Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

wildman said:
and you are qualified to say this because you have played Nuclear Power Station Simulator for a few hundred hours on steam right ?

what is it with people with zero operational knowledge of matters thinking they know best ?
Click to expand...
Whilst i think that is a little harsh ultimately I agree with the sentiment. A nuclear power station going TU is a lot more dangerous than say, letting car MOTs slide in the pandemic for 6 months.

if they are already 15 years past the point of needing at least a major shut down and inspection then i guess at some point they have to be shut down. could you imagine the fall out (maybe not the best term here) if there was a nuclear disaster and it was because of a fault which happened due to the station being way past its "service" date which would have been picked up.. there would be hell to pay.

maybe it could go on for another 5 years trouble free.... but if there is even a 0.1% chance of somethign going wrong, that risk is too high imo.

my wife does health and safety and manages servicing on equipement at work (nothing like nuclear but we have a couple of CL3 laboratories on site with some nasty bugs) the paperwork and what not which goes with it seems really annoying but ultimately it is there for a reason. a lot of the stuff they get rid of seems fine to me (and indeed is often donated to other places after decommissioning - presumably for less critical use)..... but equipment has failed out of the blue... but again a -80 freezer or a cold room, or a fume cupboard is not quite as bad as a powerstation ;)
 
Why isn’t the market being corrected. Every energy producer and their second cousins are making silly profits, record profits. We know we have enough energy and resources being produced so why isn’t the market self correcting itself.

Profits have sky rocketed let’s bring the wholesale price down to compensate.
 
Sinbad2000 said:
UK based gas extraction companies must stop selling gas on the open worldwide market and start selling to local distributors/consumers at a reasonable price. (Is this even possible?)
Of course, the shareholders will refuse to go along with this though...
Click to expand...
The problem is this would set a precedent for everyone to do that. If Norway decided to do that... we would be super ****** super quick
 
danlightbulb said:
Yes it will have been planned. But if it was working within thresholds, then why couldn't it have been extended? Maybe there is a good reason, maybe there isn't. Just because it was planned for yesterday doesn't make that the right choice.
Click to expand...
How can you type this stuff out without realising that it's completely uninformed, speculative nonsense?
 
el_dazza said:
I genuinely feel there's going to be riots over this. There are a lot of people that genuinely aren't going to be able to afford to heat their homes.
Click to expand...
I will be doing something as I can afford it but don't agree with paying possibly 4 times what I was paying in under a year for the same service and they have the gaul to ask me to give them meter readings!!!!
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
I got curious and looked into it.

EDF had hoped to run it till March 2023. They performed and inspection last year and made the final decision for closure, last November following on from the inspection.

The reasoning being as follows:


Why close Hinkley Point B early? - Nuclear Engineering International

www.neimagazine.com www.neimagazine.com

It's a bit vague on why they brought the timeline forward but, based on the wording it had probably reached their designated safety factor for allowable degradation in the graphite cores faster than they had anticipated and EDF have determined that it was not worth the risk in the continued operation of the system.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting the link, really interesting read. Clearly there were several factors including deterioration however last year when they did the inspection they still kept it running until today. It is all about risk thresholds which I think are often excessive however I recognise nuclear is a safety critical sector. It seems to me like they could have done another inspection and based on the outcome of that, kept it running if they had wanted to.


wildman said:
and you are qualified to say this because you have played Nuclear Power Station Simulator for a few hundred hours on steam right ?

what is it with people with zero operational knowledge of matters thinking they know best ?
Click to expand...
Its just about challenging decisions which impact us. How do you know/trust that these decisions are always taken properly or other options aren't available? Experts are very good intelligent people but can often be blinded to other options.


Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I put it down to an emotion reaction.
Prices are high, anything that is going to affect that is creating emotional reaction that is greater than the logical one.

In normal times I am sure most would be going of course safety is a paramount importance in regards nuclear power.
Right now they are OMG!!11! thats going to put bills up, who is allowing this, can we check, are they doing it so they can put prices up even more? etc etc
Click to expand...
Safety is important, but in this case the plant has been running and kept running since an inspection last year. At some point the plant needs to be shut down of course, but setting a specific date like they did is not done with any accuracy - its fairly arbitrary. In the case of a large item like this the safe operating life could easily be +/- decades as has been already demonstrated by the plant going 15 years longer than it was designed for. Does that mean they have taken too much risk or does it just mean that the design life is quite conservative and in practice its still ok. If a survey now revealed no change since the last survey, why not keep it going another year?


bigmike20vt said:
Whilst i think that is a little harsh ultimately I agree with the sentiment. A nuclear power station going TU is a lot more dangerous than say, letting car MOTs slide in the pandemic for 6 months.

if they are already 15 years past the point of needing at least a major shut down and inspection then i guess at some point they have to be shut down. could you imagine the fall out (maybe not the best term here) if there was a nuclear disaster and it was because of a fault which happened due to the station being way past its "service" date which would have been picked up.. there would be hell to pay.

maybe it could go on for another 5 years trouble free.... but if there is even a 0.1% chance of somethign going wrong, that risk is too high imo.

my wife does health and safety and manages servicing on equipement at work (nothing like nuclear but we have a couple of CL3 laboratories on site with some nasty bugs) the paperwork and what not which goes with it seems really annoying but ultimately it is there for a reason. a lot of the stuff they get rid of seems fine to me (and indeed is often donated to other places after decommissioning - presumably for less critical use)..... but equipment has failed out of the blue... but again a -80 freezer or a cold room, or a fume cupboard is not quite as bad as a powerstation ;)
Click to expand...
Risk assessors are conservative by nature unfortunately, in any field. In my experience it is not known risks that cause accidents, its the unknown ones that no-one ever considered.
 
GIBURROWS said:
they have the gaul to ask me to give them meter readings!!!!
Click to expand...
What's the problem with having an accurate bill, by submitting meter readings? I used to submit mine at the same time every month. But, since having another meter installed, I now just manually read them for my own records.
 
darael said:
What's the problem with having an accurate bill, by submitting meter readings? I used to submit mine at the same time every month. But, since having another meter installed, I now just manually read them for my own records.
Click to expand...
Cost transfer. It used to be the responsibility of suppliers to take meter readings, now somehow and covertly its become the responsibility of the customer.
 
danlightbulb said:
Cost transfer. It used to be the responsibility of suppliers to take meter readings, now somehow and covertly its become the responsibility of the customer.
Click to expand...
Its always been a joint responsibility, it was never one parties or anothers. From a regulatory basis the supplier is only really required to read your meter once a year
 
This map of fuel poverty in England, published by beisgovuk today, illustrates the clear north-south divide that existed BEFORE the recent price hikes, and the huge challenge now for a government committed to 'levelling up'.

52258722235_b33eb5a2c3_o.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom