Cost of nuclear power

[Dave2002]

Yes, I meant the £8/p/a figure to be compared to the household FITs+ROCs subsidy of £36/a/household. Multiply the Hinckley £8/p/a by 2.5 to get price per house (60 million people, 24 million houses).

I think we're saying roughly the same thing, but from different directions. Some politicians and others who don't worry much about the environment might want a comparison with the cheapest production, without worrying about carbon offsets etc. I don't hold that view myself, but not everyone is happy about paying more for "green" energy, particularly when other places in the world aren't bothering.

The issue there is where to place a reasonable base line.

It'll be interesting to see what happens now with the Horizon/Hitachi negotiations for Wylfa. The Hitachi design looks very interesting. I was initially put off by it being a BWR (even with an A in front of it) but it is a 3+ generation reactor, they've been built before, and apparently they can be built in about 4 years!

Don't know about the Hinckley connection in detail. How it pans out in the face of any local opposition we'll have to see.

ABWRs seem not to have been deployed so widely - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance..._water_reactor - so perhaps not enough is known about how they work in practice, or their failure modes.

ABWRs were planned for Fukushima, but not deployed. The reactors there were BWRs using indirect water heating etc. I note that Hitachi are re-examining failure modes following the Fukushima incidents. Tsunami effects are less likely than elsewhere in the world at Hinkley Point, though I do wonder if it is possible that there could be problem, if for example, the Canary Island fault develops - what would the impact be in the Somerset area? With hindsight Fukushima might have survived if the original design height above sea level had been maintained, but this was reduced by about 10 metres in order to reduce pumping costs, and also because of a possibly mistaken belief that going down to bedrock was a good option in a region subject to earthquakes. In hindsight probably/possibly a very bad decision.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

ABWRs seem not to have been deployed so widely - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance..._water_reactor - so perhaps not enough is known about how they work in practice, or their failure modes.

Well we do know, from your reference, that

The ABWR is the present state of the art in boiling water reactors, and is the first Generation III reactor design to be fully built, with several reactors complete and operating. The first reactors were built on time and under budget in Japan, with others under construction there and in Taiwan. ABWRs are on order in the United States, including two reactors at the South Texas Project site.

which is all rather promising, and certainly better than anything the EPR can claim.

[ahinton]

There’s nothing wrong with any of these calculations (apart from the piffling £92.50, not £95 – Hinton territory)

How so (assuming you to be referring to me here)? I've mentioned neither figure!

[Dave2002]

Well we do know, from your reference, that ....
which is all rather promising, and certainly better than anything the EPR can claim.

More are being planned and constructed, but my point was that few have become operational, and not much is known about long term running yet. Japan is hardly the best example - sadly! Although the disaster of a few years ago now seems largely to have been contained - there was almost certainly a lot of obfuscation for a long while about the details.

I know precious little about ABWRs - but what happens if there is a leak in the water system? With an indirect system there'd be some containment which would perhaps not be the case with a direct one. Chances are nobody knows yet.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I do hope they'll bury the lethal nuclear waste in London, rather than leaving it in the "Barren Wastelands".

[Richard Barrett]

I do hope they'll bury the lethal nuclear waste in London, rather than leaving it in the "Barren Wastelands".

Yes, directly underneath the Department of Energy would be a good idea, since they're telling us it's so safe.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Alpen and Barrett are right on the money here, since London Clay is just about the best geological formation for nuclear waste storage. However, Alpen may like to note that the formations beneath the North York Moors are also highly suitable, so be careful what you wish for.

[Dave2002]

I found out more about nuclear power in different countries, which was a bit of a surprise to me.

1. The US is the largest user of nuclear power overall.
2. France has the highest percentage usage of nuclear - at about 75% of all electricity generation, and also, which is interesting, given the current discussion shown on TV just now from Westminster, arguably the lowest per unit price for electricity of any country. [However, this page suggests it is not much lower than some other countries - http://www.french-property.com/guide...ricity/tariff/ - though maybe the generating costs are lower, and hence the profits might be higher.]

This page is of interest - http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Co.../#.Um_plyTptxM and the site from which that page is just one extract - http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/ This is also of interest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri...ctor_in_France

It is curious that France is now deliberating whether to reduce its dependence on nuclear generation, though there has been a lobby to defer any immediate reduction in such operations.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I've now seen Peter Atherton's analysis of the deal and it's far worse than the initial press releases.

http://www.liberumcapital.com/pdf/ULkWtp00.pdf

Basically, Ed's given us the most expensive power station in the world.

[teamsaint]

I've now seen Peter Atherton's analysis of the deal and it's far worse than the initial press releases.

http://www.liberumcapital.com/pdf/ULkWtp00.pdf

Basically, Ed's given us the most expensive power station in the world.

Does this surprise you, Inspector?