Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 05:08 AM Jan 2016

New threat to Hinkley nuclear plant cash

Source: The Sunday Times of London

Britain could withdraw financial support for the controversial £18bn nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, Somerset, if a similar plant being built by France’s EDF is not running by 2020, The Sunday Times can reveal.

The condition, attached to a Treasury loan guarantee, raises fresh questions about the future of Britain’s first new atomic power plant in a generation.

Last week EDF, which is 84% owned by the French state, postponed a board meeting in Paris to approve Hinkley Point, amid concerns about the heavily indebted company’s ability to fund the project. The plant will be financed by EDF and its Chinese partner CGN, with the backing of a 35-year contract to sell power to households at above-market rates.

The arrangement hinges on a Treasury agreement to guarantee up to £17bn in loans. Mounting problems at Flamanville, where EDF is building a plant of the same reactor design, could void ...

<snip - paywalled>

Read more: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/energy_and_environment/article1662807.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2016_01_30

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
1. "... a 35-year contract to sell power to households at above-market rates. "
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 07:01 AM
Jan 2016

Remind me, how much behind schedule and over budget is Flamanville?

NNadir

(33,525 posts)
2. How come antinukes never remark on eternal contracts to sell gas backed...
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 08:03 AM
Jan 2016

...toxic renewable energy garbage double nuclear rates for eternity? Why does the so called "renewable energy" industry whine like the devil when it can't charge poor people "feed in tariffs" to subsidize the solar trash placed on the roofs of millionaire and billionaire McMansions?

Hinckley, if completed, will be producing energy 60 years from now, long after all the solar cells on the planet right now are electronic waste in landfills, long after all the wind facilities are abandoned piles of metal leaking grease and toxic metals over once pristine landscapes.

Every nuclear power plant built is a gift to future generations, every gram of cadmium and arsenic mined for transitory solar cells is a liability irresponsibly dumped on these same generations, never mind the people who have to dig arsenic and cadmium out of the earth in this generation.

An anti-nuke complaining about costs is rather like Donald Trump complaining about racism against Guatemalan migrants in Arizona.

The lying idiots in the anti-nuke community can't even google to the difference between electricity rates in anti-nuke hellholes like Germany, where electricity rates are close to 30 euros a kwh, and France:



Eurostat Energy Statistics

Of course, being bourgeois brats holding the poor in as much contempt as they hold science, they can't look at this chart without stating once again that "nuclear energy is too expensive," while gas backed redundant solar and wind crap is cheap. How can they do this? Because they don't think, and because they are part of the community of scientifically illiterate and environmentally disinterested fools who have tried to destroy the careers of nuclear engineers, engineers who are vastly the intellectual and educational superiors of antinuke illiterates. The specious appeals of this set of whining illiterates, the anti-nuke whiners, has destroyed infrastructure of nuclear manufacturing, because they are dishonest, cheap carny barkers selling lies. In short, antinukes are arsonists complaining about forest fires.

The planet spent two trillion dollars in ten years so called "renewable energy" mostly wind garbage and solar garbage in the last decade.

The two trillion dollar "investment" in so called "renewable" energy.

All the mines in China, where the toxic crap for this tragedy is mined, churning through trillion dollar figures, couldn't make this garbage produce 5 of the 560 exajoules humanity consumes each year, not 1/5 of the primary energy produced each year, every year, for the last 30 years, saving millions of lives from air pollution.

Here's the environmental result of 50 years of anti-nuke misrepresentation and kettle and pot complaints about nuclear energy's costs by the advocates of so called "renewable energy" who sucked two trillion bucks out of the world economy for essentially no result:



Of course, anti-nukes care even less about the environment than they care about the people who will die from air pollution of Hinckley is not built, any more than they care about the millions of more lives that might have been saved from air pollution if they hadn't spent the last 50 years, the worst years for the environment ever observed, sabotaging nuclear infrastructure.

These people, the anti-nuke community, have no ethics, no shame, and no intellects.

Have a nice Sunday.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
3. France will install 1,000 km of solar-panelled roads in the next 5 years
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 09:00 AM
Jan 2016
France will install 1,000 km of solar-panelled roads in the next 5 years


Solar roadways!!!!
FIONA MACDONALD 29 JAN 2016

France's government has announced plans to pave 1,000 km (621 miles) of road with durable photovoltaic panels over the next five years, with the goal of supplying renewable energy to 5 million people - around 8 percent of France's population.

The project is the result of five years of research between French road construction company, Colas, and the National Institute of Solar Energy. And although a lot of solar experts have been pretty vocal about the downfalls of 'solar freaking roadways' (they're expensive, potentially unsafe, and inefficient compared to regular rooftop panels), it's pretty incredible to see a government get behind new renewable energy technology in such a big way.

The French definitely aren't the first to embrace solar roads, though. Back in 2014, a US husband-and-wife team raised more than US$2million with their crowd-funding campaign to develop road-ready photovoltaic panels. And the Netherlands installed the first test-path using solar panels, which performed better than expected with light bike traffic.

But this will be the first time solar panels will be installed onto public roads, and the patented panel design, known as Wattway, is unique in that it can applied on top of existing roads, without having to rip up or reinstall any infrastructure.

Another benefit comes in the construction of the 15-cm photovoltaic panels, which are made of a thin film of polycrystalline silicon, coated in a resin substrate to make them stronger. ...

http://www.sciencealert.com/france-is-planning-to-install-1-000-km-of-solar-panelled-roads-in-the-next-5-years

NNadir

(33,525 posts)
4. The cut and paste says nothing about what this very, very, very stupid scheme...
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:02 PM
Jan 2016

...will do to French electricity rates, which are currently roughly 1/2 German and Danish rates, a subject that apologists for the so called "renewable energy" scheme are predictably avoiding here and everywhere else.

It is just regurgitation of the same bullshit that has lead the planet to the abyss.

Driving cars over soon to be useless and intractable toxic waste, which is what every fucking solar panel on the planet is, is an irresponsible and dangerous idea, but of course, the idiotic rhetoric that excuses this nonsense can be described easily in the following analogy: A thug has left a victim bleeding from the head and lying near death in the street, and the proposal to deal with him is as follows: We'll beat the shit out everyone else on the street and leave them bleeding and lying near death on the street so the victim doesn't look so bad by comparison.

For the record, Francoise Holland is a moron, an extremely unpopular in his country because he's, completely lacking in vision and imagination. It's not surprising that in his administration a garbage proposal to coat the road with garbage even more toxic than asphalt would be taken seriously.

France right now, and for several decades previously, has, and has had, the best electricity infrastructure in the world; the only one in Europe that is essentially not dependent on burning dangerous fossil fuels and dumping the waste into the planetary atmosphere. Any effort to degrade that infrastructure is no different than any other effort to destroy the world's best energy infrastructure, nuclear infrastructure, by similar mindless appeals to fear and ignorance, a point I evoked in my previous response to the idiotic appeal to the idea that "nuclear energy is too expensive" by people who want the poorest residents of say, um, Germany, pay for solar installations on the home of the richest residents.

I note that the result of this fear and ignorance is written, again, in the fate of the planetary atmosphere, produced again, graphically, so that even a mindless regurgitating anti-nuke idiot could understand it, (or not):



It would be interesting to learn if an anti-nuke can be trained to compare two numbers, like the price of residential electricity in France (with its current infrastructure) with those in Germany, but I'm not optimistic. I have never met an anti-nuke who shows even a shred of ability to do simple arithmetic, never mind to think critically. Every single one I have ever encountered has been a blathering regurgitating fool.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
5. So they are building a 600 mile solar roadway because solar is no good?
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:06 PM
Jan 2016

From the OP "... a 35-year contract to sell power to households at above-market rates. "

Remind me, how much behind schedule and over budget is Flamanville?

Never mind, here it is:

July 2005: EDF says it plans to build an EPR reactor at Flamanville, which is due to start operating in 2012. The cost is estimated at 3 billion euros.

In its 2005 annual report, EDF estimates the cost at 3.3 billion euros.

May 2006: EDF says construction should begin in 2007 and be completed in 2012.

Dec 2007: Work starts on the Flamanville 3 reactor, which is built next to two older nuclear plants.

Dec 2008: EDF says EPR is due to cost 4 billion euros.

July 2010: EDF says start of Flamanville EPR is delayed until 2014. Construction costs now seen at 5 billion euros.

July 2011: EDF delays the completion of its Flamanville reactor by another two years to 2016. It expects costs to rise to 6 billion euros.

Dec 2012: EDF says stricter regulation in the wake of the Fukushima disaster will bring the total cost of the EPR to 8.5 billion euros. The start-up date is still expected for 2016.

July 2013: EDF installs the dome of Flamanville reactor.

Nov 2014: EDF said the Flamanville reactor will start up in 2017. It says the delay is due to Areva's difficulties with ensuring a timely delivery of certain pieces of equipment.

April 2015: EDF says weak spots have been found in the steel of the Flamanville EPR. EDF starts a series of new tests on the EPR as construction work continues. Nuclear regulator says carbon concentrations have weakened the mechanical resilience of the steel and its ability to resist the spreading of cracks. (They neglect to mention that the "steel" is the reactor vessel. -k)

Sept. 3 2015: EDF said the Flamanville reactor will now start in 2018 and cost 10.5 billion euros.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/edf-nuclear-flamanville-idUKL5N1182LY20150903


Now, about that reactor vessel:

...The concerns centre on the steel reactor vessel at the heart of the reactor, which as it was revealed last year is metallurgically flawed owing to large areas of excess carbon in the steel causing structural weaknesses. Similar problems apply to the vessel head.

ASN, the French nuclear safety inspectorate, is now expected to follow the advice of the Permanent Group of Experts on Pressurised Nuclear Equipment (PGEPNE) and, within weeks, order another round of safety tests that could take until mid-2016 to complete.

The situation is causing acute concern at EDF, the French parastatal that owns the Flamanville project, and Areva, another French parastatal corporation whose subsidiary, Le Creusot, forged the reactor and its head using an inadequate casting process causing 'carbon aggregation' in the steel that makes it brittle and prone to cracking.

First it will only add to costs and delays at the reactor - which is already over six years late and more than three times over budget, and remains a long way from completion....


"Le Creusot, forged the reactor and its head using an inadequate casting process causing 'carbon aggregation' in the steel that makes it brittle and prone to cracking."
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2985650/flamanville_nuclear_safety_fail_sounds_death_knell_for_hinkley_c.html

NNadir

(33,525 posts)
6. Typically, the question of electricity rates in France vs those in Germany is once again glossed...
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:49 PM
Jan 2016

over with yet another stupid cut and paste of irrelevant garbage thinking.

The fucking chart of electricity rates in Europe that I provided is perfectly clear; it is not my fault if morons exist who cannot compare the numbers produced for electricity rates in Germany, France, and for that matter, Denmark - the gas and oil drilling hellhole jutting into the North Sea - that can be read by anyone who has passed the third grade.

Every goddamned gas apologist anti-nuke on the fucking planet is apparently unwilling or unable to do so, because it cuts right to the heart of their fraud.

As for the crap about billions of dollars being connected to nuclear plants, it's just more of the same bad, very bad, bad to the point of extreme danger, thinking that characterizes the morally and educationally deficient set of anti-nukes who have caused 2015 to be the worst year ever observed for the accumulation of dangerous fossil fuel waste in the planetary atmosphere.

Now, anyone who can't even look at a table producing the electricity rates in France and compare them with those in Germany and Denmark is clearly not only mathematically illiterate, and therefore scientifically illiterate - since science is largely applied math - but also completely economically illiterate as well.

A nuclear plant is designed to last for more than half a century. Solar and wind facilities become toxic garbage in roughly 20 to 30 years.

A nuclear plant is designed to run continuously for decades and is not dependent on fracked gas or diesel oil refineries to operate when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing. It's operations do not depend on having a redundant gas, coal or oil fired plant available.

France built more than 50 nuclear plants in less than 20 years and still maintained the lowest electricity rates in Europe particularly when external costs, the cost to lung tissue and the overall tissues of miners, are considered. I can't address the kind of thinking that argues that what has already happened is impossible. I'm not that intellectually tortured.

There isn't enough fucking steel and aluminum on this planet to make, for example, the wind industry significant, a point made clearly in the primary scientific literature with which 100% of anti-nukes are unacquainted.

[link:link:http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n11/pdf/ngeo1993.pdf| Nature Geoscience 6, 894–896 (2013).]

Like I said, these people are at a very low intellectual, moral and educational level. Good luck with finding all that aluminum to build the stupid wind plants to get to 50 exajoules per year, wind boy.

I think I've had enough of conversation with the preternaturally ignorant for the day, and will head off to a good science library to avoid further exposure to very, very, very, very, toxic ignorance.

Have a nice evening.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
7. Typically the topic of the thread is glossed over by the nuclear zealot
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 02:50 PM
Jan 2016

frenetically trying to change the subject and divert attention to anything other than the chronically diseased and rightfully dying nuclear industry.

Tough Nnoogies.

NNadir

(33,525 posts)
9. The topic of the thread is the garbage statement, "nuclear is too expensive."
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 06:31 PM
Jan 2016

Since nuclear energy saves lives:

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

...and since anyone who is not a complete and total idiot can see all the wiggling and denial attached to the inability to understand the meaning of the clearly observable difference between the cost of electricity in Germany and France, it is very clear what is and is not a lie needing to be confronted.

If the Hinckley plant is not built and brought on line, deaths from air pollution will result. If it is built and brought on line, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives that would have otherwise been lost to air pollution over the next 60 to 70 years, will be saved.

It's that clear. School yard exclamations worthy of a third grader, ("tough Nnoogies&quot do not mean that the person issuing this childish rhetoric can do the very simple third grade math that is involved in understanding the price of electricity in France and comparing it to that in Germany. It's very clear from this exchange that people of this type cannot do simple arithmetic comparisons at a third grade level.

I wish I could say it's been a pleasure, but the fact is that ignorance kills people.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
10. You keep on swinging there, slick.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 08:03 PM
Jan 2016

One of these days you are bound to get something right.

You wrote that "If the Hinckley plant is not built and brought on line, deaths from air pollution will result."
Hate to tell you this but the bungled effort to build that plant has already cost lives. The failing attempt disrupted ongoing and successful renewable and energy efficiency programs in the UK; and since those programs would have resulted in ongoing carbon emissions reductions for several decades to come, any reductions achieved (if ever) by that plant will be measured against the loss of avoided emissions due to the renewable and efficiency programs killed to make room for the plant on the grid.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141332077#post3


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141332077#post8

On Again Off Again Nuclear Power
Kudankulam nuclear plant resumes power generation after 7 months
By PTI | 30 Jan, 2016

CHENNAI: After a hiatus of seven months, the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tirunelveli district resumed power production in its first unit today.

"The first unit (1000 MW) has begun production by 8 am today, we have started generating about 300 MW and production will be stepped up in a phased manner in keeping with the norms," Project Director, Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, K P Sundar told PTI.

Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant started commercial operations on December 31, ..

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/50784923.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst



2 years on, Kudankulam isn't working. Where are its cheerleaders now?
The promises
Kudankulam nuclear power plant was built despite opposition from locals, scientists
It was projected as the answer to Tamil Nadu's power woes

The reality
Tamil Nadu continues to be short of electricity
The Kudankulam plant has worked in first and starts and remains shut for 3 months now

More in the story
How the project is proving to be ineffective - a white elephant
Who is responsible for this mess

http://www.catchnews.com/environment-news/kudankulam-is-not-working-where-are-its-cheerleaders-now-1445501297.html

What fills in for that plant when it is down for months at a time? All that money and sporadic production leaving people without power for what, 7 months and counting?

Nuclear has failed to deliver and while it might continue to be propped up in a few command and control economies, or sold as a nuclear bomb in waiting to otherwise impotent nations in volatile regions of the world, by and large nuclear is a failure.

I could go on, but what's the point. I don't need to convince anyone nuclear is a boondoggle, it does that all by itself.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
8. One more thing: NOAA Model Finds Renewable Energy Could be Deployed in the U.S. Without Storage
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 03:42 PM
Jan 2016

Regulars to DUEE might recognize that this NOAA study is an expansion of the work Kempton did in the PJM Interconnect. For those that don't, I've added it as the second excerpt.

NOAA Model Finds Renewable Energy Could be Deployed in the U.S. Without Storage

By Monica Heger
Posted 25 Jan 2016 | 16:30 GMT

The majority of the United States's electricity needs could be met with renewable energy by 2030—without new advances in energy storage or cost increases. That’s the finding of a new study conducted by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The key will be having sufficient transmission lines spanning the contiguous U.S., so that energy can be deployed from where it’s generated to the places where its needed.

Reporting their results today in Nature Climate Change, the researchers found that a combination of solar and wind energy, plus high-voltage direct current transmission lines that travel across the country, would reduce the electric sector's carbon dioxide emissions by up to 80 percent compared to 1990 levels.

Conventional thinking around renewable energy has been that it is too variable to be broadly implemented without either fossil fuels to fill in the gaps or a significant ability to store surplus energy, says Sandy MacDonald, co-lead author of the paper and previously the director of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory. However, MacDonald thought that previous estimates had not used accurate weather data and so he wanted to design a model based on more precise and higher resolution weather data.

In the study, the team used historical and projected carbon dioxide emission and electricity cost data from the International Energy Agency, which projects that U.S. electricity will cost 11.5 cents per kilowatt hour, on average, in 2030, and that carbon dioxide emissions will be 6 percent above 1990 levels.

They designed a model called National Electricity with Weather System that took into consideration demand across one-hour time increments as well as generation capability. The main constraint of the model was that it had to use existing technologies...

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/noaa-model-finds-renewable-energy-could-be-deployed-in-the-us-cost-effectively-without-storage-to-cut-carbon-emissions

From 2012
Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time

abstract
We model many combinations of renewable electricity sources (inland wind, offshore wind, and photovoltaics) with electrochemical storage (batteries and fuel cells), incorporated into a large grid system (72 GW).
The purpose is twofold:
1) although a single renewable generator at one site produces intermittent power, we seek combinations of diverse renewables at diverse sites, with storage, that are not intermittent and satisfy need a given fraction of hours. And
2) we seek minimal cost, calculating true cost of electricity without subsidies and with inclusion of external costs.

Our model evaluated over 28 billion combinations of renewables and storage, each tested over 35,040 h (four years) of load and weather data. We nd that the least cost solutions yield seemingly-excessive generation capacity - at times, almost three times the electricity needed to meet electrical load. This is because diverse renewable generation and the excess capacity together meet electric load with less storage, lowering total system cost.

At 2030 technology costs and with excess electricity displacing natural gas, we nd that the electric system can be powered 90%e99.9% of hours entirely on renewable electricity, at costs compa- rable to today’sdbut only if we optimize the mix of generation and storage technologies.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.09.054
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»New threat to Hinkley nuc...