https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...inkley-point-c

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:41:01 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...inkley-point-c

Or about 1000 days of 2 GW generation ... on something with a design
lifetime of 40 years (14,500 days).

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 31/12/15 11:09, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:41:01 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...inkley-point-c

Or about 1000 days of 2 GW generation ... on something with a design
lifetime of 40 years (14,500 days).


It's pretty instructive to look at 40 years with lets say 85% capacity
factor of a 3.2GW plant.

40 * 356.25 *24 *.85 x 3200000=

953740800000 kwh.

At a notional 5p a unit sale price, that's a total income of £47 billion

Puts a £14bn or whatever capital investment+decomissioning cost into
perspective.


At billion a year it sort of pays off the interest on that money.


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 31/12/2015 11:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/12/15 11:09, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:41:01 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...inkley-point-c

Or about 1000 days of 2 GW generation ... on something with a design
lifetime of 40 years (14,500 days).


It's pretty instructive to look at 40 years with lets say 85% capacity
factor of a 3.2GW plant.

40 * 356.25 *24 *.85 x 3200000=

953740800000 kwh.

At a notional 5p a unit sale price, that's a total income of £47 billion

Puts a £14bn or whatever capital investment+decomissioning cost into
perspective.

At billion a year it sort of pays off the interest on that money.

Perhaps Harry's post indicates he now considers Nuclear power cheap in
comparison to other forms of energy?

On Thursday, 31 December 2015 12:56:38 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 31/12/2015 11:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/12/15 11:09, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:41:01 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...inkley-point-c

Or about 1000 days of 2 GW generation ... on something with a design
lifetime of 40 years (14,500 days).


It's pretty instructive to look at 40 years with lets say 85% capacity
factor of a 3.2GW plant.

40 * 356.25 *24 *.85 x 3200000=

953740800000 kwh.

At a notional 5p a unit sale price, that's a total income of £47 billion

Puts a £14bn or whatever capital investment+decomissioning cost into
perspective.

At billion a year it sort of pays off the interest on that money.

Perhaps Harry's post indicates he now considers Nuclear power cheap in
comparison to other forms of energy?

If it's so insignificant why the necessity to offer it at all?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/12/15 11:09, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:41:01 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...inkley-point-c

I note that dates from September.

Or about 1000 days of 2 GW generation ... on something with a design
lifetime of 40 years (14,500 days).


It's pretty instructive to look at 40 years with lets say 85% capacity
factor of a 3.2GW plant.

40 * 356.25 *24 *.85 x 3200000=

953740800000 kwh.

At a notional 5p a unit sale price, that's a total income of £47 billion

Puts a £14bn or whatever capital investment+decomissioning cost into
perspective.

So why is the guaranteed sale price for this deal 8.9p a unit (with CPI
uplift)? That comes in at 84 billion quid.

Because there's nobody else offering to sell us one? Or because it's
riskier (in the financial sense) than other nuclear projects which do seem
to deliver about 5p per unit?

Theo

On 01 Jan 2016 09:39:08 +0000 (GMT), Theo wrote:

So why is the guaranteed sale price for this deal 8.9p a unit (with CPI
uplift)? That comes in at 84 billion quid.

Because there's nobody else offering to sell us one? Or because it's
riskier (in the financial sense) than other nuclear projects which do
seem to deliver about 5p per unit?

Or because none of the companies trust any government not to "do a
Merkle". That is, on a mere political whim, order that all the nukes
be shutdown at midnight and be decomissioned at their cost.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 01/01/16 09:39, Theo wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/12/15 11:09, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:41:01 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...inkley-point-c

I note that dates from September.

Or about 1000 days of 2 GW generation ... on something with a design
lifetime of 40 years (14,500 days).


It's pretty instructive to look at 40 years with lets say 85% capacity
factor of a 3.2GW plant.

40 * 356.25 *24 *.85 x 3200000=

953740800000 kwh.

At a notional 5p a unit sale price, that's a total income of £47 billion

Puts a £14bn or whatever capital investment+decomissioning cost into
perspective.

So why is the guaranteed sale price for this deal 8.9p a unit (with CPI
uplift)? That comes in at 84 billion quid.

Because there's nobody else offering to sell us one? Or because it's
riskier (in the financial sense) than other nuclear projects which do seem
to deliver about 5p per unit?


I am guessing here.

first of all plain commercial greed. Britain really really needs nukes.
Anyone with half a brain knows that, and its finally filtered through to
even the conservative party, who don't actually have half a brain
between them. So whatever EDF says it needs its probably going to get.

Secondly, post Fukushima and with the great unwashed and the liberal
arts graduates running the meejah, lies about nuclear are allowed to
proliferate, and that means that governments can and have pulled the
nuclear plug - that makes nuclear build high risk. If the EU says 'no
more EU nukes' and shuts down the new nukes, bye bye investment. Merkel
has done this to Germany, Hollande is threatening it as are the Swiss.


Finally Big Oil and Gas and Gazprom don't want to see any nukes
competing with fracked gas. And they have the EU and the nuclear
regulators in their pockets. A few more regulators and the costs will
simply spiral to unacceptable levels.

Frankly there is a war on. Energy is what a post industrial society runs
on. He who controls energy controls everything.

Renewables are useless for power generation but they are useful
politically, because they can be used to force energy to be a ghastly
expensive mix of windmills solar panels and gas.

Nuclear is the wild card. Nuclear means reliable base load as a
predictable and low cost. Nuclear means energy security. At a pinch we
could mine our own uranium in the UK although it wouldn't be as cheap as
e.g. Canadian or Australian yellow cake. Notwithstanding that, with even
a Gen 1 reactor needing as little as 50 tonnes of uranium a year, which
amounts to less than 3 cubic meters, its rather easy to stockpile raw
uranium for decades of use. If you have your own reprocessing and
processing facilities, a couple of ore ships can get you enough raw
uranium for 100 years at a rock bottom price.

That can't be allowed by the forces that like to exert political control.

What there is out there is a mess of competing interests, and most to
them don't want nuclear. The greens don't want it, because Big Green
wants to sell government underwritten windmills and solar panels at fat
profits, They don't mind gas, because they know without it the renewable
house of cards falls to pieces, but they want to keep gas expensive to
make renewables look cheap, so they oppose fracking.

Russia and Gazprom want the same things as the Greens, reliance on
expensive gas. And Russian nukes in Russia and for their chums in Asia,.

Americas I suspect is split. Its got coal for ever, but its got pork
barrel green blob politics as well. And I don't believe anyone but Big
Oil with the tacit consent of the US government could have crashed the
oil and gas market to the point where OPEC - source of all the funds for
Radical Islam - is on the point of economic collapse.

Remember the whole point of Climate of Fear politics is to have just
enough **** to scare people, but not enough to be blamed for not doing
anything about it. The secret of government by FUD is have a few
incidents, use them to achieve your immediate political aims, and then
roll back the terror a little to get re-elected.

So politically nuclear is a wild card. Nuclear absolutely threatens
renewables and gas if its too cheap. Therefore it has to be made
expensive. This is relatively easy if you have control of green groups,
and the regulatory authorities, which Big Green and the EU do.

But there are signs that as with climate change, the FUD is beginning to
break up. Politically there is a need for reliable cheap energy and to
keep the lights on. And Islamic fundamentalism has got a bit out of
hand, so time to clamp down on its sources of finance.

Its possible that cheap gas used as a geopolitical weapon, is going to
make people ask about windmills, and COP21 was a heap of nothing,
anyway, and the sheeple are bored with climate non-change - all the
action is with Islamic invasion.

So nukes are in, but at a price. For now. Remember if Corbyn by some
miracle got elected, it would be wall to wall Eurosocialism, and a
nuclear free UK.

That's a risk that Areva and EDF have to take into account. They want
some guarantees that it will be too expensive to walk away from Hinkley,
politically.

Engineering wise you could build Hinkley for about £5bn. If everybody
agreed we wanted it and needed it and we ripped the regulations to
shreds and rewrote them for simplicity and safety, rather than to cater
for green paranoia, and political control.




Theopa



--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Thursday, 31 December 2015 08:41:06 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...inkley-point-c



I can still remember in the '50s, when scientists announced that, with nuclear, electricity would be so cheap it would not be worth metering.

On 01/01/2016 21:11, wrote:
On Thursday, 31 December 2015 08:41:06 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...inkley-point-c

I can still remember in the '50s, when scientists announced that,
with nuclear, electricity would be so cheap it would not be worth
metering.

Yes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter

The prediction was for fusion nuclear power, which of course never happened!

On 01/01/2016 21:34, Fredxxx wrote:
On 01/01/2016 21:11, wrote:
On Thursday, 31 December 2015 08:41:06 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...inkley-point-c

I can still remember in the '50s, when scientists announced that,
with nuclear, electricity would be so cheap it would not be worth
metering.

Yes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter

The prediction was for fusion nuclear power, which of course never
happened!


Zeta.

Bill

On 01/01/2016 21:31, Huge wrote:
On 2016-01-01, wrote:
On Thursday, 31 December 2015 08:41:06 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...inkley-point-c



I can still remember in the '50s, when scientists announced that, with nuclear, electricity would be so cheap it would not be worth metering.

No you can't, because they didn't say it.

http://media.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html

Technically "they" did, as nuclear fusion was at that time a classified
subject, so everyone took it to be associated with nuclear fission. It
has sort of stuck since, for rather obvious reasons.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 01/01/2016 21:31, Huge wrote:
On 2016-01-01, wrote:
On Thursday, 31 December 2015 08:41:06 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...inkley-point-c



I can still remember in the '50s, when scientists announced that, with
nuclear, electricity would be so cheap it would not be worth metering.

No you can't, because they didn't say it.

http://media.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html

Technically "they" did, as nuclear fusion was at that time a classified
subject,

No it was not on the general question of it being a useful way to go.

so everyone took it to be associated with nuclear fission. It has sort of
stuck since, for rather obvious reasons.

On 01/01/16 21:11, wrote:
On Thursday, 31 December 2015 08:41:06 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...inkley-point-c



I can still remember in the '50s, when scientists announced that, with nuclear, electricity would be so cheap it would not be worth metering.

Fusion power that was.

Still working on it.

And IIRC it wasn't a scientist, it was a bureaucrat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Strauss


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.
Groucho Marx

On 01/01/16 21:31, Huge wrote:
On 2016-01-01, wrote:
On Thursday, 31 December 2015 08:41:06 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...inkley-point-c



I can still remember in the '50s, when scientists announced that, with nuclear, electricity would be so cheap it would not be worth metering.

No you can't, because they didn't say it.

http://media.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html


And its not unreasonable to think that something else might have been on
his mind anyway - the fact that a flat rate charge for electricity might
have made more sense in an all nuclear age. Fuel costs are negligible in
a nuclear power plant. What costs is the plant itself and its operation
and maintenance, irrespective of how much electricity it produces.



--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And its not unreasonable to think that something else might have been on
his mind anyway - the fact that a flat rate charge for electricity might
have made more sense in an all nuclear age. Fuel costs are negligible in
a nuclear power plant. What costs is the plant itself and its operation
and maintenance, irrespective of how much electricity it produces.

Rather more to the costs of electricity delivered to the home than just
the generating cost. And make it 'flat rate' and people would inevitably
'waste' it. Heating on day and night with windows open. Etc.

--
*Few women admit their age; fewer men act it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:21:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

ur sig



Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?
Often attributed to Stalin, there is not a single source which show that
Stalin said this at any given time.
Wiki

There is also a saying.
There is no I in Team. something I've had said to me when I was in work and
attempting to use my initiative.As I've heard it so often, where did it come
from?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"todd" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:21:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

ur sig



Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?
Often attributed to Stalin, there is not a single source which show that
Stalin said this at any given time.
Wiki

Brian Gaff wrote

There is also a saying.
There is no I in Team. something I've had said to me
when I was in work and attempting to use my initiative.
As I've heard it so often, where did it come from?

The fool that dreamed it up originally.

"todd" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:21:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

ur sig



Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?
Often attributed to Stalin, there is not a single source which show that
Stalin said this at any given time.
Wiki