The case for nuclear is clear!

amcluesent

In France, were 80% of electricity comes from nuclear plant, EDF are currently charging 0.63p per KWh!

We need 10s of nuclear stations in England ASAP!

Like the NHS, the way we generate power is unique in the world. There's a reason for that...

kjsmith7

Wow that it cheap. I also agree with nuclear power, however remember the initial costs to BUILD them; that had to/has to come from somewhere (I use the former as BG are investing in renewable sources and I think they're on about building nuclear plants or so I heard on the news a while ago).

mech_2

Can someone provide a reference? I suspect it's an off-peak rate, like our economy 7. On average I think the French do pay a little bit less than we do now. Which is fair enough as UK retail electricity prices have been lower than theirs for years.

You see, the French have a problem. They have too many nuclear power stations. They can't be switched on and off quickly enough to follow demand throughout the day, so they have ludicrous billing systems of multiple rates on different days of the week, different months of the year to try and encourage electricity usage to smooth out. Any electricty that isn't used is wasted.

We certainly don't want nuclear power stations. We'd be worse off for fuel security than we are with diminishing North Sea gas. At least we have some gas. We have no uranium at all. We already have lots of nuclear waste to get rid of though.

ProDisc

mech wrote: »

The French have a problem. They have too many nuclear power stations. They can't be switched on and off quickly enough to follow demand throughout the day, so they have ludicrous billing systems of multiple rates on different days of the week, different months of the year to try and encourage electricity usage to smooth out. Any electricty that isn't used is wasted.

We certainly don't want nuclear power stations. We'd be worse off for fuel security than we are with diminishing North Sea gas. At least we have some gas. We have no uranium at all. We already have lots of nuclear waste to get rid of though.

Superb.
Kudos.

moonrakerz

mech wrote: »

We certainly don't want nuclear power stations. We'd be worse off for fuel security than we are with diminishing North Sea gas. At least we have some gas. We have no uranium at all. We already have lots of nuclear waste to get rid of though.

1. Much of the planet's Uranium is mined in "friendly" countries, the largest producer being Canada.
2. The nuclear waste "card" is grossly exaggerated, the amount of high level waste in the UK could be stored in a couple of small warehouse sized buildings. The low level waste cannot be stored in many areas of the UK because the background radiation levels would "swamp" any monitoring instruments - hence no nuclear plants in (most of) Scotland or Devon/Cornwall.

We do have plenty of coal, perhaps common sense will come to the fore and we will start to look after our own interests again, and start using it - and raise two fingers to the hysterical "man made" global warming lobby, just like the Chinese !

mech_2

moonrakerz wrote: »

1. Much of the planet's Uranium is mined in "friendly" countries, the largest producer being Canada.

The issue isn't where the uranium currently comes from, but how reliable the supply will be going forward. Consumption at present levels can't be met by what is actually coming out of the ground. There's a mining shortfall of around 40%. Demand is currently met by Russian and American stockpiles of decommissioned nuclear weapons. There's less than a decade of this resource left, so either uranium mining is going to have to expand hugely, fairly quickly or reactors somewhere are going to start to have to be shut down for lack of fuel. This would represent a failure of the capital sunk into those power stations, so uranium prices would skyrocket in that scenario as every country tried to secure supply.

2. The nuclear waste "card" is grossly exaggerated, the amount of high level waste in the UK could be stored in a couple of small warehouse sized buildings.

The quantity isn't important. It's the sheer cost of disposal and clean-up (leaving aside the inevitable accidents). The government is already liable for £73 billion of clean-up costs for clean-up of Sellafield and reactor decommissioning. The energy companies don't pay for this. If they did, and it was billed to us directly, it would put 15% on the average domestic electricity bill this year. And probably every year for the rest of the century.

The low level waste cannot be stored in many areas of the UK because the background radiation levels would "swamp" any monitoring instruments -

That's probably because deep underground storage means radon. It doesn't really imply anything meaningful about the safety levels of the waste. Properly low level waste has been routinely discharged into the sea for decades.

hence no nuclear plants in (most of) Scotland or Devon/Cornwall.

Scotland have already said no to more nuclear plants anyway.

We do have plenty of coal, perhaps common sense will come to the fore and we will start to look after our own interests again, and start using it - and raise two fingers to the hysterical "man made" global warming lobby, just like the Chinese !

I think the Chinese are making a rapid U-turn in that regard at the moment.

mr_magoo_5

We do have approx 500 years, reserves of coal in the UK. Also many countries have huge coal reserves; a lot is open cast which they don’t even have to go underground for. Although I like the idea of green/alternative fuel supplies, unfortunately with present technology it isn't efficient or cost effective. For example, who can realistically afford to heat there house with solar panels? In theory you can have these green solutions but the cost is enormous and beyond most. So I have to say that I would prefer to use best practice technology and use fuel supplies we do have until we have real solutions, which will be developed in time.
We have the coal and it can be extracted far cheaper than oil/gas and we don’t have to fight wars to get it. For me the world would be a much safer place if we used it.
I accept that coal is not that green but we have and are developing clean burn power stations. So I believe it is possible for us to heat our homes and run an economy without all this madness.

amcluesent

Interesting to see what the French pay for electricity. You have to nominate how much power you will draw in kVA, and pay a standing charge, i.e. 15 kVA would be an annual charge of £180. (15kVA would be enough to run a washing machine, power shower and lights at the same time)

Then you pay 0.1140 Euros per KWH or less than 0.1p per KWh, tariffs here.

The KVA issue is because they are running nuclear plant whose output over 24 hours is fixed. If you agree to turn on your electric cooker etc. at odd hours you get an even cheaper rate.

Cardew

amcluesent wrote: »

Interesting to see what the French pay for electricity. You have to nominate how much power you will draw in kVA, and pay a standing charge, i.e. 15 kVA would be an annual charge of £180. (15kVA would be enough to run a washing machine, power shower and lights at the same time)

Then you pay 0.1140 Euros per KWH or less than 0.1p per KWh, tariffs here.

The KVA issue is because they are running nuclear plant whose output over 24 hours is fixed. If you agree to turn on your electric cooker etc. at odd hours you get an even cheaper rate.[/quote
If you think that UK price structures are complicated read this:

http://www.thisfrenchlife.com/thisfrenchlife/2004/11/electricity_tar.html

Backbiter

mech wrote: »

The quantity isn't important. It's the sheer cost of disposal and clean-up (leaving aside the inevitable accidents). The government is already liable for £73 billion of clean-up costs for clean-up of Sellafield and reactor decommissioning. The energy companies don't pay for this. If they did, and it was billed to us directly, it would put 15% on the average domestic electricity bill this year. And probably every year for the rest of the century.


.

This is the point that really riles me. Back in the 80s when we were shutting down coal mines by the dozen, we were told it was uneconomic to mine it (the green arguments over CO2 barely featured). The NUM pointed out that the subsidies to the nuclear industry were so enormous that if applied to coal it could be given away free.
When the electricity sell-off took place noone would touch nuclear because of the astrononomical decommissioning costs.
Now, two decades on and the green/ CO2/ global-warming issues have come to the fore, and nuclear energy is widely seen as the way forward.
What has happened to these vast decommissioning costs that made it uneconomic 20 years ago? Nothing - they're still there, although the cost of fossil fuels has of course soared. The difference is that the huge costs are not to be considered when calculating the costs of producing electricity from nuclear energy. These costs are to fall on governments i.e. taxpayers, who will therefore be paying twice.

The Germans have taken the decision to phase out nuclear power totally and invest massively in alternative, renewable energy sources (wind, wave, solar, biofuels etc). I'd like our government to do the same.

kjsmith7

Backbiter wrote: »

The Germans have taken the decision to phase out nuclear power totally and invest massively in alternative, renewable energy sources (wind, wave, solar, biofuels etc). I'd like our government to do the same.

I agree with that -- renewable sources will guarantee future supplies. I know that BG is investing in wind farms (and that money is coming straight out of it's profits), which is SOMETHING.