UK Energy policy lurches from incompetent to disastrous
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Sponsored Links
ATEOTD, if the only way that nuclear power generation can be made to be "commercially viable" by paying getting on for twice what the power is actually worth then there are really only two sensible options to deal with it.
1) The state builds and runs the electricity generating business, with its swings and roundabouts of different costs of the different parts needed for a cohesive, secure, (as) environmentally sound (as possible) provision, on the basis (which also applies to a number of other areas) that that is just what the state ought to do to fulfil it's basic responsibility to provide critical infrastructure for the nation.
2) We don't have nuclear power.
1) The state builds and runs the electricity generating business, with its swings and roundabouts of different costs of the different parts needed for a cohesive, secure, (as) environmentally sound (as possible) provision, on the basis (which also applies to a number of other areas) that that is just what the state ought to do to fulfil it's basic responsibility to provide critical infrastructure for the nation.
2) We don't have nuclear power.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/05/why-nuclear-power-is-not-low-carbon/
https://timeforchange.org/co2-emission-nuclear-power-stations-electricity
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/blog/whats-more-nuclear-power-not-source-low-carbon-electricity
https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-power-not-low-carbon
But again, which 'state'?
The UK no longer has the technical capabilities, since the nuclear industry has been 'outsourced'!
And what happened to the claim that generating electricity by nuclear power would be so cheap it would be almost free?
Sponsored Links
Ive never been a fan of nuclear power, its not cheap -the figures in the past have been fudged because historically it got subsidies from other energy methods.
Also virtually no nuclear power stations have been decommissioned anywhere in the world.
Also virtually no nuclear power stations have been decommissioned anywhere in the world.
Why is it? Do you know that?
When you have a contract, you have a contract. Hitachi do what they were contracted to do, the UK Gov pays them what they are contracted to pay. It's quite simple.
That was a claim when they thought nuclear fusion was but a few years away.
This data comes from Prof Adisa Azapagic, who developed Ccalc (an award winning carbon calculator), and is reflected in various other studies, including the IPCC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources
The only sources which gives a high value of carbon from nuclear derives from Leeuwan (a crank paid by Greenpeace), and Barnham (who seems confused about construction issues compared to the life of the plant (which will run between 40-60 years)). These are the sources you have quoted.
Another discussion here:
http://theconversation.com/is-nuclear-power-zero-emission-no-but-it-isnt-high-emission-either-41615
They are prepared to take a £2.4bn hit toget out of it.
Toshiaki Higashihara, CEO of Hitachi, said in March 2016 before the referendum that his firm was against Brexit and it’d have to review its uk investments including the nuclear project if we voted to leave the EU.
So they watched how Brexit developed, and have now pulled out due to how its going.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
Chris Grayling let Virgin end a contract early before the big payments had been made, saving them hundreds of millions.
Circle healthcare walked away from another brilliant idea of contracting out the operation of a hospital.
I dont think that is true.
Brexit has not been cited as the primary reason.
No doubt Brexit will be blamed for everything and anything for decades to come......
Which is nonsense because it has not happened yet and no-one knows what arrangements are in place. So it's not because of Brexit.
This is not the BBC, and not everying that happens in the world is because of or despite of Brexit
They had a contract, and those terms were explicit. What is more likely is that they messed up in the bid or bid costs and so they needed to pull out and pay those costs or risk greater costs due to their own failures. No company will pull out of a contract based on unknowns and guesswork about what may or may not happen, as the contract grants surety.
"The prime minister has been accused of focusing on Brexit rather than fighting to ensure a new nuclear power station planned for Anglesey goes ahead."
"Unite the union said it was "astonished" that the situation was not discussed by Theresa May and Japan's Shinzo Abe when they met on Thursday.
"This was an abdication of responsibility by Theresa May," said the union's national officer for energy, Peter McIntosh.
"The project appears to be teetering on the brink which would be a really big setback for the UK's future energy policy.""
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46841067
It is a factor, as the Government has poured so much resource into Brexit. And the prolonged uncertainty cannot be ignored of course.
Or here:
https://utilityweek.co.uk/hitachis-wylfa-nuclear-project-verge-collapse/
“The Japanese prime minister was in Downing Street only yesterday – did the prime minister even think to raise the issue of nuclear new build or was the only thing on her mind the chance to take advantage of his visit to try to give another futile boost to her Brexit deal? It is fast becoming clear that if it’s not Brexit, then this prime minister and her ministers are unwilling to execute their responsibilities as a government.
As opposed to Brexiteers who claim that 'nothing bad is down to us'?
Aside from the fact that Hitachi said they were looking again at their investments in the UK, if they were to be paid in sterling then that also now has a negative effect on the project.
Maybe you could tell us why sterling has fallen since June 2016 if not because of Brexit?
Sponsored Links