Hinkley Point C

[tintin82]

The problem is that even in the futures market for 2025 it isn't predicted to cost that much (in today's money). Even with the predicted decline in supply.

The return on equity predicted for EDF is 20% to 35%. That is an incredible sustained margin to achieve over decades.

Predicted, predictions are almost always wrong. No one predicted oil at $150, and then when 'peak oil' was the buzz word no one predicted oil at $27, but we got there pretty quick. No one has any clue what so ever of what future energy prices will be. What happens if Iran / Saudi decide to stop messing around with proxy wars and actually try to annihilate each other head on? Oil at $300 a barrel. What happens if we have a period of global peace and stability twinned with greater technological advancements which mean that US shale producers find ways to extract oil efficiently at $10 a barrel??

We simply do not know, and anyone who tries to predict these things is taking a risk, especially when building a nuclear power plant on the back of those predictions. If your going to take that big a risk, you want to be duly compensated for it.

 

[Destination]

Anyone know why National Grid aren't interested? SSE? Centrica?

Provide funding, get 20%+ Return on Equity and have a stake in the UK's newest nuclear plant?

Indeed, we need to be building our own bloody nuke reactors, it is ridiculous to be paying foreign investors twice the going rate to building something we could do ourselves.
If we can't do it ourselves, then we need to find out why not, and sort the issues from education onwards.

in the spirit of brexit, ****ing wise up and do the job locally.

 

[Tefal]

Shame brown sold westinghouse and the ap1000 design for a song

 

[muon]

Shame brown sold westinghouse and the ap1000 design for a song

We could still commission that technology. It's not like if Westinghouse had been in UK hands they would charge any less.

BNFL had a history of being badly run as a state company requiring state aid.

Indeed, we need to be building our own bloody nuke reactors, it is ridiculous to be paying foreign investors twice the going rate to building something we could do ourselves.
If we can't do it ourselves, then we need to find out why not, and sort the issues from education onwards.

in the spirit of brexit, ****ing wise up and do the job locally.

It's not reasonable to expect the UK to be the best at everything. Anything built in the UK will still use mostly British employees.

The expertise and experience in managing projects like this is simply abroad. Specific technology will still be produced abroad by people who make them regularly.

 

[phil675]

I remember reading something years ago saying if we didn't build x new plants in y years we'd have a horrible energy deficit. Has that happened yet?

 

[muon]

I remember reading something years ago saying if we didn't build x new plants in y years we'd have a horrible energy deficit. Has that happened yet?

Existing plants have had their lifespans extended to mitigate this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#Power_stations

 

[Destination]

We could still commission that technology.

The expertise and experience in managing projects like this is simply abroad. Specific technology will still be produced abroad.

Yes, specific technology is why we are offering foreign investors twice the going rate for something we don't have to be the best at, we just have to make a functional version that will last for years.

It is complete and utter madness.
We should be building this ourselves, in a modern world, some basic processes should be self contained.

A country should be capable of making sufficient food, sufficient energy, sufficient water/sewage.

 

[muon]

Yes, specific technology is why we are offering foreign investors twice the going rate for something we don't have to be the best at, we just have to make a functional version that will last for years.

It is complete and utter madness.
We should be building this ourselves, in a modern world, some basic processes should be self contained.

A country should be capable of making sufficient food, sufficient energy, sufficient water/sewage.

Most countries import very advanced technology. Even China is getting foreign companies to build theirs.

We can give it to British firms who will have to learn as they go along, make mistakes and cost a lot more. Or we get foreign companies with the expertise to build them.

Most arguments aren't that it is being foreign built, it'd be just as expensive if built by a UK firm. The question is, do we really need to build them with other methods of electricity production getting more and more efficient.

 

[datalol-jack]

Yes, specific technology is why we are offering foreign investors twice the going rate for something we don't have to be the best at, we just have to make a functional version that will last for years.

It is complete and utter madness.
We should be building this ourselves, in a modern world, some basic processes should be self contained.

A country should be capable of making sufficient food, sufficient energy, sufficient water/sewage.

We could pivot to dominate renewables, trade this for better and cheaper nukes while fusion gets anywhere in Europe, and be quids in at the end. Doubt this'll be on the agenda somehow. (You'll have to fight just about every party in British politics to get this off the ground too.)

 

[Aldav]

I wouldn't actually, I think national infrastructure projects like this justify government spending on them.

Good God, we agree on something political. Miracles will never cease.

I'm a firm believer in small state and, within a regulatory framework that curbs unreasonable excesses, market forces.

But some things just ought to be done by the state, and paid for by tax-payers. And absolutely critical national infrastructure projects, including baseload energy generation, is at the top of the list.

I'm not keen on French involvement in our nuclear plants, never mind Chinese, which is, for me, a total non-starter. It wouldn't be too bad if this were just a financial investment for a monetary return, but the payback seems to be construction and operational involvement on future projects by China and that ought to be miles past an unmoveable red line.

Someone mentioned EU state aid rules earlier, That might be partly why Nay is reviewing this contract. That may have been a bounding criteria when the original "strike price" deal was struck but, in a post-Brexit world, assuming we do actually Brexit, it is not. Once we've gone, what aid our government (meaning taxpayers) extend to critical infrastructure like this is none of Brussel's damn business. This is an example of what's meant by "sovereignty".

 

[helpimcrap]

Personally something with such potential for good but also destruction if not maintained right and other countries investment I think it's a bad idea.

I think the idea of nuclear power - we need power and it needs to be cleaner than fossil fuels. We can't afford renewable or have the space for it so that's out.

I think having someone dictating our energy needs and prices is a pitfall.

Also surely this compromises the monopoly commission policy if only one company has any input?

 

[Glaucus]

we can afford it and we have plenty of space for renewables.

the longer we wait for nuclear the worse the deal is as renewables are continually improving and continually decreasing in price and that includes grid storage, it's basically at the point where we should follow Germany. it also has the benefit of not taking 10 years to build before we get any power out of it. that's if it goes well, unlike the current builds.

 

[phil675]

I'm sure it'll do the environment any good to build renewables all over it.

 

[Glaucus]

I'm sure it'll do the environment any good to build renewables all over it.

lol. perhaps read some research into what kills more things in power generation and also it wouldn't be everywhere at all..

it also makes more sense economically.
we are already well positioned in renewables some of our wind turbines are world leading. it could become a decent industrial export if we backed it properly.

the same cant be said for letting other countries build nuclear.

 

[Xordium]

We can't afford renewable or have the space for it so that's out.

We can afford it and we have plenty of space for it.

 

[phil675]

lol. perhaps read some research into what kills more things in power generation and also it wouldn't be everywhere at all..

it also makes more sense economically.
we are already well positioned in renewables some of our wind turbines are world leading. it could become a decent industrial export if we backed it properly.

the same cant be said for letting other countries build nuclear.

Well how many wind turbines or solar panels do you need to build to generate the same as a nuclear plant?

 

[Glaucus]

housing stock with normal panels you see these days would be enough to replace multiple reactors.

 

[phil675]

But that would never happen without everyone being forced into it, so if I wanted to build a solar farm tomorrow how many square miles would I need to compete with a new nuclear plant?

 

[Greebo]

Isn't the issue is we need a baseline of power. How much power does solar and wind farms generate on an overcast still day in January?

I thought that come 2025 we won't have a high enough base line?

 

[Werewolf]

Isn't the issue is we need a baseline of power. How much power does solar and wind farms generate on an overcast still day in January?

I thought that come 2025 we won't have a high enough base line?

Pretty much it.

Renewables work well under the right conditions, but unless we're planning on going back to the 3 day week we also need backup systems that can take most of the residential load when conditions aren't good for the renewable options.

At least until there is a viable way to store enough power for several days worth of demand without renewable.