That is correct for 'tidal' energy such as the Severn barrage and the like, but not for tidal flow, (or tidal stream) which is a different technology. The UK gov has invested billions in tidal stream and it will become a more and more important energy source over the next 10 to 15 years.
Wind Turbines
- Thread starter Hysteresis
- Start date
Sponsored Links
If you want to know about financing this is one of the pages
world-nuclear.org
Linked to from a page that describes the various models.
Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom |UK Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association
Nuclear energy in the UK, nuclear power in the United Kingdom, the history of nuclear energy in the UK including nuclear power plants and facilities at Sellafield, Sizewell, Bradwell, Berkely, Hinkley, Hunterston, Hartlepool, Heysham, Oldbury, Wylfa, Dungeness, Braystones, Kirksanton
world-nuclear.org
Linked to from a page that describes the various models.
In related news;
"EDF has delayed the start-up of its new nuclear reactor in northern France by at least six more months, dealing a further blow to the country’s attempts to boost its weakened electricity output in the middle of Europe’s energy crisis.
The Flamanville 3 project, a next generation reactor, was already more than a decade behind schedule and is now expected to begin operations in the first quarter of 2024, rather than mid-2023.
The latest delays are linked to issues with repairing welds, the group said.
State-controlled EDF said on Friday that the total bill for the reactor would now reach €13.2bn, up from the last estimate of €12.7bn. The original cost had been estimated at €3.3bn.
The setback is another blow for the company, which has become a net power importer this year, after outages at its existing fleet of 56 reactors sent production tumbling."
"EDF has delayed the start-up of its new nuclear reactor in northern France by at least six more months, dealing a further blow to the country’s attempts to boost its weakened electricity output in the middle of Europe’s energy crisis.
The Flamanville 3 project, a next generation reactor, was already more than a decade behind schedule and is now expected to begin operations in the first quarter of 2024, rather than mid-2023.
The latest delays are linked to issues with repairing welds, the group said.
State-controlled EDF said on Friday that the total bill for the reactor would now reach €13.2bn, up from the last estimate of €12.7bn. The original cost had been estimated at €3.3bn.
The setback is another blow for the company, which has become a net power importer this year, after outages at its existing fleet of 56 reactors sent production tumbling."
I take a crumb of comfort that at least one other country suffers such huge runaways of costs.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,861
- Reaction score
- 718
- Country
Another 100 or so planned https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...eration/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
And I've been grinding through this while watching Graham Norton. Informative but of course, biased. Everything is biased...
world-nuclear.org
They got this right:
"In several countries, notably the UK, there is a trend towards greater vendor involvement in financing projects, but with an intention to relinquish equity once the plant is running."
And I've been grinding through this while watching Graham Norton. Informative but of course, biased. Everything is biased...
Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs - World Nuclear Association
Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation. Nuclear fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater.
world-nuclear.org
They got this right:
"In several countries, notably the UK, there is a trend towards greater vendor involvement in financing projects, but with an intention to relinquish equity once the plant is running."
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,861
- Reaction score
- 718
- Country
Yes,
Why isn't it how we want our energy to be managed?
I'll put it this way:
French company which owns half of the offshore wind farm off Skeggy is paid 30p/unit by HMG.
FrCo sells the energy for say 100p/unit.. Pays 70p to HMG less a margin to FrCo.
Energy companies - buy at 100 and sell to starving nurses + margin, say 120.
So starving nurse squeals about paying 120 while HMG is happy to get 70p of it just because of the way the prices are fixed.
Is that wrong or is it Stoopid?
Compared to the old days when we had chimneys belching out smoke and soot, yes.I think every house should have one in their back garden. And if they have really big gardens even more. They look so delightful all over the English countryside and hillsides.
But your suggestion is an unrealistic fantasy.
It's a concealed energy tax, paid by the consumer.
We have a government that instinctively wants to cut taxes for the rich.
Even today, £30,000 of dividends gets an easier ride than £30,000 of wages earned by a working man
This is fair, because, ummmm, errrrrrrr.......
(Wording corrected)
Wind turbines need clear space. Towns and cities make too much turbulence
A lot of the early Tory changes were aimed at reducing apparent gov running costs and also reducing debt. That I am afraid is entirely correct and still is. So they shift the load via privatisation. That still need debt so we are just paying for it another way. It also generates profit. That results in a corporation tax take if they can't find a way of avoiding it. Businesses will if they can. Ownership can move around the world. The funding can too. Also the profit. Even hedge funds are involved in some utilities as they are nice little steady earners. A safe bet with maybe lower returns than more risky areas.
There used to be a nice gov summary of privatisation gains about on the web. Can't find it now but the summary - a nice earner for the gov as well as the other gains.
Some where in the .org pages it points out why nuke is expensive. Capital intensive and significant duration of time before any return is seen. That and risk sets the cost of borrowing which in turn sets total cost and what needs to be charged to make it profitable even in terms of what it produces. They wont be short term loans. The good aspect as far as the UK is concerned is lots of jobs while they are being built and as much as possible obtained directly from the UK. Not so many when they are built and running. No where near as many.
Me LOL I wonder why gov's can't have an asset debt totally separate to what they use "to run the country",
In quotes as I think f'up the country applies at times.The real question really is do we need nuke. I'd suspect yes otherwise we wouldn't be going in that direction. The first COP was in 1995. Gov thought processes when solutions are painful are always slow. They'd rather not think about it. The vast bulk of the cost of greening is being passed to the public. All wind would clearly mean a lot of storage. Too much as running out would be a disaster. Even more wind so we always have too much. Hang on a minute, is that even feasible? TBH I wonder when gas usage will actually end as without it we will need plenty of storage or plenty of nuke. Creating hydrogen is extremely inefficient. Sunak's move on petro taxation is probably due to like;y rushes for LNG next year. We are "a bit" dependent on it now.
Modular small nuke stations. Sort of mass production. One E European country has already ordered 1/2 dozen.
Accoring to the web. What have we done? Well RR produced some drawing but is that more Dyson ventilators and JSB cases for them and a lot of similar covid aspects? RR will look at the market and see if they can compete and probably use Chinese companies to make bits if they can.A nuclear industry creates a reserve of experienced nuclear engineers, designers, and technicians
And also a store of fissile material.
UK is currently dependent on US for its nuclear submarines and weapons.
Countries with nuclear power all have, or want, nuclear weapons.
This is not a coincidence.
Better still, the citizens pay for the power at high prices, providing the resources, without the cost appearing in the defence budget.
And also a store of fissile material.
UK is currently dependent on US for its nuclear submarines and weapons.
Countries with nuclear power all have, or want, nuclear weapons.
This is not a coincidence.
Better still, the citizens pay for the power at high prices, providing the resources, without the cost appearing in the defence budget.
Ah, but what for?
Your info is out of date unless things have changed again. At one point ours subs picked up nuke missiles from a USA base. Went on their tour and then dropped them off to the same base when they returned. That ended a while ago and Americans say out bombs are just a copy of theirs
what you would expect. They are said not to be simple copies. Pride probably means they are not.Fissile 101 for you
Bombs. The biggest one exploded would have produce twice as much yield if plutonium had been added. The other basic materials are still needed and that comes down to separating the correct grade of uranium. Other materials can be added to increase yield even more.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,861
- Reaction score
- 718
- Country
Only about 330MW as far as far as I can find. Pretty Insignificant % anyway. Far East are doing more. I'd like to see a bigger trial. It's relatively impact free.
Sometime I'll try to work out what could come from turbine-ifying one of the gates at the Thames Barrier. A reliable 3m, sometimes more. It must have been considered in the beginning.
Sponsored Links
