Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Oct 23, 2018 11:51 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
PostPosted: Jun 01, 2018 9:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Quote:
... Their concerns were merited by local councillors, who suggested in March that the project – which has a total cost of about £20bn – could lead to an increase in homelessness.

HOMELESSNESS???
Something that generates that much wealth creating “homelessness”? SMH

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 09, 2018 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3836
Location: Alabama
Chinese nuclear plant developer will not seek UK state investment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 14, 2018 6:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
Now I just hope the build goes relatively well.

It is a relatively well proven design after all, although personally I would have preferred the ESBWR.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 31, 2018 5:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 09, 2017 4:31 pm
Posts: 18
I believe all the financing will be left to private investors. Put simply, the present government does not have the cash as it seeks to cut the budgetary deficit we have presently.

The metaphorical cherry for companies looking to build these plants I presume will be in the form of a fixed strike price for their electricity as was agreed for Hinkley C. I cannot see how the government will be able to justify offering any less to anyone else who builds a plant. It is interesting because the retail price of electricity in the UK, (speaking purely from a home-owner point of view) is roughly 12 pence per unit, so around £120/Mwh, so vastly more pricey than anything EDF will ever sell at £92.50/Mwh. Despite this, various spectators in the press were quick to jump on the deal as being off the scale ridiculous and costing UK consumers/tax payers billions and so on. I found this slightly incredulous personally as the tax payer hasn't spent any money to build the thing and I am already paying higher rates for electricity beyond what EDF will be paid anyway.

I had a theory that EDF were granted permission for a new plant by previous governments in return for them taking control of our existing reactor fleet, a ramshackle collection if there ever was one.

Interestingly I also have a landowner friend of mine who jumped on the solar panel bandwagon in the early stages and agreed to have some 30 acres of land selected for installation. He claimed he was being paid approximately £450/Mwh, how true that might be I have no idea. I do know that the national grid are now looking for land to build standby diesel generators and gas turbines to help balance the grid as a result of all the solar in the country.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 31, 2018 10:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2247
I do not expect a cost and material effective solution. Fast, preferably molten salt reactors could possibly help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2018 6:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
modifiedgenes wrote:
I believe all the financing will be left to private investors. Put simply, the present government does not have the cash as it seeks to cut the budgetary deficit we have presently.

The cost of the plant is negligible next to Government Spending.
The real reason financing will be left to private investors is because suggesting any form of public ownership or investment would be to hand lots of ammunition to the left wing - who are agitating for a return to public ownership after Brexit removes the de-facto prohibition on such required by the electricity directive.

modifiedgenes wrote:
I
The metaphorical cherry for companies looking to build these plants I presume will be in the form of a fixed strike price for their electricity as was agreed for Hinkley C. I cannot see how the government will be able to justify offering any less to anyone else who builds a plant. It is interesting because the retail price of electricity in the UK, (speaking purely from a home-owner point of view) is roughly 12 pence per unit, so around £120/Mwh, so vastly more pricey than anything EDF will ever sell at £92.50/Mwh. Despite this, various spectators in the press were quick to jump on the deal as being off the scale ridiculous and costing UK consumers/tax payers billions and so on. I found this slightly incredulous personally as the tax payer hasn't spent any money to build the thing and I am already paying higher rates for electricity beyond what EDF will be paid anyway.

The wholesale price of electricity in the UK is on order of £45/MWh

The high costs to the billpayer are merely a result of the failure of the Thatcherite "market" reforms to actually deliver an efficient and low cost electricity system.
Private capital has driven the cost of nuclear to ludicrous levels - using government financing even Hinkley Point would be looking at about £20/MWh at most.

modifiedgenes wrote:
Interestingly I also have a landowner friend of mine who jumped on the solar panel bandwagon in the early stages and agreed to have some 30 acres of land selected for installation. He claimed he was being paid approximately £450/Mwh, how true that might be I have no idea. I do know that the national grid are now looking for land to build standby diesel generators and gas turbines to help balance the grid as a result of all the solar in the country.

£450/MWh is about right for solar power in the early days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2018 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 09, 2017 4:31 pm
Posts: 18
I agree the cost of the plant is peanuts compared to total government spending but it is only one plant, as I understood, it, our present reactor fleet will be reaching end of life status within 30 years or so, hence a total successive spend of probably 100 billion at least, passed through parliament - modern day politics won't allow it, it is all short-term thinking now.

I was aware that the wholesale price of electricity was around £45 a megawatt-hour but I am confused as to why the press is outraged at the idea of Hinkley being paid £92.50 when solar farms were being paid £450 for the same!!

Regarding public ownership, I am afraid I don't believe a publicly owned company can do it. Heavens knows they tried for decades under various guises, the UK does not have a good track record in this regard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2018 6:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
modifiedgenes wrote:
I agree the cost of the plant is peanuts compared to total government spending but it is only one plant, as I understood, it, our present reactor fleet will be reaching end of life status within 30 years or so, hence a total successive spend of probably 100 billion at least, passed through parliament - modern day politics won't allow it, it is all short-term thinking now.

Well the Government could easily afford it given it spends eight hundred billion pounds every year!
The fact that modern politics has become dominated by the election cycle is another problem.
modifiedgenes wrote:
I was aware that the wholesale price of electricity was around £45 a megawatt-hour but I am confused as to why the press is outraged at the idea of Hinkley being paid £92.50 when solar farms were being paid £450 for the same!!

Because it is transparently a terrible deal, a government guaranteed income stream wtih a 9% return on investment is literally ridiculous.
modifiedgenes wrote:
Regarding public ownership, I am afraid I don't believe a publicly owned company can do it. Heavens knows they tried for decades under various guises, the UK does not have a good track record in this regard.

Public ownership delivered the second largest reactor fleet in the west during the 60s and 70s. And we had two thirds of the American output.

The price of electricity reductions after privatisation were delivered by the timely arrival of CCGTs, that would have arrived anyway, and massive reductions in the maintenance and renewals budget - which we are now paying for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 05, 2018 5:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 09, 2017 4:31 pm
Posts: 18
You can't possibly claim anything good came of the UK nuclear program, it created a raft of reactors, none of which were the same, all basically unique, not really deployed elsewhere and they will prove costly and problematic to decommission as a result.

Of course EDF have been guaranteed a good return on their investment, why else would they bother? Remember they have also agreed to be saddled with the on-going costs and problems with our current fleet as well, and in a country known for it's regulatory blundering.

The UK tax payer already has a big enough burden with the ever on-going nonsense at Sellafield, why would they commit more public money to build new reactors?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 05, 2018 7:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
modifiedgenes wrote:
You can't possibly claim anything good came of the UK nuclear program, it created a raft of reactors, none of which were the same, all basically unique, not really deployed elsewhere and they will prove costly and problematic to decommission as a result.

The programme had its downsides but it still managed to produce very large amounts of zero-carbon electricity at reasonable cost, as well as fulfilling the pressing defence requirements that were placed upon them.
Magnox reactors were some of the most operationally succesful power reactors ever built, they regularly scored better than 99% in annual capacity factor.

Indeed Oldbury and Wylfa could still have been running today, and would have been in a better regulatory environment. (In other words the Government wanted to get rid of them because they were publically owned and thus undermined the arguments for the EDF arrangement).

Decommisioning problems are comparable to those in other reactors of similar vintage, indeed we have a fully decommisioned gas graphite reactor which actually progressed relatively well (WAGR)
modifiedgenes wrote:
Of course EDF have been guaranteed a good return on their investment, why else would they bother?

Because the whole (stated) point of privatisation is that the private sector was supposed to take risks, rather than forcing them onto the taxpayer?
modifiedgenes wrote:
Remember they have also agreed to be saddled with the on-going costs and problems with our current fleet as well, and in a country known for it's regulatory blundering.

You mean the AGR fleet which is a licence to print money?
The teething problems of the design are behind us and with one minor exception in the pod-boiler reactors, the fleet is operating well.
modifiedgenes wrote:
The UK tax payer already has a big enough burden with the ever on-going nonsense at Sellafield, why would they commit more public money to build new reactors?

Because the public is on the hook anyway, the current model is an enormous PFI that will lead to the taxpayer paying far more than if they had simply bought the reactors themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group