What should the UK energy policy for the next 25 years+be

PeterZ_2

Martyn1981 wrote: »

How about the proposed subsidies, which do you think is more accurate, the 6p or 15p per kWh? How do you feel about paying such large subsidies for another 40 years, after 50 or 60 years (your figures, but I agree) of nuclear support already?

Are you content with the Crown accepting all liability costs, on the grounds that no company could ever afford the insurance, nor any underwriter afford to offer insurance.

We may not be able to avoid nuclear, but don't try to argue against the costs, hidden or otherwise.

Mart.

M.

The fact that nuclear is not required to have insurance and the UK taxpayer taking the liability is what I would call a hidden subsidy. Most people dont know its there, but can you imagine the cost if there was ever an accident?

Nuclear = privatise the profits and socialise the losses.

zeupater

Hi

Considering the recent discussion on energy policy & mix, there's a pretty good EU electricity market report which addresses a number of the points ( http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/electricity/doc/qreem_2012_quarter2.pdf ), such as French nuclear capacity being 63.1GW (well that's a decent percentage penetration!), an assessment of renewables moderating price (who'd have thought!), cross border energy exchanges (P30 - France must have a decent positive trade balance !), & european energy price convergence .... it's not a perfect report (are any ?), but it does put a few things into context ....

HTH
Z

grahamc2003

PeterZ wrote: »

The fact that nuclear is not required to have insurance and the UK taxpayer taking the liability is what I would call a hidden subsidy. Most people dont know its there, but can you imagine the cost if there was ever an accident?

Nuclear = privatise the profits and socialise the losses.

Ok, we'll take it you don't want Nuclear in your mix.

But this is a very simple question, and I have difficulty understanding your reluctance to explain what you mean by a mix. Afterall, it's not really a solution to our energy needs to say 'we need a mix'. You have to flesh it out a little more.

So, could I ask you again, on a winter's evening with zero solar contribution and zero wind contribution, what would your mix consist of?

You have to make 60GW , solar = 0, wind = 0, nuclear = 0, coal = 0, oil = 0, gas = 0 - I'm just wondering (isn't everyone else too?) how you get to 60GW. Or do we just give up and have no electricity?

I also may add that whatever you come up with for the 60GW has to be affordable.

Sheesh, these are the extremely simple and obvious considerations and requirements. Are we ever going to progress to the really difficult problems, like maintaining frequency within limits?

It's Ok saying all the technologies you don't want, how about some you do want, which satisfy the 60GW generation (remember wind, which I suppose everyone here loves but unfortunately gives no contribution in the scenario posed however many hundreds of billions have been spent, ditto solar).

Come on all the armchair electricty experts, lets get the simple and obvious requirements dealt with, I want to move on to the difficult almost tightrope walking requirements which require considerable intellectual capacity to solve so we can all plug our kettles in when we want - they are much more interesting.

spgsc531

Apparently, someone's been complaining about my posts to the Forum moderators.

spgsc531

PeterZ wrote: »

The fact that nuclear is not required to have insurance and the UK taxpayer taking the liability is what I would call a hidden subsidy. Most people dont know its there, but can you imagine the cost if there was ever an accident?

Nuclear = privatise the profits and socialise the losses.

There's also hidden discussions:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/18/nuclear-power-ministers-reactor

"The government is .... proposing to sign contracts guaranteeing subsidies for up to 40 years.

Also:

spgsc531 wrote: »

Natalie Bennett said on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday:

"at the moment the government is conducting secret negotiations that, although they’ve said they weren’t going to subsidise nuclear, we’re looking potentially at a situation where they could be offering EDF a subsidy of a billion pounds a year with a 30 year contract - £30 billion to subsidise nuclear"

doughnutmachine

grahamc2003 wrote: »

You have to make 60GW , solar = 0, wind = 0, nuclear = 0, coal = 0, oil = 0, gas = 0 - I'm just wondering (isn't everyone else too?) how you get to 60GW. Or do we just give up and have no electricity?

I also may add that whatever you come up with for the 60GW has to be affordable.

i went to a debate on renewable energy, the "green" party spokesman said it wouldn't necesarily be bad if the lights went out.... the guy was high up in the green party and i was shocked at how bad his arguments were - it was like watching a primary kid debating the subject.

PeterZ_2

I'm not against nuclear, I would rather we didn't given the costs and the risks but we may have little choice. But if we are to have nuclear is it right that we should be giving EDF £30 billion in subsidy for it?

spgsc531

PeterZ wrote: »

I'm not against nuclear, I would rather we didn't given the costs and the risks but we may have little choice. But if we are to have nuclear is it right that we should be giving EDF £30 billion in subsidy for it?

Wouldn't that cover the cost of the proposed Severn Barrage? :whistle:

PeterZ_2

spgsc531 wrote: »

Wouldn't that cover the cost of the proposed Severn Barrage? :whistle:

Most likely and would have the added benefit of keeping the money in the UK as it could be built by UK engineering firms. And not having to worry about that nasty radioactive waste would be an added bonus...

Instead lets just bung a whole load of taxpayer cash at the French state owned EDF for the next 30 years :doh:

spgsc531

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Could you tell us what these subsidies are for Nuclear? If they are hidden, how can you know? I hope you're not extrapolating the costs of treating waste from 60 years ago, when basically weapons and not disposal was the priority, and this legacy waste is causing unique problems which haven't been repeated during the last 50 years.

PeterZ wrote: »

Most likely and would have the added benefit of keeping the money in the UK as it could be built by UK engineering firms. And not having to worry about that nasty radioactive waste would be an added bonus...

Instead lets just bung a whole load of taxpayer cash at the French state owned EDF for the next 30 years :doh:

Looks like it might be 35 years:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/edf-subsidy-to-put-uk-on-nuclear-path-8527606.html

"On 19 March, the day before the Budget, the Environment Secretary, Ed Davey, will grant planning permission for EDF's power plant in Hinkley Point, Somerset"

Bear in mind, this is just for one site.