Time for state owned Nuclear Power

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What is needed is low regulation, low entry costs, and high levels of competition, to attract the maximum number of producers to drive down prices.

There is certainly a place for nuclear as well, a good energy mix is vital for energy security, but not at any price....

With low regulation comes low safety, disregard for the problems they leave behind for someone else too clear up or live with the consequences.

Whilst the gas that enters the pipe may be cheap once it gets into the grid it then has to be become part of the pan European supply and pricing will be controlled so don't hold your breath on cheap prices for consumers a la USA.

grizzly1911

howee wrote: »

I don't think its unreasonable of them to want a commitment from this and future gov's that they won't ditch nuclear for another fuel further down the road.

Japan & Germany are perfect examples of major switches away from nuclear without any consultation. These things are not cheap to build or run.

What do you think will be keeping the lights on in a couple of decades in Japan, Germany and Italy.

I wonder if Germany will be buying capacity off France who are major nuclear generators.

I understood Germany, Italy and Japan were more concerned with accidents rather than the generation itself.

Unfortunately for Germany the prevailing winds are from the west so they are just as much at risk from France as they are from themselves.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Whilst the gas that enters the pipe may be cheap once it gets into the grid it then has to be become part of the pan European supply and pricing will be controlled so don't hold your breath on cheap prices for consumers a la USA.

Pricing is a function of supply and demand.

The more gas we can produce, the lower the prices.

If our prices are lower than Europe, and we become a net exporter, then that's also OK. No reason we can't help the continent to drive down their pricing too.

But the infrastructure doesn't exist to export most of the gas.

Supply chain blockages will almost always dictate it's mostly used here, driving down our prices, rather than mostly being exported.

The trick is to flood the market with hundreds, or even thousands, of small producers.

Brassedoff

I am a complete free marketer, but the case for a fix priced £1 for £1 forced share buy of the power companies after taking liabilities in to account finalised nationalisation should take place.

Power is becoming increasingly essential, when the lights start going off, as they will, in a few years. The power companies will demand money from the tax payer and hold them to ransom.

Forestall this event, nationalise, then invest in safe and secure nuclear power that can then be built for the benefit of this nation, not the French or any other.

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Pricing is a function of supply and demand.

The more gas we can produce, the lower the prices.

If our prices are lower than Europe, and we become a net exporter, then that's also OK. No reason we can't help the continent to drive down their pricing too.

But the infrastructure doesn't exist to export most of the gas.

Supply chain blockages will almost always dictate it's mostly used here, driving down our prices, rather than mostly being exported.

The trick is to flood the market with hundreds, or even thousands, of small producers.

The trick might be but it isn't going to happen. This isn't Texas 80 years ago with nodding donkeys in peoples back yards. We will end up with a few "competitors" who know the industry and technology.






Wood Mackenzie estimates that in order to develop UK shale reserves, potential operators would need a gas price of $9.68 per million British thermal units (mbtu) for the project to make economic sense. This is considerably more than this year's average UK spot price of $8.69 per mbtu and the $8 per mbtu that Bloomberg forecasts it will hover around between 2015 and 2020.
Jamie Spiers, a researcher at Imperial College, said: "These figures suggest that the cost of extracting UK shale gas reserves will exceed the price......

Yvonne Telford, another Wood Mackenzie analyst, said: "We think it is unlikely that shale gas from the UK alone will have a material impact on the UK's gas price dynamics to 2025."




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/viability-of-shale-gas-power-source-in-doubt-due-to-cost-8428145.html

PaulF81

Having worked in the public sector, I wouldnt trust the state with a coal fired reactor, never mind a nuclear reactor.

Only way to do this is private run, independent state-regulated.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The trick might be but it isn't going to happen.

Wood Mackenzie estimates that in order to develop UK shale reserves, potential operators would need a gas price of $9.68 per million British thermal units (mbtu) for the project to make economic sense. This is considerably more than this year's average UK spot price of $8.69 per mbtu and the $8 per mbtu that Bloomberg forecasts it will hover around between 2015 and 2020.
Jamie Spiers, a researcher at Imperial College, said: "These figures suggest that the cost of extracting UK shale gas reserves will exceed the price......

Yvonne Telford, another Wood Mackenzie analyst, said: "We think it is unlikely that shale gas from the UK alone will have a material impact on the UK's gas price dynamics to 2025."

Heh heh....

Woods MacKenzie, eh?

Let's take a look at the history of such analysts in predicting the economics of shale...

"Over the years, various analysts at WoodMac have been wrong about shale gas first in the US, latterly in China and consistently in Europe.

I’ve seen others such as Ben Dell of Bernstein move on from being the bad news bears of shale energy to take up new positions promoting shale oil exploration in Europe.

One person’s opinion I’d love to hear more of would be that of the FT’s John Dizard, who has been consistently, and spectacularly, wrong since 2009.

In his Olympian “expert” voice, he first told us how shale gas, thanks to outdated depletion analysis was either doomed to failure in the US or would need gas prices over $6 as he confidently predicted in 09,10,11 and even 12.

In 2013, he doesn’t answer e-mails."

Shale is getting cheaper and cheaper to produce. And for good reason... technology is advancing productivity in shale production at an exponential pace.

"Similarly, the US of even last year doesn’t provide a road map for European shale today, let alone next year.

Shale, building on technology, is a story of continuous improvement. We’ve seen shale provinces such as Ohio’s Utica move from zero last year to a projected 4.8 BCM by end of 2013. We’ve seen the Eagle Ford move from 5,000 barrels a day in 2010 to over 600,000bd this year.

Pennsylvania, the place John Dizard told us in 2009 was doomed to failure and bankruptcy has moved from a trickle in that year to 7 BCFD or 72 BCM a year today.

In 2009, wells took three weeks to drill, and recent wells in the Eagle Ford have broken the five day barrier. Horizontal stages of a few hundred feet have been replaced by those of several miles. Frack stages are no longer measured in days but in hours.

Shale gas is a factory style industrial process, with similar improvements in productivity and profitability.

To predict European costs on the US past is as pointless as believing, or is that fervently hoping, that Europe even has different geology than the rest of the planet and we have been cursed with being a hydro carbon desert as the rest of the world blooms with shale energy."

So the reality is clear, shale gas can drop UK energy prices through the floor within a few short years.

So I wonder why all the vested interests, industry insiders and energy companies are so desperate to downplay it?

Oh wait.... This might have more than a little to do with it.

"Governments, although most definitely not at the EU level it must be stressed, mostly wish shale gas would go away.

The story of the US has been natural gas bankrupting investors involved in turn in LNG imports, coal CCS, nuclear, storage, and coal in generation.

Now natural gas, as Ed Morse of Citi recently noted, is substituting for oil in transport, generation and naptha in chemicals."

All quotes from....

http://www.nohotair.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2981:why-shale-gas-will-and-must-work-in-europe&catid=203&Itemid=417

CLAPTON

howee wrote: »

I don't think its unreasonable of them to want a commitment from this and future gov's that they won't ditch nuclear for another fuel further down the road.

Japan & Germany are perfect examples of major switches away from nuclear without any consultation. These things are not cheap to build or run.

in which case, what is the benefit of using the private sector if the taxpayer is underwriting the next 30 of profit?

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Heh heh....

Woods MacKenzie, eh?

Let's take a look at the history of such analysts in predicting the economics of shale...



Shale is getting cheaper and cheaper to produce. And for good reason... technology is advancing productivity in shale production at an exponential pace.



So the reality is clear, shale gas can drop UK energy prices through the floor within a few short years.

So I wonder why all the vested interests, industry insiders and energy companies are so desperate to downplay it?

Oh wait.... This might have more than a little to do with it.



All quotes from....

http://www.nohotair.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2981:why-shale-gas-will-and-must-work-in-europe&catid=203&Itemid=417

I know you are ever the optimist but I doubt shale gas will be low cost in Europe.

Even if it it can be extracted and fed into the system cheaply it will "taxed" to pay for alternatives.

Ever wondered why petrol in the US is so cheap compared to Europe?

CLAPTON

let's remember Windscale

big brother has tried to erase any memory of the accident

did it occur under the private sector?

were the resulting problems dealt with in an honest and open way?