• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Alan Stainer

Alan Stainer

Tech head through and through.

  • Home
  • Green Technology
  • Cool and Strange
  • About Alan

Offshore wind power cheaper than new nuclear

September 11, 2017 by Alan Stainer

Offshore wind power cheaper than new nuclear

Now this is a good day! I sincerely hope the UK government reverse their decision to commit to Hinkley Point C.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41220948

Edit: More information about the startling news can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/11/huge-boost-renewable-power-offshore-windfarm-costs-fall-record-low?CMP=share_btn_tw

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41220948

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Filed Under: Green Technology Tagged With: Alan Stainer

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. sridar krishnan says

    September 11, 2017 at 10:59 am

    Yes

    Loading...
  2. sridar krishnan says

    September 11, 2017 at 10:59 am

    Yes

    Loading...
  3. sridar krishnan says

    September 11, 2017 at 10:59 am

    Yes

    Loading...
  4. sridar krishnan says

    September 11, 2017 at 10:59 am

    Yes

    Loading...
  5. sridar krishnan says

    September 11, 2017 at 10:59 am

    Yes

    Loading...
  6. Synoptic 1 says

    September 11, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    nuclear power is reliable and we still have ore in Earth, do not seem good substitutes but complementary

    Loading...
  7. Synoptic 1 says

    September 11, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    nuclear power is reliable and we still have ore in Earth, do not seem good substitutes but complementary

    Loading...
  8. Synoptic 1 says

    September 11, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    nuclear power is reliable and we still have ore in Earth, do not seem good substitutes but complementary

    Loading...
  9. Synoptic 1 says

    September 11, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    nuclear power is reliable and we still have ore in Earth, do not seem good substitutes but complementary

    Loading...
  10. Synoptic 1 says

    September 11, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    nuclear power is reliable and we still have ore in Earth, do not seem good substitutes but complementary

    Loading...
  11. Alan Stainer says

    September 11, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    Synoptic 1 the problem with nuclear is that it may seem reliable, but when it goes wrong… it really goes badly for everyone for years and years and years. Not to mention all of that radioactive waste that needs to be stored for so many years it makes the whole thing seem ridiculous.

    Loading...
  12. Alan Stainer says

    September 11, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    Synoptic 1 the problem with nuclear is that it may seem reliable, but when it goes wrong… it really goes badly for everyone for years and years and years. Not to mention all of that radioactive waste that needs to be stored for so many years it makes the whole thing seem ridiculous.

    Loading...
  13. Alan Stainer says

    September 11, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    Synoptic 1 the problem with nuclear is that it may seem reliable, but when it goes wrong… it really goes badly for everyone for years and years and years. Not to mention all of that radioactive waste that needs to be stored for so many years it makes the whole thing seem ridiculous.

    Loading...
  14. Alan Stainer says

    September 11, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    Synoptic 1 the problem with nuclear is that it may seem reliable, but when it goes wrong… it really goes badly for everyone for years and years and years. Not to mention all of that radioactive waste that needs to be stored for so many years it makes the whole thing seem ridiculous.

    Loading...
  15. Alan Stainer says

    September 11, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    Synoptic 1 the problem with nuclear is that it may seem reliable, but when it goes wrong… it really goes badly for everyone for years and years and years. Not to mention all of that radioactive waste that needs to be stored for so many years it makes the whole thing seem ridiculous.

    Loading...
  16. Timothy Kangethe says

    September 11, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    And Cleaner as well.

    Loading...
  17. Timothy Kangethe says

    September 11, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    And Cleaner as well.

    Loading...
  18. Timothy Kangethe says

    September 11, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    And Cleaner as well.

    Loading...
  19. Timothy Kangethe says

    September 11, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    And Cleaner as well.

    Loading...
  20. Timothy Kangethe says

    September 11, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    And Cleaner as well.

    Loading...
  21. Synoptic 1 says

    September 12, 2017 at 3:57 am

    Alan Stainer … if it can go wrong it will go wong? worst danger is sabotage from low quality manufacturing. less problem to have waste stored while we find uses for it than free naturally ocurring ore mixed maybe with more useful materials. from a mountain down to a few barrels, that is a good tradeoff. this theme is not a nice discussion, it is a heavy modeling economics technical problem which includes risk.

    Loading...
  22. Synoptic 1 says

    September 12, 2017 at 3:57 am

    Alan Stainer … if it can go wrong it will go wong? worst danger is sabotage from low quality manufacturing. less problem to have waste stored while we find uses for it than free naturally ocurring ore mixed maybe with more useful materials. from a mountain down to a few barrels, that is a good tradeoff. this theme is not a nice discussion, it is a heavy modeling economics technical problem which includes risk.

    Loading...
  23. Synoptic 1 says

    September 12, 2017 at 3:57 am

    Alan Stainer … if it can go wrong it will go wong? worst danger is sabotage from low quality manufacturing. less problem to have waste stored while we find uses for it than free naturally ocurring ore mixed maybe with more useful materials. from a mountain down to a few barrels, that is a good tradeoff. this theme is not a nice discussion, it is a heavy modeling economics technical problem which includes risk.

    Loading...
  24. Synoptic 1 says

    September 12, 2017 at 3:57 am

    Alan Stainer … if it can go wrong it will go wong? worst danger is sabotage from low quality manufacturing. less problem to have waste stored while we find uses for it than free naturally ocurring ore mixed maybe with more useful materials. from a mountain down to a few barrels, that is a good tradeoff. this theme is not a nice discussion, it is a heavy modeling economics technical problem which includes risk.

    Loading...
  25. Synoptic 1 says

    September 12, 2017 at 3:57 am

    Alan Stainer … if it can go wrong it will go wong? worst danger is sabotage from low quality manufacturing. less problem to have waste stored while we find uses for it than free naturally ocurring ore mixed maybe with more useful materials. from a mountain down to a few barrels, that is a good tradeoff. this theme is not a nice discussion, it is a heavy modeling economics technical problem which includes risk.

    Loading...
  26. Julian Bond says

    September 12, 2017 at 5:20 am

    This is getting framed in the media as an either/or question when really it’s a both/and situation. We absolutely should be encouraging the build of wind farms, especially off-shore for all kinds of reasons. And in the process forcing the price down. But at the same time, the nuclear industry in the UK needs an overhaul because the process of building the next generation of power stations is out of control. And as well as the costs and subsidies given to Nuclear, the apparent need to keep re-inventing the designs is pushing build times way out into the future, when we need the capacity now, not in 10 years.

    As for the waste issue, it’s probably not that bad and BNFL has a lot of experience now locally in dealing with it. I tend to side with people like James Lovelock that local storage, followed by centralised re-processing can reduce the problem to really quite small quantities. More of an issue is de-commissioning. We have no real idea how to do this anywhere in the world. And it represents a considerable hidden subsidy to the industry as it’s really only governments that can pick up the bill.

    Loading...
  27. Julian Bond says

    September 12, 2017 at 5:20 am

    This is getting framed in the media as an either/or question when really it’s a both/and situation. We absolutely should be encouraging the build of wind farms, especially off-shore for all kinds of reasons. And in the process forcing the price down. But at the same time, the nuclear industry in the UK needs an overhaul because the process of building the next generation of power stations is out of control. And as well as the costs and subsidies given to Nuclear, the apparent need to keep re-inventing the designs is pushing build times way out into the future, when we need the capacity now, not in 10 years.

    As for the waste issue, it’s probably not that bad and BNFL has a lot of experience now locally in dealing with it. I tend to side with people like James Lovelock that local storage, followed by centralised re-processing can reduce the problem to really quite small quantities. More of an issue is de-commissioning. We have no real idea how to do this anywhere in the world. And it represents a considerable hidden subsidy to the industry as it’s really only governments that can pick up the bill.

    Loading...
  28. Julian Bond says

    September 12, 2017 at 5:20 am

    This is getting framed in the media as an either/or question when really it’s a both/and situation. We absolutely should be encouraging the build of wind farms, especially off-shore for all kinds of reasons. And in the process forcing the price down. But at the same time, the nuclear industry in the UK needs an overhaul because the process of building the next generation of power stations is out of control. And as well as the costs and subsidies given to Nuclear, the apparent need to keep re-inventing the designs is pushing build times way out into the future, when we need the capacity now, not in 10 years.

    As for the waste issue, it’s probably not that bad and BNFL has a lot of experience now locally in dealing with it. I tend to side with people like James Lovelock that local storage, followed by centralised re-processing can reduce the problem to really quite small quantities. More of an issue is de-commissioning. We have no real idea how to do this anywhere in the world. And it represents a considerable hidden subsidy to the industry as it’s really only governments that can pick up the bill.

    Loading...
  29. Julian Bond says

    September 12, 2017 at 5:20 am

    This is getting framed in the media as an either/or question when really it’s a both/and situation. We absolutely should be encouraging the build of wind farms, especially off-shore for all kinds of reasons. And in the process forcing the price down. But at the same time, the nuclear industry in the UK needs an overhaul because the process of building the next generation of power stations is out of control. And as well as the costs and subsidies given to Nuclear, the apparent need to keep re-inventing the designs is pushing build times way out into the future, when we need the capacity now, not in 10 years.

    As for the waste issue, it’s probably not that bad and BNFL has a lot of experience now locally in dealing with it. I tend to side with people like James Lovelock that local storage, followed by centralised re-processing can reduce the problem to really quite small quantities. More of an issue is de-commissioning. We have no real idea how to do this anywhere in the world. And it represents a considerable hidden subsidy to the industry as it’s really only governments that can pick up the bill.

    Loading...
  30. Julian Bond says

    September 12, 2017 at 5:20 am

    This is getting framed in the media as an either/or question when really it’s a both/and situation. We absolutely should be encouraging the build of wind farms, especially off-shore for all kinds of reasons. And in the process forcing the price down. But at the same time, the nuclear industry in the UK needs an overhaul because the process of building the next generation of power stations is out of control. And as well as the costs and subsidies given to Nuclear, the apparent need to keep re-inventing the designs is pushing build times way out into the future, when we need the capacity now, not in 10 years.

    As for the waste issue, it’s probably not that bad and BNFL has a lot of experience now locally in dealing with it. I tend to side with people like James Lovelock that local storage, followed by centralised re-processing can reduce the problem to really quite small quantities. More of an issue is de-commissioning. We have no real idea how to do this anywhere in the world. And it represents a considerable hidden subsidy to the industry as it’s really only governments that can pick up the bill.

    Loading...
  31. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 6:08 am

    For those that think safely storing nuclear waste is a sensible idea, here’s an extract from Wikipedia that demonstrates how long we are committing to nuclear waste storage.

    “Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years.”

    This stuff is dangerous and has to be protected for thousands of years. That costs a lot of money now and in the future.

    Loading...
  32. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 6:08 am

    For those that think safely storing nuclear waste is a sensible idea, here’s an extract from Wikipedia that demonstrates how long we are committing to nuclear waste storage.

    “Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years.”

    This stuff is dangerous and has to be protected for thousands of years. That costs a lot of money now and in the future.

    Loading...
  33. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 6:08 am

    For those that think safely storing nuclear waste is a sensible idea, here’s an extract from Wikipedia that demonstrates how long we are committing to nuclear waste storage.

    “Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years.”

    This stuff is dangerous and has to be protected for thousands of years. That costs a lot of money now and in the future.

    Loading...
  34. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 6:08 am

    For those that think safely storing nuclear waste is a sensible idea, here’s an extract from Wikipedia that demonstrates how long we are committing to nuclear waste storage.

    “Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years.”

    This stuff is dangerous and has to be protected for thousands of years. That costs a lot of money now and in the future.

    Loading...
  35. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 6:08 am

    For those that think safely storing nuclear waste is a sensible idea, here’s an extract from Wikipedia that demonstrates how long we are committing to nuclear waste storage.

    “Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years.”

    This stuff is dangerous and has to be protected for thousands of years. That costs a lot of money now and in the future.

    Loading...
  36. Julian Bond says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:11 am

    Alan Stainer Unfortunately en.wikipedia.org – Radioactive waste – Wikipedia doesn’t say anything about quantities of those two isotopes. Are we talking megatonnes or grams?

    Loading...
  37. Julian Bond says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:11 am

    Alan Stainer Unfortunately en.wikipedia.org – Radioactive waste – Wikipedia doesn’t say anything about quantities of those two isotopes. Are we talking megatonnes or grams?

    Loading...
  38. Julian Bond says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:11 am

    Alan Stainer Unfortunately en.wikipedia.org – Radioactive waste – Wikipedia doesn’t say anything about quantities of those two isotopes. Are we talking megatonnes or grams?

    Loading...
  39. Julian Bond says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:11 am

    Alan Stainer Unfortunately en.wikipedia.org – Radioactive waste – Wikipedia doesn’t say anything about quantities of those two isotopes. Are we talking megatonnes or grams?

    Loading...
  40. Julian Bond says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:11 am

    Alan Stainer Unfortunately en.wikipedia.org – Radioactive waste – Wikipedia doesn’t say anything about quantities of those two isotopes. Are we talking megatonnes or grams?

    Loading...
  41. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:18 am

    I think the thumbnail in your comment says it all Julian Bond There is tonnes of the stuff.

    Loading...
  42. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:18 am

    I think the thumbnail in your comment says it all Julian Bond There is tonnes of the stuff.

    Loading...
  43. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:18 am

    I think the thumbnail in your comment says it all Julian Bond There is tonnes of the stuff.

    Loading...
  44. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:18 am

    I think the thumbnail in your comment says it all Julian Bond There is tonnes of the stuff.

    Loading...
  45. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:18 am

    I think the thumbnail in your comment says it all Julian Bond There is tonnes of the stuff.

    Loading...
  46. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:28 am

    Julian Bond “A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel.”

    Quote taken from this page on the Nuclear Energy Institute website. https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste

    Loading...
  47. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:28 am

    Julian Bond “A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel.”

    Quote taken from this page on the Nuclear Energy Institute website. https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste

    Loading...
  48. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:28 am

    Julian Bond “A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel.”

    Quote taken from this page on the Nuclear Energy Institute website. https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste

    Loading...
  49. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:28 am

    Julian Bond “A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel.”

    Quote taken from this page on the Nuclear Energy Institute website. https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste

    Loading...
  50. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:28 am

    Julian Bond “A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel.”

    Quote taken from this page on the Nuclear Energy Institute website. https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste

    Loading...
  51. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:33 am

    Then of course you need to find somewhere to store the nuclear waste, which is a problem in itself as highlighted by this story from 2016. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35096566

    Loading...
  52. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:33 am

    Then of course you need to find somewhere to store the nuclear waste, which is a problem in itself as highlighted by this story from 2016. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35096566

    Loading...
  53. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:33 am

    Then of course you need to find somewhere to store the nuclear waste, which is a problem in itself as highlighted by this story from 2016. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35096566

    Loading...
  54. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:33 am

    Then of course you need to find somewhere to store the nuclear waste, which is a problem in itself as highlighted by this story from 2016. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35096566

    Loading...
  55. Alan Stainer says

    September 12, 2017 at 7:33 am

    Then of course you need to find somewhere to store the nuclear waste, which is a problem in itself as highlighted by this story from 2016. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35096566

    Loading...
  56. Mac Baird says

    September 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm

    Nuclear Utility Power is the most expensive source of electricity on the planet when all the costs of mining, construction, operation, decommissioning and disposal are included. That does not include the costs of accidents. If the liabilities of nuclear power were not covered by public funding, the industry is not economically viable.

    Loading...
  57. Mac Baird says

    September 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm

    Nuclear Utility Power is the most expensive source of electricity on the planet when all the costs of mining, construction, operation, decommissioning and disposal are included. That does not include the costs of accidents. If the liabilities of nuclear power were not covered by public funding, the industry is not economically viable.

    Loading...
  58. Mac Baird says

    September 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm

    Nuclear Utility Power is the most expensive source of electricity on the planet when all the costs of mining, construction, operation, decommissioning and disposal are included. That does not include the costs of accidents. If the liabilities of nuclear power were not covered by public funding, the industry is not economically viable.

    Loading...
  59. Mac Baird says

    September 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm

    Nuclear Utility Power is the most expensive source of electricity on the planet when all the costs of mining, construction, operation, decommissioning and disposal are included. That does not include the costs of accidents. If the liabilities of nuclear power were not covered by public funding, the industry is not economically viable.

    Loading...
  60. Mac Baird says

    September 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm

    Nuclear Utility Power is the most expensive source of electricity on the planet when all the costs of mining, construction, operation, decommissioning and disposal are included. That does not include the costs of accidents. If the liabilities of nuclear power were not covered by public funding, the industry is not economically viable.

    Loading...

Primary Sidebar

Categories

  • Cool and Strange (373)
  • General (1)
  • Green Technology (375)
  • Halloween Stories (5)
  • Linux (56)
  • My Technology Columns (171)
  • Photography (3)
  • Rants (7)
  • SEO (103)
  • Software (240)
  • Technology (68)
  • Web Design (6)
  • West Sussex (28)

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,005 other subscribers

Top Posts & Pages

  • Netflix adds support for Firefox on Linux
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
South Downs Tech
South Downs Web
Long Shadow Games

Social

  • Mastodon
  • MeWe
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · South Downs Tech 2020 on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

%d