Alan Stainer

Tech head through and through.

Offshore wind power cheaper than new nuclear

by

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

Reader Interactions

Comments

  11. Alan Stainer says

    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.

  12. Alan Stainer says

    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.

  13. Alan Stainer says

    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.

  14. Alan Stainer says

    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.

  15. Alan Stainer says

    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.

  21. Synoptic 1 says

    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.

  22. Synoptic 1 says

    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.

  23. Synoptic 1 says

    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.

  24. Synoptic 1 says

    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.

  25. Synoptic 1 says

    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.

  26. Julian Bond says

    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.

  27. Julian Bond says

    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.

  28. Julian Bond says

    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.

  29. Julian Bond says

    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.

  30. Julian Bond says

    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.

  31. Alan Stainer says

    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.

  32. Alan Stainer says

    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.

  33. Alan Stainer says

    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.

  34. Alan Stainer says

    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.

  35. Alan Stainer says

    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.

  56. Mac Baird says

    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.

  57. Mac Baird says

    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.

  58. Mac Baird says

    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.

  59. Mac Baird says

    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.

  60. Mac Baird says

    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.