Government to waste Taxpayers Money on Nuclear Power

[ADK]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24604218

[pSinatra]

 

"For the first time, a nuclear station in this country will not have been built with money from the British taxpayer," said Secretary of State for Energy Edward Davey.

 

 

 

I'm confused

[Zingari]

"The announcement is not legally binding and it will be 2014 before EDF makes a final investment decision on the project. The plans will also require state aid clearance from the European Commission."

 

So am I   

[The God Emperor]

pumping all this money into nuclear power and not one superhero yet. think it's time to call it day if you ask me

[Strokes]

Its a strange article, and gives off the impression we will pay more per unit. But then at the end states it is expected to reduce costs.

I can only think if its higher that the wholesale price of current power, then there must be a transportation cost.

[l444ry]

So will China and Japan take the nuclear waste back home? If not, the decommissioning costs will be borne by the taxpayer. And whose back garden are they gonna use this time? 

[MooseBreath]

It won't be built for at least ten years and will provide energy for about 50 years. The government obviously think electricity prices are going to rise a fair bit so that by the time we're paying that rate it will be relatively good value. Tough decision but ultimately we need to replace power stations quickly and any more kicking of the can down the road could be disastrous, so fair play to the government for actually doing something rather than nothing.

Lots of benefits to be had regarding employment as well. About 20k jobs most of which will be British and lots of which will be high skilled.

[ADK]

Its a strange article, and gives off the impression we will pay more per unit. But then at the end states it is expected to reduce costs.

I can only think if its higher that the wholesale price of current power, then there must be a transportation cost.

 

It's clever wording strokes, the government pays a premium for the energy produced. The costs referred to are private energy bills. One is coming out of public funds (tax money) the other is the bill you pay to your electricity supplier.

 

If it will really reduce the price of electricity then it only makes the premium agreed by the government even worse value for money.

[ADK]

It won't be built for at least ten years and will provide energy for about 50 years. The government obviously think electricity prices are going to rise a fair bit so that by the time we're paying that rate it will be relatively good value. Tough decision but ultimately we need to replace power stations quickly and any more kicking of the can down the road could be disastrous, so fair play to the government for actually doing something rather than nothing.

Lots of benefits to be had regarding employment as well. About 20k jobs most of which will be British and lots of which will be high skilled.

 

An energy firm isn't going to sign a contract and agree to building a £20 Billion power station unless there is money in it. And why do you think the government of today would care about getting good value for the taxpayer in 2030? Will we be able to hold them to account in 18 years time?

 

We don't need to build nuclear power stations when other sources like gas wind and solar can be built at much shorter notice.

[Strokes]

It's clever wording strokes, the government pays a premium for the energy produced. The costs referred to are private energy bills. One is coming out of public funds (tax money) the other is the bill you pay to your electricity supplier.

If it will really reduce the price of electricity then it only makes the premium agreed by the government even worse value for money.

Thats just it, it isnt clever wording. It leads you to believe one thing then states another, it is like the article is missing a huge chunk of information.

Energy prices will continue to rise, even if the companies were given energy for free. The only way out of this ridiculous mess is off grid solar, but that will never be promoted.

[Jon the Hat]

An energy firm isn't going to sign a contract and agree to building a £20 Billion power station unless there is money in it. And why do you think the government of today would care about getting good value for the taxpayer in 2030? Will we be able to hold them to account in 18 years time?

 

We don't need to build nuclear power stations when other sources like gas wind and solar can be built at much shorter notice.

 

Gas is a finite resource, and one controlled by the Russians and the Middle east once our North Sea resources run low.  Fracking might come to the rescue or it might not.  Wind & Solar have their place, but they don't offer the consistency of Nuclear power.  Ultimately if we don't have nuclear generation in the mix, we leave ourselves subject to the external market, and that would be a very bad idea.

[ADK]

Gas isn't going to run out any time in the next 200 years so I would hardly worry about it being a finite resource. I'd be surprised if fracking didn't take off considering its success in the US especially if the price of gas rises. If the absolute worst happened we still have huge coal reserves to tap into.

[MooseBreath]

Gas isn't going to run out any time in the next 200 years so I would hardly worry about it being a finite resource. I'd be surprised if fracking didn't take off considering its success in the US especially if the price of gas rises. If the absolute worst happened we still have huge coal reserves to tap into.

What makes you think we'll be able to get a better price for any other type of energy?

[Jon the Hat]

Gas isn't going to run out any time in the next 200 years so I would hardly worry about it being a finite resource. I'd be surprised if fracking didn't take off considering its success in the US especially if the price of gas rises. If the absolute worst happened we still have huge coal reserves to tap into.

 

Like I said, the bulk of the Gas is still controlled by people who either don't like us very much or are focussed on getting as much cash out of us as possible.  Have a nuclear capacity makes a lot of sense.

[lavrentis]

If it means importing less energy then good idea imo

[Alf Bentley]

Gas is a finite resource, and one controlled by the Russians and the Middle east once our North Sea resources run low.  Fracking might come to the rescue or it might not.  Wind & Solar have their place, but they don't offer the consistency of Nuclear power.  Ultimately if we don't have nuclear generation in the mix, we leave ourselves subject to the external market, and that would be a very bad idea.

 

I've no idea whether this EDF/Hinkley Point deal is a good one, but everything that I've read by experts suggests that Jon is right and that nuclear power has to be part of the mix, at least in the medium-term.

 

Give it a few decades and research/technology may mean that renewables become a more reliable energy source - or that nuclear fusion (as opposed to fission) becomes a viable source of power, as it seems to be deemed potentially a safer and better energy source. Then, maybe, nuclear fission could be phased out.

 

But none of that is going to happen for several decades and we seriously don't want to be dependent on the volatile Middle East or Russia (essentially a semi-hostile mafia state) for our energy. Most experts believe that is the alternative. This is something the Greens have got wrong, from everything I've read, even if they do have good ideas (moving away from consumption/ materialism/depletion of resources towards quality of life; energy conservation; developing renewables).

 

The fears about the dangers of nuclear power also tend to be overstated. Of course, there have been disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, but very few and usually only in extreme circumstances (collapsing USSR empire, tsunami in Japan). It's unclear how many died or will die as a result of Chernobyl....but we know that countless thousands have died over the years in mining accidents, and even in road traffic accidents, yet nobody calls for mining or car driving to be banned on safety grounds. It's a case of minimising risk in a world that is not risk-free, surely?

[Jon the Hat]

I've no idea whether this EDF/Hinkley Point deal is a good one, but everything that I've read by experts suggests that Jon is right and that nuclear power has to be part of the mix, at least in the medium-term.

 

Give it a few decades and research/technology may mean that renewables become a more reliable energy source - or that nuclear fusion (as opposed to fission) becomes a viable source of power, as it seems to be deemed potentially a safer and better energy source. Then, maybe, nuclear fission could be phased out.

 

But none of that is going to happen for several decades and we seriously don't want to be dependent on the volatile Middle East or Russia (essentially a semi-hostile mafia state) for our energy. Most experts believe that is the alternative. This is something the Greens have got wrong, from everything I've read, even if they do have good ideas (moving away from consumption/ materialism/depletion of resources towards quality of life; energy conservation; developing renewables).

 

The fears about the dangers of nuclear power also tend to be overstated. Of course, there have been disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, but very few and usually only in extreme circumstances (collapsing USSR empire, tsunami in Japan). It's unclear how many died or will die as a result of Chernobyl....but we know that countless thousands have died over the years in mining accidents, and even in road traffic accidents, yet nobody calls for mining or car driving to be banned on safety grounds. It's a case of minimising risk in a world that is not risk-free, surely?

 

Yes.  There is something about radiation that scares us much more than is sensible.  Probably the fact you cannot see it or feel it.

[ADK]

I've no idea whether this EDF/Hinkley Point deal is a good one, but everything that I've read by experts suggests that Jon is right and that nuclear power has to be part of the mix, at least in the medium-term.

 

Give it a few decades and research/technology may mean that renewables become a more reliable energy source - or that nuclear fusion (as opposed to fission) becomes a viable source of power, as it seems to be deemed potentially a safer and better energy source. Then, maybe, nuclear fission could be phased out.

 

But none of that is going to happen for several decades and we seriously don't want to be dependent on the volatile Middle East or Russia (essentially a semi-hostile mafia state) for our energy. Most experts believe that is the alternative. This is something the Greens have got wrong, from everything I've read, even if they do have good ideas (moving away from consumption/ materialism/depletion of resources towards quality of life; energy conservation; developing renewables).

 

The fears about the dangers of nuclear power also tend to be overstated. Of course, there have been disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, but very few and usually only in extreme circumstances (collapsing USSR empire, tsunami in Japan). It's unclear how many died or will die as a result of Chernobyl....but we know that countless thousands have died over the years in mining accidents, and even in road traffic accidents, yet nobody calls for mining or car driving to be banned on safety grounds. It's a case of minimising risk in a world that is not risk-free, surely?

 

Germany is phasing out nuclear generation completely, if Europe's largest economy is going to go nuclear free then I don't see why we couldn't. Perhaps you could link to some of these "experts". I don't mind people suggesting there is a case for new nuclear plants, but trying to pass it off as a necessity is inaccurate.  

[pSinatra]

Germany is phasing out nuclear generation completely, if Europe's largest economy is going to go nuclear free then I don't see why we couldn't. Perhaps you could link to some of these "experts". I don't mind people suggesting there is a case for new nuclear plants, but trying to pass it off as a necessity is inaccurate.  

 

If they don't find an alternative form of energy by the time they eventually phase out nuclear energy, what are they going to do?  Return to fossil fuels or import their energy from France & Russia?  Sounds familiar.

[Jon the Hat]

If they don't find an alternative form of energy by the time they eventually phase out nuclear energy, what are they going to do?  Return to fossil fuels or import their energy from France & Russia?  Sounds familiar.

 

They are building a load of new coal powerstations, and planning to cut emissions by 40%, with the requisite efficiency drive.

[leicsmac]

I've no idea whether this EDF/Hinkley Point deal is a good one, but everything that I've read by experts suggests that Jon is right and that nuclear power has to be part of the mix, at least in the medium-term.

 

Give it a few decades and research/technology may mean that renewables become a more reliable energy source - or that nuclear fusion (as opposed to fission) becomes a viable source of power, as it seems to be deemed potentially a safer and better energy source. Then, maybe, nuclear fission could be phased out.

 

But none of that is going to happen for several decades and we seriously don't want to be dependent on the volatile Middle East or Russia (essentially a semi-hostile mafia state) for our energy. Most experts believe that is the alternative. This is something the Greens have got wrong, from everything I've read, even if they do have good ideas (moving away from consumption/ materialism/depletion of resources towards quality of life; energy conservation; developing renewables).

 

The fears about the dangers of nuclear power also tend to be overstated. Of course, there have been disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, but very few and usually only in extreme circumstances (collapsing USSR empire, tsunami in Japan). It's unclear how many died or will die as a result of Chernobyl....but we know that countless thousands have died over the years in mining accidents, and even in road traffic accidents, yet nobody calls for mining or car driving to be banned on safety grounds. It's a case of minimising risk in a world that is not risk-free, surely?

 

Was going to contribute, then saw Alf has pretty much hit the nail on the head for me.

 

I will add though that nuclear fusion should be an utter, total priority for research right now. Not only is it the best option for the future (significant amounts of clean energy), it may well be the ONLY form of energy that can cope with the power demands leading up to the end of this century. Whether fossil fuels last for a longer time than expected or not, the demand of developing nations is going to require better forms of energy generation, unless you want countless thousands of fossil fuel power stations consuming resources and generally polluting. Renewables can't make up the gap for the forseeable future either, so it HAS to be nuclear. Fission always has the potential for problems (waste disposal and meltdowns) and it isn't as efficient as fusion anyway, so fusion has to be the path we take. 

 

It's long term thinking I know, but a combination of fusion and renewable energies are what will see humanity through what could be a very tough (in energy terms) century or 150 years to come.

[Smudge]

Gas isn't going to run out any time in the next 200 years so I would hardly worry about it being a finite resource. I'd be surprised if fracking didn't take off considering its success in the US especially if the price of gas rises. If the absolute worst happened we still have huge coal reserves to tap into.

Most of it is deep underground in thin seams, it's very expensive to extract safely. Those mines continue to be closed down because they can't compete with imported coal.

 

The imported coal mainly comes from Russia, Colombia and the US where in the main, the coal is extracted by strip mining which costs a lot less than underground methods.

[Lobsterboyuk]

Nuclear power in its current form is being lobbied for because it allows private corporations to make guaranteed profits at taxpayers expense.

 

Placing our national energy security in the hands of EDF astounds me. Their first EPR project in France is currently over twice as expensive as the initial budget and now 4 years late.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant

 

Look through the spin, nuclear fission is dirty, unreliable and always far more expensive than any other option especially when the lifetime costs of waste storage are properly included in the calculations...

[Steven]

Thorium-based nuclear power If at all

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

[MooseBreath]

Nuclear power in its current form is being lobbied for because it allows private corporations to make guaranteed profits at taxpayers expense.

Placing our national energy security in the hands of EDF astounds me. Their first EPR project in France is currently over twice as expensive as the initial budget and now 4 years late...

Not a guaranteed profit though, they've just fixed the price, and if EDF are as bad as you say they are then they won't be making much profit at all