Energy bill - To increase energy bills

posh*spice

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Basically, because its the most cost effective method of electricity generation,

I don't think EDF are finding that?

EDF, the French utility, said the cost of its new nuclear power station in northern France had increased by a third, raising fears that its planned UK plant may also be vulnerable to a similar budget blowout.

But it has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. EDF had originally hoped to have the plant running in 2012 and pencilled in a construction cost of €3.3bn. Last year that was revised upwards to €6bn, with start-up pushed to 2016. On Monday, EDF said the full cost would be €8.5bn

The spiralling costs at Flamanville, and at another EPR being built by French engineering company Areva in Finland, have raised questions about the viability of nuclear power. Even Jeff Immelt, chief executive of General Electric, one of the world’s largest suppliers of nuclear equipment, said in the summer that it was becoming “really hard” to justify nuclear power, especially when there was so much cheap shale gas available.

The Flamanville cost increase comes at a sensitive time for EDF, which is negotiating with the UK government over the price it will get for electricity generated at Hinkley Point. Too high a price will be seen by critics as a big subsidy to nuclear.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/662e0b40-3d68-11e2-9f35-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2E4P2DanO

or

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/03/us-edf-nuclear-flamanville-idUKBRE8B214620121203

posh*spice

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

and the cleanest "non green" energy producing option.

Clean?>>>

Sellafield nuclear waste storage is 'intolerable risk'

An "intolerable risk" is being posed by hazardous waste stored in run-down buildings at Sellafield nuclear plant, a watchdog has found.

The National Audit Office (NAO) also said that for 50 years, the operators of the Cumbria installation failed to develop a long-term plan for waste.
Costs of plant-decommissioning has also spiralled out of control, it said.
Operator Sellafield Ltd, said it welcomed the report's findings and was "making improvements".
The plant is the UK's largest and most hazardous nuclear site, storing enough high and intermediate level radioactive waste to fill 27 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
The NAO report states however, that owners of the station do not know how long it will take to build storage and treatment centres for the hazardous material or how much the final bill for decommissioning the plant is likely to be.

It also concluded that over the five decades it was open, operators failed to plan how to dispose of the radioactive waste and some of the older facilities have "deteriorated so much that their contents pose significant risks to people and the environment".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-20228176

Glad I don't live in Cumbria.

posh*spice

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

, and the cleanest "non green" energy producing option.

Clean????>>>>

Dr Ruth Balogh, of West Cumbria and North Lakes Friends of the Earth, said: "The UK's failure to deal with highly hazardous nuclear waste at Sellafield is a national scandal that poses a significant risk to local people and the environment.
"The government has completely ignored the urgent need for interim measures to deal with this radioactive waste.
"We shouldn't build any new nuclear reactors if we can't deal with the radioactive mess that's already been created."

Cheap?????

The NAO report concluded that progress in 12 of the 14 major buildings and equipment projects considered "critical" for reducing risk, which range in cost from £21m to £1.3bn, also failed to achieve what they were supposed to and had not provided good value for money.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-20228176

grizzly1911

Posh -If you don't want nuclear or fracking how do you suggest we meet the ever growing demand for electricity and energy?

Don't forget we need something that is resilient, sustainable and available 24/7 capable of covering peak requirements at the flick of a switch.

Or perhaps we, as a nation, can no longer afford it.

As regards EDF and their French plant hopefully they have learned by their mistakes -the next ones should be cheaper. If not it questions why we are using them

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Posh -If you don't want nuclear or fracking how do you suggest we meet the ever growing demand for electricity and energy?

Don't forget we need something that is resilient, sustainable and available 24/7 capable of covering peak requirements at the flick of a switch.

Or perhaps we, as a nation, can no longer afford it.

As regards EDF and their French plant hopefully they have learned by their mistakes -the next ones should be cheaper. If not it questions why we are using them

Perhaps people should just use less energy?

It would be interesting to see a comparison between the average energy consumption of a family in the 1970s and now. Perhaps people should go back to having 1 TV in the house and heating living rooms not the entire house, including bedrooms and hallways.

grizzly1911

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Perhaps people should just use less energy?

It would be interesting to see a comparison between the average energy consumption of a family in the 1970s and now. Perhaps people should go back to having 1 TV in the house and heating living rooms not the entire house, including bedrooms and hallways.

Someone posted on the DIY board about low energy lighting making a similar point. Years ago we made with a solitary bulb now so many installations take multiple bulbs, especially kitchens, that even with low watt alternatives we often use the same.

Wind the clock back 20/30 years and think how households made do with the plugs they had, perhaps the odd plug in double plug. Now we have double sockets everywhere, extension leads with multigang sockets. No longer do we have a TV, as you say, we have, DVD, speaker systems, hard disk recorders, games consoles and often we have several of them. Laptops/PCs, smart phones, tablets, tumble dryers, dishwashers. DIY tools.

A friend has just moved into an older property it still has a 60A main fuse, what is the norm these days 100A+?

What price progress. encouraged to consume and then can't afford to use them.

paulmapp8306

Clean is relative. Nuclear is far cleaner than other carbon based electricity generation. AS for cost, the cost of building is not the only cost to consider. Running costs of Nuclear aer far lower than other non green (and some green) methods.

There is no ONE way. ALL methods have pro's and cons, and everyone will disagree as to which is best depending on their views. The ONLY way is a mix, and that included Nuclear and Gas as well as "affordble" green energy - which isnt wind at present. Ultimately all buildings should have Solar PV roofs - not retrospective as the payback term is LOOONG, but new builds certainly. Its cheaper to install when integrated in a new build and the cost is included in the cost of the build. Add to that Tydal and Hydro green energies, Nuclear and Gas plants - and allowing fracking to supply the Gas, and in 25 years our energy crisis would be drastically reduced.

As for suggesting people use less electric - I spilled my coffee. You cant roll back useage. We didnt have computers in the 70s - but how many could live without now. Ditto mobile phones, tablets, entertainment systems, games consoles ..... the list goes on. You may not "need" all these things, but it would be a huge negative impact at the very least to not have them. Perhaps we should go back to living in caves when we didnt use electric at all. cooking on open fires and sleeping when its dark etc.

grizzly1911

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

As for suggesting people use less electric - I spilled my coffee. You cant roll back useage. We didnt have computers in the 70s - but how many could live without now. Ditto mobile phones, tablets, entertainment systems, games consoles ..... the list goes on. You may not "need" all these things, but it would be a huge negative impact at the very least to not have them. .

We are regressing though or at least changing our usage patterns. 10 years ago most were were careful with energy now it, energy minimisation, is by necessity having to become an obsession for many or done without completely.

A computer, a mobile phone a TV fine, it is when we have to have one for every member of the family, upgrade every 12 months, then we aren't content with a smart phone and PC we need a tablet too, to allow simultaneous surfing. Bonkers.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

You may not "need" all these things, but it would be a huge negative impact at the very least to not have them. Perhaps we should go back to living in caves when we didn't use electric at all. cooking on open fires and sleeping when its dark etc.

It's the usual discussion on the difference between 'need' and 'want'. If you someone feels deprived because they can't use a tablet or mobile phone or games console, then they need a reality check.

Having to go to the extreme and suggest living in caves just undermines your point. As Grizzly suggests, you could simply have one TV, one computer, one DVD, etc. within the family unit. If you also buy energy efficient models (an LED TV from 2012 will be much more efficient than a valve TV from the 70s) then you could probably 'turn back the clock' on energy useage. You might also find that the whole family sits together to watch TV instead of disappearing off to different rooms, not only saving on heating/lighting costs but it might also bring families closer together.

posh*spice

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Posh -If you don't want nuclear or fracking how do you suggest we meet the ever growing demand for electricity and energy?

In the end imho energy efficiency will be the only way forward. Like this:-

Paris Faces Darkness With Illumination Ban

The French minister for energy and environment unveiled last week a proposal for lights in and outside shops, offices, and public buildings -- including the flagship Louis Vuitton store and the Lido cabaret house on Paris’s Avenue des Champs Elysees -- to be turned off between 1 a.m. and 7 a.m. starting in July. The plan, to be applied across French cities, towns and villages, is aimed at saving energy and money and showing “sobriety,” Minister Delphine Batho said.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-04/paris-faces-darkness-as-city-of-light-set-for-illumination-ban#p1

Why do office lights need to be left on all night?

Why are people so resistant to change?