EDF finance director resigns over Hinkley Point C
Whether you believe the rhetoric about the need for a nuclear power station or not, this is a major blow to the proposed power plant.
Surely distributed green power generation (wind, solar, etc.) is much more likely to succeed than this?
The price of energy has fallen, precipitated initially by the oversupply from the Fracking Industry and then from Iran’s entry to the Global Oil Market. No industry can survive when the price of their product falls below their production cost. http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=%24GJX&p=M&b=5&g=0&id=p31354092642&listNum=5&a=448664044
But I would add that with low prices, lower production eventually follows. The pendulum always swings too far in both directions.
Also existing wind and solar have been working to force down prices too. It all adds up.
The growth of renewable energy has been too slow to impact energy price equilibrium by itself. The uncontrolled production of Carbon Energy is the long pole in the tent due to a battle for market share by those holding the last reserves of cheap conventional oil. However, those reserves will only last another decade or two at the current rate of consumption. Then, the price of Carbon will return to demand destruction levels, which is good news for the alternatives. The production cost of wind and solar is still too high to survive without Government subsidies.
Mac Baird Why do people speculate on the amount of oil left in the earth? People have been saying the same thing for decades and will be saying it long after my life span. There are so many more untapped oil fields (not sure what you call an oil field at sea). The world is in no danger of running out in the timeframe you have given. Current oil fields will become exhausted as new ones open up elsewhere.
The answer is economics and mathematics. The last conventional (cheap $20+- production cost) oil field was discovered more than 40 years ago and has been depleting at about 3% per year. That means the field will be dry in less than 100 years from the first barrel pumped. All the remaining oil on the planet is unconventional (deep ocean, Arctic, Tar Sands, Shale and heavy crude) with a production cost (energy return on energy invested) EROEI that is currently 5 to 7 times more expensive. The World, especially the Third World, cannot afford oil much over $100 per barrel without going into a terminal economic depression. All the cheap low hanging fruit has been picked and is being consumed at a 3% rate at current demand levels and will be gone in our life span. The only way to extend the use of oil is to reduce demand with alternatives. However, when the cost of Climate Change is factored in to the consumption of all the remaining unconventional oil yet to be tapped, the cost of a barrel rises into the several hundreds of dollars.
Woohoo! Another nail in the coffin of this silly idea
Felix Watts What idea is that?
Warwick Williams, well, the idea to massively subsidise the construction of an outdated and overpriced reactor with no plans for how to deal with the high level radioactive waste that will continue to exist long after the EDF execs and government ministers have run away laughing with the billions of UK taxpayers cash.. I thought that was obvious :/
Felix Watts actually, it’s a new type of reactor. There are no others in existence, which is one of the reasons why the cost is so high.
Felix Watts Try to keep an open mind and resist the illogical hysteria about nuclear energy.
Having served on four nuclear submarines and a diesel electric, nuclear power has significant advantages, but price is not one of them. It is the same with nuclear power on land. The technology is expensive relative most other sources when the total cost of production and waste management are combined, requiring a relatively high retail price of energy sold over a long time to break even. The price of energy is expected to stay relatively low for a long time because of the on-going supply glut of oil due to the battle for market share.
Alan Stainer it’s not a new type. It’s a standard uranium reactor. It’s the same reaction that has been used in most reactors for decades. The reaction creates high level radioactive waste and was primarily chosen for its side effect of producing plutonium for weapons.
Warwick Williams I’m not against nuclear power and I’m not aware of anything I’ve said here that could be defined as irrational or hysteria.
Felix Watts it is going to use new EPR reactors, none of which have been finished yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)
Alan Stainer I know (and that’s hardly a recommendation). I was referring to the fact that it’s a standard uranium fission reactor, which has fundamental safety problems that don’t exist with other potential reactor types. The reaction is self sustaining so can get out if control. It produces lots of ionizing radiation and long lived isotopes that need safe storage for generations. It’s just a bad design and there are potentially better ones out there. The only reason these types of reactors are still being built is for political and military reasons, rather than economic.
The portable nuclear plants I used to work on for 20 years were a lot more fun. http://www.navy.mil/viewGallery.asp?id=17
Felix Watts
“I’m not against nuclear power and I’m not aware of anything I’ve said here that could be defined as irrational or hysteria.”
Everyone of your comments about the project has been negative. You repeat the words “high level radioactive waste” as if a reactor spews out tonnes and tonnes of the stuff every day. The last comment you made about why these reactors are being built does not take into account the alternative reactors are not here yet and unviable options. There are designs of reactors being tested now that run on nuclear waste. There are designs being being tested that are a fusion reactor. All these are still being developed.
Negative comments from bias people are unhelpful.
While nuclear power may not be renewable from the standpoint that there is a limited amount of Uranium economically available to Human production, it is environmentally cleaner than fossil energy. The waste and radiation are a concern for which we have technological solutions for containment, and the technology is improving across the entire spectrum of design, construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning. There are applications where nuclear power is superior to other available technologies at this point in time. Current global energy demand does not allow for an immediate exit from nuclear technology, but I expect that it will be gradually phased out and replaced by new technologies, some of which are being kept secret to avoid economic chaos caused by too rapid change. Industries are phased out over a generation or more, because employment, wealth and power are hard to dislodge without severe consequences to society. The Human Species will ultimately act in its own economic and environmental self-interest.
Having said that, we need to get rid of the old nuclear technology as soon as possible. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article64667452.html
Warwick Williams my comments are negative but they are also rational. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t make them irrational. If you disagree with anything I’ve said you need to address that point, not just dismiss me as irrational with no further explanation. Otherwise no one will take you seriously.
A nuclear power plant does produce thousands of tonnes of radioactive waste over its lifetime, whether this be the very toxic spent fuel or the less dangerous but still problematic irradiated materials, reactor parts and other waste streams.
Britain has no way to safely and permanently manage the already large stockpile of radioactive waste. There are vague plans to bury it but no site has been chosen (for some reason people tend not to want it near their village), the technology required to keep a storage facility sealed for hundreds of thousands of years, through earthquakes, floods, future civilisations etc is something pretty special and doesn’t exist today. You wouldn’t start building the runway after the aeroplane is already coming in to land so why would you start building the disposal facility after the radioactive waste is already being produced?
By the way, as well as paying EDF well above the market rate for its nuclear eletricity, the british government has agreed to take the radioactive waste off EDF hands, so then it becomes a problem of the uk taxpayer for the next 300000 years while EDF walks away! I say make EDF pay for the storage facility upfront, then we’ll see how economically viable nuclear energy really is.
Currently, private industry does not pay for the disposal and storage of nuclear waste at Government dump sites. That cost is totally covered by the tax payer. If disposal costs were included with the construction and O&M costs and passed to the Consumer, the Nuclear Power Industry would not be competitive against most, if not all, renewable energy alternatives. The same is true for the Fossil Energy Industry, which passes to the public all the costs associated with Climate Change and the pollution of air and water. The Government is effectively subsidizing the wealthy owners of the Nuclear and Fossil Energy Industries, who contribute $Billions to the election campaigns of their puppets. http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/02-12-multiplefiles/NT-11-1%20FINAL.pdf
The price paid by the Consumer drives consumption inversely. This is why a tax is necessary to cover the public cost of using Nuclear and Fossil Energy. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160311084112.htm
One thing that concerns me, is that with all the talk of energy security the government still think it is a good idea to build one massive reactor. That to me is a huge security risk.
Given the current number (100+) generating stations on the UK grid, security risk is no different for one station over another. http://geni.org/globalenergy/library/national_energy_grid/united-kingdom/unitedkingdomelectricitygrid.shtml
Felix Watts Very clever analogy Felix. I love how people handle the waste issue. On 1 hand you have people like yourself that make the problem sound like its a national emergency. And then there are people who are happy to use the products of nuclear science but don’t want to have an adult conversation about the waste. If this isn’t enough there are also people who are happy to be oblivious to the fact there is waste stored out the back of places like hospitals with little security but the moment someone wants to build a propper place for it they all of a sudden are concerned about the storage facility plans forgetting about the current situation. The anti nuclear lobby loves to sabotage and hijack this issue. A nuclear reactor will produce a lot of waste over its lifetime. The key point there is what is the life span of a reactor and just how much space is required to house this waste.
Actually Felix you might think your comments are well placed but they aren’t. The worlds energy demand is going nowhere but up. Whether you like it or not nuclear isn’t going away. The problem with people like yourself is you only talk about nuclear reactors as if they are only good for electricity weapons and waste. Here is a fun fact… They also produce medicines that have saved more lives than what nuclear has ever killed and thats including both bombs dropped on Japan. Something the negative people seem to keep forgetting.
The subject of nuclear waste is essentially the same as waste in general. Most people don’t care about it until they have to pay for it out of pocket with higher prices or with it being placed in their back yard. Most industries do a good job of deflecting the cost of their waste on the public at large by having the Government take care of it, whereas a consumption tax on the people/industries that create the waste would be more fair. Consumers would act in their economic self-interest and buy more of the stuff that costs or was taxed less. Consumers, as a group, are the most powerful force on the planet. They don’t care where their energy comes from, if all energy costs the same.
The risk of hacking and/or an earth quake, even the possibility of it being blown up is my concern.