuaries have the tidal range or size.

A barrage system is very intermittent, with about 12hrs per day of production, but even a turbine is limited at slack tides about (20hrs per day). And a turbine is limited as you need sufficient depth and current. Then you have to ensure that its in a location that is sufficiently close to demand, as they don't produce that much power on an individual basis, so a again, you need the right location. You can't just look at the UK and because we have lots of coast, assume we have lots of potential. The truth is that we don't.

This ignores the environmental drawbacks such as impacts on wildlife.

So even though you have a predictable supply, you still need a back up such as gas, and its unlikely you'll get much benefit from the economies of scale, as many will have to be designed to fit the location (this was the main objection to the Seven Barrage). We have looked into it on the Humber, but it was abandoned.

Edit: Oh yes, and its expensive.

 

[JohnD]

A tidal range has two slack times.

Please give me a time of day, today, when you think there would be no tidal movement in or out around the coast of GB.