Sizewell C nuclear plant up for review as UK faces financial black hole About half of the UK's planned civil nuclear capacity could be reviewed as the government struggles to fill a £40 billion ($45 billion) black hole in its finances. Sizewell C, a new nuclear power plant planned for Suffolk, is now under evaluation as the government considers delaying or even canceling the project it is helping …
It is a shame that westinghouse is no more. Sizewell B seems to be ticking along without much fuss. We went with the EPR as it is EDF's pet project.
Obviously we need Gen 4 reactors going forward rather than continuing with thermal neutron type reactors so we can make better use of what is stored at Sellafield. Then we will not be reliant on questionable sources for the fuel. The other upside is we could probably make many more of the parts here as there won't be any huge pressure vessels involved.
Sizewell B seems to be ticking along without much fuss.
Because being designed and built on a budget they simply bought the steam plant from a company that made coal plants instead of doing a bespoke design for a single installation. Hence the output is somewhat lower than it could have been, but that's compensated for by the fact it could be bought off the shelf and just worked.
@AC
"It is a shame that westinghouse is no more".
Where did you get that from.
"In October 2022, Westinghouse was selected to build Poland's first nuclear power plant based on six AP1000 reactors.
Westinghouse also has business locations in Italy, Germany, Spain, the UK, Russia, and Bulgaria. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Company
I would however like to point out that the EPR you have picked was picked because the French and the Chinese were willing to build it and finace it.
I am not at all sure Westinghouse or any other provider was willing to finance anything similar in Britain now..
""It is a shame that westinghouse is no more".
Where did you get that from."
From recent news, Westinghouse is in the process of selling its nuclear power business. I can't recall if it's a done deal at this point.
At the time they were picking who was going to build it Westinghouse was pretty much on the edge of bankruptcy due to issues with projects in the US and did declare bankruptcy eventually. I was unaware they had managed to drag themselves, or at least the name, back from the dead.
I won't dispute the need for our French allies to be doing "well" but to do so at the expense of UK PLC?
UK Plc doesn't exist. What does are lots of very profit motivated Plcs that own critical parts of the UK's energy infrastructure. A large chunk of which are owned by EDF. So the French have a little issue (not Macron) with around half of it's nuclear fleet being off-line at the moment. So the UK has been busily exporting heavily subsidised electricity to France, pushing up UK prices and generating companies profits.
The EPR plants are new. *ALL* new reactors have had enormous lead times. Look at the British AGR plants that are currently running.
Hartlepool Began construction in 1968 - commenced operations in 1989. The fastest ones to connection took 8 years and it was a smoothed out design by then.
If you want cutting edge, current generation, ultra safe plant that comply with the world’s toughest regulations, you are going to have delays. They’re not off the shelf products and they’re brand new.
Also the cost over runs with AGR were absolutely eye watering too.
EPR will start delivering as they get more experience and have more examples of the built. That’s just the reality of it. It involves huge scaling up of demand.
If there’s a fleet of EPRs built in Europe and elsewhere, the costs and turn around time drops.
@Codejunky - I didn't mention Brexit, just making an observation based on the viewpoints you've been expressing.
Okay Farage was a reference to Brexit, but only in the sense that you seemed to be a devotee.
> I am happy to stay here and see if we can make a good go of it.
I'm looking forward to seeing your start-up or were you intending to be more of a spectator?
@Roland6
"I didn't mention Brexit, just making an observation based on the viewpoints you've been expressing."
However it would be fairly bad of me to vote brexit only to desire leaving the country.
"I'm looking forward to seeing your start-up or were you intending to be more of a spectator?"
Spectator/worker
Moved out of UK in 1991, been in the beloved EU ever since. You should try it. A lot less daily newspapers blaring the strength of a (no longer existing) empire, and actual civic education in schools to teach you how the government and Europe is supposed to work. The closest think I got to that in the UK was 2 years of Religious Education in primary school. Said Primary (and the following community college) now are run by a some Anglicanish academy....
Most of the EU republics have direct voting for the president, upper and lower chambers of government, and even the EU governance is democratic (yep, really) - directly from the population or indirectly represented from your country's elected president or prime minister. No "hand of God" who names a prime minister from the House of Commons, and approves anyone in the House of Lords who is not already there because they are part of the church or because their family was friendly with the monarch 400 years ago, and capable of pulling strings behind the scenes... so yeah, the "unelected mandarins in Brussels" line made me laugh, especially when I look at how the PM and the Lords are named...
And no, I didn't vote for Brexit. It impacted me directly, but I was not allowed a say, along with about a million others.
So, ok, go make a good go of it. You got what you wanted, out of the EU, even if all the other promises have fallen over.
I'm quite happy in my beloved EU.
@bpfh
"Moved out of UK in 1991, been in the beloved EU ever since. You should try it"
For a short time I did. Wasnt a fan but thats not particularly an EU thing as the country I was in. The place was nice but even people living there wanted out. The EU's interference in their livelyhood caused a lot of upset and protests and it seems they are not very well informed on when the EU insists on something unpopular (you should have heard some of the comments about the covid recovery fund).
"even the EU governance is democratic (yep, really)"
A view questioned when the current EU president ex German war minister was 'elected'. Questioned from within the EU by its devotees I add.
"And no, I didn't vote for Brexit. It impacted me directly, but I was not allowed a say, along with about a million others."
Because you left in 1991. Aka you dont live here. It was a decision about the UK for the people living in the UK. Does the UK vote in decisions made in the country you now reside?
"So, ok, go make a good go of it. You got what you wanted, out of the EU, even if all the other promises have fallen over."
I did get what I wanted, and you are right that the promised doom didnt happen.
"I'm quite happy in my beloved EU."
Now I am going to explain why you seem to have missed the point of my comment. Roland6 seemed surprised I didnt leave the UK for my opinions of how some things are run in this country. Some of the strongest opinions on how things should be run seem to come from remainers who are still sore 6 years after the referendum and not even 2 years after leaving the EU. So I returned the question.
*Just wanted to add I am glad your happy where you are. I consider that a good thing and encourage people to do so.
“Because you left in 1991. Aka you dont live here. It was a decision about the UK for the people living in the UK. Does the UK vote in decisions made in the country you now reside?”
No but the decisions the UK made does have direct effects: I’m now considered an immigrant rather than just another European working here, I need to prove why I want to stay with my family rather than it being “just normal”. Different work laws, different family laws, different residency laws, none of these applied until 2 years ago - and the loss of my local election vote that is not extended to non-EU residents is the cherry on the not very nice cake.
I won’t say I’m a substandard citizen now, but there has been a lot of negative effects, and I have lost rights that it would have been nice to keep, which is why I said that I could not have my say in a decision that did - and still does - directly affect me, and will continue to do so until I bite the bullet and request nationality.
@bpfh
"No but the decisions the UK made does have direct effects: I’m now considered an immigrant rather than just another European working here, I need to prove why I want to stay with my family rather than it being “just normal”."
Thats an issue of the country you reside. Maybe you could look at it as their hostility to foreigners even after you lived there so long or whatever. Thats nothing to do with the UK, the UK shouldnt be tied to the EU just because of how the country you chose to move to decides they should treat you.
"Different work laws, different family laws, different residency laws, none of these applied until 2 years ago"
And yet you say you were there since 1991. Yet thats how that country chooses to treat you. Thats not the UK doing that. As you say you left the UK to live there.
"I won’t say I’m a substandard citizen now, but there has been a lot of negative effects, and I have lost rights that it would have been nice to keep"
It sounds like thats what you're saying. And while they might have been 'nice for you' that does not give much of a reason why the UK should be forced to remain or why you who left in 1991 should be deciding if the UK should be run by the EU.
"which is why I said that I could not have my say in a decision that did - and still does - directly affect me, and will continue to do so until I bite the bullet and request nationality."
And here is the answer. You left the UK for a country you preferred back in 1991 and are still there 30 years later! Yet you havnt requested nationality? Why? And why not now? Why do you consider that 'biting the bullet'? What is wrong with that?
Yes yes, they're in power for 9 of the last 43 years but obviously it's still mostly their fault.
1997-2010 is 13years, no?
I would note that whilst this country's ailing infrastructure and lack of investment is mostly down to Thatcher and NuCon since 2010, it's fair to say Blair/Brown were extremely weak on both energy and transport. Significantly dragged their heels on new nuclear and spent more on roads than they did on trains/buses/trams.
So whilst our national problems are predominantly Conservative in origin, it's fair to say that on this issue, Labour also have an extremely weak record and had precious little to show after their 13years in power (and if we want to pick arbitrary "of the last... years", then they've had a ~50/50 split in this Millennium. 2000-10, vs 2010-22!).
And no, I'm not apologising - or voting Conservative. Lab did a lot of good (schools, health, police & courts). But it's still fair to say their transport & energy policies were weak-to-non-existent, and Starmer's shadow cabinet need to rectify that.
"Lab did a lot of good (schools, health, police & courts)"
Sadly they also did a lot of "bad" for schools. I remember BSF and the consultants, and all these modern school designs.
Replacing traditional brick built school designs for modern ones of glass looked stunning, but they cost a fortune to heat in winter, cool in summer, and when a huge pane of glass was smashed it costs far more than a regular piece of glass and often required professional services and cherry pickers.
Or the bank level Cisco switches they specced for the internal networks. We could get several HP ProCurves for just one of their Cisco ones - from their "preferred supplier" of course.
The worst one was a Dell PC. Cost to us from Dell was £299. Once we bought it from our managed service provider, who bought from a company who then bought it from Dell it was £450.
Well yes, I won't disagree that they saddled a lot of schools and health systems with very dubious PFIs, some of which have not come home to roost yet. No shortage of inefficiencies and consultancy fees of the sort you mention as well.
There were also the infringements of civil liberties - the aptly-named Terrorism Acts and that minor matter of an illegal war in Iraq.
Nonetheless, schools could afford teachers, and NHS waiting lists got really low.
They were mostly okay on ensuring that basic public services functioned in a reasonably sensible manner - which is nothing less than we should expect. Keeping the lights on is the sort of thing you'd consider as a bare minimum for a government. Something that could be taken-for-granted. Yet this lot seem to be struggling with it.
Labour trashed the UK educational system. They introduced comprehensive schools against parents' wishes, renamed polytechnics as universities and then forced people to go to university even when it wasn't the right choice for them. To pay for that they had to introduce student fees, and crippled graduates with loans. The best way any country can build its future is by giving the next generation the best, most appropriate, education it can. I will never forgive Blair for destroying the great system we had. The hypocrite then even sent his own children to private schools, after he'd trashed the public system.
Comprehensive schools were not introduced against parent's wishes - only against the wishes of the parents of the 10% who went to grammar schools.
And the introduction (and retaining) of comprehensive schools has been demonstrated to be better overall for most kids. So, the change was evidence based - something the current government has no interest in whatsoever.
Agreed to some extent about student fees and loans. But it's not that simple either - there was a demand for more higher education as we went towards a more skills-based system (mainly due to the fact that our manufacturing base got shut down by Thatcher.)
And the "great system" we had had been massively underfunded by the Tories. You can argue as much as you like about some of the things that Labour did, but they DID significatly increase spending on education, and for those few years, building were repaired, new schools were built, teachers were well paid and schools had reasonably sized classes.
And finally - Blair sent his kids to a state school. The London Oratory is a state Catholic school. Get your facts right.
And the introduction (and retaining) of comprehensive schools has been demonstrated to be better overall for most kids.
I’m a unitary authority here, there are only comprehensive. Across in the wider county there are grammars. Even the worst performing grammar out performs the best comp.
Are you implying:
a. that your authority is representative of all authorities, and/or
b. that 'Grammars' do the best for all children, I was under the impression that grammar schools only catered for those able/willing to pass certain 'academic' requirements; what happens to the rest is of no interest to them.
I was under the impression that grammar schools only catered for those able/willing to pass certain 'academic' requirements; what happens to the rest is of no interest to them.
Grammar schools do focus on more-academic subjects for those with aptitudes in that area, others focus on vocational skills for those who are better with their hands than their heads. Much the same as happened with University versus Polytechnic. We need both, there's no point in forcing a skilled painter, plumber or carpenter to study the abstract academic theory behind those subjects if their skills really lie in the practical application of them.
Indeed, except 'grammar schools' traditionally only catered for those with certain academic aptitudes and social backgrounds—everybody else. i.e. most people, just had to hope for the best and were frequently let down.
'Grammar schools' in England, despite the enabling they gave to a small proportion of 'working class' children were(are) basically a 'middle class' obsession, devoted to upholding their interests. Grammars were(are) certainly not primarily a means of ensuring able children of ANY background got an appropriate education.
'Comprehensive schools', in theory, are intended to offer that broad accessibility, but in practice have often been shortchanged by the self-serving interests of the entrenched 'class system' that still operates in England, however watered down it may be.
So, 'Grammar schools' are, in the end, just a label. It's what lies behind that label that matters—the expectations and the realities. Sadly, overall, they do not offer an encouraging view of English society.
And the introduction (and retaining) of comprehensive schools has been demonstrated to be better overall for most kids.
One place that successfully fought the move was N. Ireland, where the Labour government of the 1970s didn't want to push too hard due to political sensitivities, and fell before it could complete the transition. Pupils in NI schools consistently scored better than those in comprehensive schools, so I would disagree that the comprehensive system was "better overall".
there was a demand for more higher education as we went towards a more skills-based system
If the demand is there from the students then it should be catered for, but Blair's insistence that everybody should go to university (he never seemed to understand the difference between "should go" and "should have the opportunity to go if they want") is what led to schools offering pointless "degrees" in vocational skills like hairdressing, or irrelevant subjects like media studies. As a result we got the famous "Polish plumbers", where we had to import skilled tradesmen from outside because the educational system here wasn't producing them any more.
(mainly due to the fact that our manufacturing base got shut down by Thatcher.)
A popular myth among the left, but not borne out by the facts. The industry's own publication notes that:
"Despite the decline since the 1970s, when manufacturing contributed 25% of UK GDP, the UK is currently the ninth largest manufacturing nation in the world. Overall, the UK’s industrial sector has increased by 1.4% a year since 1948, according to a recent report from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)...Although the contribution of manufacturing to GDP has declined on paper, many of the services provided to manufacturers which would have once been considered part of manufacturing – such as catering; cleaning; building services; security; logistics and so on – are now allocated into different areas of the economy."
Those countries ahead of us in the table are, not surprisingly, the heavywights: China, USA, Japan, Germany, S. Korea, but the UK is in no way "shut down".
And finally - Blair sent his kids to a state school. The London Oratory is a state Catholic school. Get your facts right.
Yes, I mispoke. It's not a private school, but a grammar school which became a grant-maintained (i.e. state-funded grammar) school when others were forced to go comprehensive, and then an Academy. It is not, though, a comprehensive, which was the point I wanted to make. Blair forced that on the rest of the country, but not his own children.
Polytechnics were able to become Universities under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which if you cast your mind back, was the Major government, so it was a Tory policy. But then our former PM Boris blamed labour for a lack of investment in nuclear power, despite his party having been in power for 12 years, and doing very little. You can't just spit out "It was labour's fault" when we can fact check so easily, or maybe in my case, just remember as I worked at a Polytechnic that rebranded during that era.
Student Loans were introcuded in 1990, oh wait,.... bang in the middle of two Tory governments.
Comprehensive Schools were labour, so you got 1/3 factoids correct. You might like to think the 11+ exams were a meritocracy meaning kids got the education they were capable of receiving, but it meant lots of kids just got thrown on the scrapheap.There were interviews for places at Grammar Schools, not just exam results to decide the fate of children.
Student Loans were introcuded in 1990, oh wait,.... bang in the middle of two Tory governments.
Those were low-cost loans, to help top-up student grants. It was the Blair government that introduced tuition fees in 1998, and abolished grants so that almost all students had to take out loans to pay for their education.
I'm not defending Blair, just underlining the rot set in with the Tories. If you look at higher education attendance, there's a leap in figures around 1990. The Higher Education Act, Student Loans, and the dissolution of the CNAA were all Tory policies. Largely as a reaction to the huge 12% unemplyment rate in the mid eighties, the Tories just wanted to shovel kids into education so they didn't appear on dole figures. All of that needed paying for. In my day a few percent of an age cohort went on to hiogher education, now it's not far off 50%.
Comprehensive Schools were Labour's attempt to destroy Britain's educational system, and unfortunately they mostly succeeded in their aim. The level of education shown by most University entrants is woeful, and so the University courses have been dumbed down to suit their intakes and in an effort to comply with Blair's demand that 75% of school leavers should go to "University".
Education in the UK was (once) the best in the world. Now we're even behind Botswana!
"Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 they became fully fledged universities. After 1992, the former polytechnics ("new universities") awarded their own degrees. Most sub-degree BTEC qualifications have been phased out of the new universities, and transferred to colleges of further education."
Between 1979 and 1997 the UK govt was conservative, so no LAbour didn't rename polytechnics, the conservative party did.
Student grants also during that period got whittled away to next to nothing, I know someone whose student "grant" was 50 pence...
See also Unum (US health insurer) involvement in uk social security redesign, pushing heavily for "health professional assessments" as "doctors can't be trusted to make the "right" decisions" and then had the gall to advertise their insurance plans in the UK due to "benefit cuts"....
> Labour also have an extremely weak record and had precious little to show after their 13years in power (and if we want to pick arbitrary "of the last... years", then they've had a ~50/50 split in this Millennium. 2000-10, vs 2010-22!).
And this is with the Tories having Covid to deal with, vs Blair deciding to co-create Gulf war 2 and spend loads on that.
(By someone who's never voted for the Tories, for the ad hominems out there.)
@Androgynous Cupboard
"Yes yes, they're in power for 9 of the last 43 years but obviously it's still mostly their fault."
Is it? Why do you feel its mostly their fault (not for criticism just interested in your opinion). You might note I didnt apportion blame at all, just pointed out that blaming one party but not others (feel free to drop libs in from the coalition too if you like) was incomplete.
Thatcher still gets blamed and she has been out of government for ages.
Thatcher gets blamed because she was the one who started the neoliberal mess we are still saddled with. Along with shutting down our manufacturing industry, and selling off all our state assets and North Sea Oil, and using the money to reduce taxes (mainly for the rich) rather than investing in our future. As a direct result, we now have the first generation of kids for YEARS who are generally worse off than their parents,
(Yes, yes, I know, she dealt with the over-strong unions too. But what a bloody cost.)
Reducing tax for the rich does invest in our future. They spend the money on things, which have VAT, and provided by business and people who also pay taxes and get salaries from it.
They invest the rest, in new and existing companies, that build the future we have now. I'm not a particular fan of rich people (I don't really think about them) but the idea that their investments will be worse than the government's in terms of our future isn't one I can get on board with.
Trickle down theory - its a load of cobblers, give the rich tax cuts and they squirrel it away in some offshore tax haven, give those at the bottom end of earnings / those reliant on social security they tend to spend it and thus put money back into the economy. In a nutshell trickle down economics is an utter load of crap
You seem to have jumped to the closest pattern match. Of course people do this, but they mostly don't. They mostly invest it where they can. We've just had 2 decades of low interest rates, and people haven't squirreled their money away somewhere else with higher rates. They've pumped it into startups and scaleups. Tech salaries are a good indicator of this.
They invest the rest, in new and existing companies, that build the future we have now.
No they don't. They stick it in an offshore savings account. Most "rich people" are not entrepreneurs - they're stockbrokers, financiers and board members. Give a CEO a tax cut and they won't start a new unicorn - they're already doing quite nicely as an employee of an existing business.
And even if they are minded to go it alone, they don't need personal wealth to do that. If they're already "rich" then they will be able to bankroll a small start-up regardless of whether the top rate of tax is 40% or 45%. If it's an idea that requires significant up-front capital then they're probably not bankrolling it themself anyway and are getting finance from a partner/VC and/or consultants working on contingency (see: startup of Starling Bank where the work to get licensed was done largely on contingency).
I'm not a particular fan of rich people (I don't really think about them) but the idea that their investments will be worse than the government's in terms of our future isn't one I can get on board with.
If you were referring to "picking winner" NESTA-type investments then I'd agree. But the government should be building the future in terms of infrastructure and services so that people have the security to risk quitting their job and going-alone. Good public transport. Energy security. Health. Education. Housing.
All investments that successive governments (and "the market) have either done a so-so job on, or failed entirely to deliver. We don't need to pick a winner. We need to build it ourselves.
@rg287
"No they don't. They stick it in an offshore savings account."
If thats true then they lose money. Not only that but the money isnt sitting in an account but being lent out by the bank and being used in the economy (of the country it is in).
"If they're already "rich" then they will be able to bankroll a small start-up regardless of whether the top rate of tax is 40% or 45%"
Really? What is rich? Assuming you are in the UK then thats one of the richest countries in the world, assuming you earn a middling wage you are the rich-
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/21/are-you-in-the-global-middle-class-find-out-with-our-income-calculator/
"If you were referring to "picking winner" NESTA-type investments then I'd agree. But the government should be building the future in terms of infrastructure and services so that people have the security to risk quitting their job and going-alone. Good public transport. Energy security. Health. Education. Housing."
Except government does 'pick winners' and doesnt do a great job at the energy, education, health, housing. Tax's are shooting up and civil servants are looking to strike.
"All investments that successive governments (and "the market) have either done a so-so job on, or failed entirely to deliver. We don't need to pick a winner. We need to build it ourselves."
Unfortunately government will always want more, money and power.
@Binraider
"New labour, otherwise known as Tory-lite.
Which means 40 of the last 40 years have been governed more or less by Tory politics."
Thats cute but then we have had Cameron and May and Boris aka 12 yrs of Labour-lite. So that would be the last 22 years of Labour politics.
@Ken Hagan
"If you can't see the gap between Brown and Truss, you must be looking from very far away. (That guy in the middle distance is probably Trotsky.)"
Interesting comparison. So you compare Brown who was Chancellor and PM, the two top jobs for many years. And Truss who was outlived by a lettuce and couldnt get to implement any policies? And she was replaced with... more of the same that came before.
There wasnt much difference between Blair/Brown and Cameron, May, Boris and from the look of things Sunak. But go on you were failing
@ArrZarr
"It is worth noting that Truss did try to implement a policy"
While presenting it a little ham fisted it is a shame she didnt get to go ahead. It was nice to see someone proposing pro-growth policies and while I didnt completely agree with her approach was willing to look at UK energy supply.
Unfortunately she was stabbed in the back and we are back to business as usual.
The 'no decisions means no comeback' plague is spreading and there is no vaccine in sight.
It isn't just this project that is under the cosh despite it producing decades of carbon free power.
The railway electrification move which makes sense from a carbon output POV is now a dead duck. No line upgrades in the north of England. So much for the 'levelling up' bullshit.
All politicians no matter what party are the lowest of the low. Even lower than lawyers who are 1st class scumbags.
Again. Can we just start referring to *politicians* and their dumb long term implications? I can throw a load of financially backed arguments that both sides of the spectrum make stupid decisions that have ultimately caused the country more harm in the long term.
Very clearly, not that this is a pro-Tory argument (they make self-serving idiotic short-termist decisions too), more rallying against the "because they're red they're my bestest friends and always make perfect decisions" argument that I'm so tired of hearing. Note the following awesome decisions by Labour:
* Cancellation of TSR-2 ultimately leading to the scientific brain drain from the UK's aerospace industry and it's ultimate collapse
* The British Leyland debacle and everything wrapped up in it that ultimately tanked the UK's automotive industry and the lack of willingness to deal with the mounting problems that ruined the reputation and abilities within because it would have been politically challenging to those involved
* Retirement of Trolley Bus and mass-transit local tram services in major cities
* Implementation of the second half of the Beeching cuts that ultimately removed that mass transit from the UK
* Unwillingness to deal with the declining profitability of coal (because it would have been politically challenging to those involved) in the UK through the 70's that led ultimately to the breaking-point in the early 80's when it was too late to deal with in a non-ruinous manner for those (literally) at the coal face
* 1997's skyrocketing of national debt that devalued the pound aggressively whilst simultaneously selling off the country's gold reserves, making debt more expensive
* PFI2, the ungodly amounts of cash that were thrown at everyone, often for no legitimate need (I was there and witnessed it first hand as the sole voice railing against it) and the enormous amount of debt that national institutions are now facing because they're renting back the buildings and other assets that they used to own (from the friends of all politicians), hence why public sector pay-rises are now extra-challenging. Side note - where are the deeds for half the schools in the country? With the politicians friends
I'm not saying the Tories are a workers co-op or have your best interests at heart. As we had last month however there are Labour pro-fox-hunting politicians. The world is not black and white and just because of some national blindness, Labour are not necessarily your friends, or making decisions with you at heart.
* PFI2, the ungodly amounts of cash that were thrown at everyone, often for no legitimate need (I was there and witnessed it first hand as the sole voice railing against it) and the enormous amount of debt that national institutions are now facing because they're renting back the buildings and other assets that they used to own (from the friends of all politicians), hence why public sector pay-rises are now extra-challenging.
Also been there, done that, refused to work on any more PFI or pseudo-PFI projects because of their corruption. But this element gets worse-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63514562
The cost of decarbonising UK public sector buildings is estimated to be £25-30bn, government figures show.
...The government has set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from public buildings by 75% by 2037 as part of its net zero strategy.
While new buildings can have low carbon heating systems such as ground-source heat pumps and solar panels fitted from the outset, older properties will need to have the latest equipment retrofitted.
Again from the 'renewables' industrys PR wing. It kind of glosses over the futility of doing this given even if the UK meets it's self-imposed 'net zero' strategy, it will have zero impact on Global Warming. Especially when developing countries are industrialising and building clean coal power stations just as fast as they can. But obviously the 'need' to have the latest equipment retrofitted is going to be extremely profitable, if you're in the business of supplying that equipemt. Even more so if you're a rent-seeking scumbag who'll be collecting the subsidies on offer.
And of course the Bbc glosses over the real elephant in the room, in it's usual rush to promote 'renewables'. Net Zero and the government's neo-luddite poliicies ignore both history, and the.. slight snag with decarbonisation. So should we decarbonise both heating and transport, as all our parties currently do, we're going to need an awful lot more electricity generating capacity. Like 3x our current. And there will still be the fundamental problem of what happens when the wind doesn't blow, or it's just dark, or cloudy.
It really is bizarre that our politicians can't seem to grasp that wasting billions (or trillions) on weather dependent technology might not be the best idea in the face of the 'extreme' weather we're supposedly destined to get.
> The cost of decarbonising UK public sector buildings is estimated to be £25-30bn
I work for a public body that's going to have serious problems hitting the generic target that the government gives - because we've got a huge archive that needs to be kept at specific temperatures and humidities (different settings for different sorts of materials).
We could, I suppose, plaster all our roof sections with PV cells but I suspect that wouldn't even scratch the load.
I work for a public body that's going to have serious problems hitting the generic target that the government gives - because we've got a huge archive that needs to be kept at specific temperatures and humidities (different settings for different sorts of materials).
Yeh, that's the problem with policies like this. Also curious if you're considered a 'large energy user' and have to pay extra for carbon credits? That seems particularly crazy unless public services like yours, schools, hospitals etc are exempted. You can't exactly reduce energy usage without risking history, or whatever artefacts you're trying to preserve. There's also challenges with solar panels, as I think Brighton Council discovered when their installation caught fire. Downside to high power DC systems, arcing, electrical hazards to fire fighters and access in general. I think the fire service's policy when panels are involved is to let it burn because there's no easy way to be sure they're isolated.
No such thing.
Wrong. Once upon a cold, snowy November, one Ed Milliband gave us the legally binding Climate Change Act that said we must reduce carbon emissions by 30%.
Prior to this, the UK had a lot of coal power stations, including this one-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsnorth_power_station
The proposed station came under considerable criticism from groups including Christian Aid (who noted that the emissions from the plant would be over 10 times the annual emissions from Rwanda),[14] Greenpeace,[15] The Royal Society,[16] the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,[17] the World Development Movement,[18] the World Wide Fund for Nature[19] and CPRE.[20]
Climate scientist and head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies James E. Hansen condemned the building of new coal power stations stating: In the face of such threats [from climate change] it is madness to propose a new generation of power plants based on burning coal, which is the dirtiest and most polluting of all the fossil fuels.
And so, after objections from that illustrious group of experts, and the climate millionaire Hansen being flown across the Atlantic to object during a judicial review, that power station and it's proposed replacement are now a pile of rubble.
Strange thing is the Act of idiocy only mandated carbon reductions of around 30%. The proposed supercritical coal power station would/could have reduced CO2 emissions by around 30%. So it would have met the legal requirements of the Act. Of course that's not acceptable because the problem is political. Biden just told one of the US coal states that he's going to ban coal in the US. Joe Manchin, a Dem from W.Virginia was distinctly unimpressed. Biden says US coal will be replaced by the wind, and the Sun, and all will be well.
The US, along with our chunk of the West is having a bit of an energy crisis right now because politicians are fixated by Green crap, not reality. Energy is an input cost to pretty much everything, especially inflation. So bringing energy costs down is the most useful thing to do to reduce inflation, improve living standards and the economy in general. But they're doing the exact opposite. Replacing old coal stations (or wind/solar farms) with modern supercritical ones reduces CO2 emissions, reduces energy costs, creates employment and provides energy security.
> Can we just start referring to *politicians*
I'm not a Labour supporter, and you might or might not be right with the examples you gave, but the suggestion that we simply lump all "politicians" together is essentially (because of) the "they're all as bad as each other" attitude.
For all that one should be cynical about politicians and, yes, very few are perfect, "they're all as bad as each other" isn't actually true, and most benefits those that really *are* already at the bottom of the pile, since it drags everyone down to their level and doesn't penalise *them* for what they've done nor reward their opponents for trying to do any better.
It also fosters cynicism and disengagement with politics, something that the likes of Russia openly encourages, since it undermines Western democracies.
"They're all as bad as each other" promotes and encourages the exact problem it purports to identify and bemoan.
It also fosters cynicism and disengagement with politics, something that the likes of Russia openly encourages, since it undermines Western democracies.
Politicians being ignorant, incompetent or outright lying does that to a far greater degree than Russia could possibly hope for. See the frequently repeated claim that 'Russia weaponised energy' when the reality is that our politicians chose to sanction it. Depsite the obvious consquences when those sanctions backfired so spectacularly, and predictably.
Agreed. What I mean to foster is that this country seems to have some sort of red-washing goggles where a large subset of the population seems to think that it's blue=bad and red=friend. They're both self-serving and the ideal is dangerous. I can't understand how this has happened when half the issues the same subset of the population bemoans were ultimately caused by short-termist decisions by Labour leadership.
"when half the issues the same subset of the population bemoans were ultimately caused by short-termist decisions by Labour leadership"
I don't recall Labour privatising all our public utilities, carving up the NHS to sell off to US and other International healthcare companies, normalising foodbanks and zero-hours contracts. Yes, they have made some questionable decisions but the vast majority of the issues the UK faces today were due to Conservative party policies and decisions.
Oh, and don't forget the gaslighting from the media around the energy prices being so high due to the 'War in the Ukraine'. It's not a war, Russia invaded and the Ukraine is just defending itself. Besides, the UK only gets 4% of our gas from Russia so price fluctuations due to that should be marginal at best. However, the formula for working out energy prices is convoluted and designed to significantly increase profits for the energy companies, not give the most competitive value to the end consumer. And that was by design. From the Conservatives.
@simonlb
"I don't recall Labour privatising all our public utilities, carving up the NHS to sell off to US and other International healthcare companies, normalising foodbanks and zero-hours contracts"
You might have missed the 13 years under labour. Government functions being outsourced to private companies who exist only to serve the gov but looks good in the accounts. Handing out NHS work to private companies. Food banks were a thing under labour too. As were zero hour contracts.
"It's not a war, Russia invaded and the Ukraine is just defending itself"
Thats a war.
"Besides, the UK only gets 4% of our gas from Russia so price fluctuations due to that should be marginal at best"
Except we buy gas from the world market who now have less supply and a lot of countries bidding up the price.
"However, the formula for working out energy prices is convoluted and designed to significantly increase profits for the energy companies, not give the most competitive value to the end consumer. And that was by design. From the Conservatives."
True except it was pre conservative (as I understand). I am not trying to defend the cons, I have dismal opinions of them, but I am not sure your comment is correct for the most part. Plus a lot of the energy price problems we have faced in this country is to make unreliable green tech seem viable.
It's happened because First Past the Post denies any other choice. Under FPTP, frequent change is particularly necessary because power corrupts.
I was as ready to get rid of Labour when Brown got his hands on the premiership; and I was ready to get rid of the Tories the moment Cameron lost control of his party (mostly to the lunatic right wing). Both parties have their problems; the current incumbents particularly so.
In recent memory the best PM the UK has had was John Major, and look how the media treated him. Pragmatism and science were not enough to overcome ludicrous media bias or Eurosceptics.
MMPR is absolutely necessary to overcome the ludicrous situation we find ourselves in, where we cannot vote for what we want; and instead have to vote for that most likely to defeat what we are not willing to tolerate.
"1997's skyrocketing of national debt that devalued the pound aggressively whilst simultaneously selling off the country's gold reserves, making debt more expensive"
This is utter bilge. The national debt declined year on year in the late 90s. It was 40% of GDP in 1995, falling to ~25% by 2001. [Today it's close to 200% of GDP.] The UK didn't lose its AAA credit rating until the mid-2010s. So the cost of servicing the national debt was at a near-record low throughout the mid 90s. It wasn't affected by Fuckwit Brown's gold sell-off.
It was of course remarkably stupid to sell that gold when the price was low. Those sales only brought in ~$1B/year for three years: roughly 0.1% of the UK's GDP at that time. The idea that materially affected the cost of debt repayments or the exchange rate is ridiculous.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48177767
The really ridiculous thing is that we are looking at cutting spending because as a result of spending an estimated £140 billion quid on keeping the gas and power bills at the level they are this year (as opposed to "bankrupt everybody").
They therefore consider cutting the governments £1.7 billion pound investment in a nuclear power plant, which will reduce the gas requirement in the future.
If they'd have built this plant a decade ago and it was online at this moment then it'd have reduced the amount of gas we are burning for electricity generation by one third, which one assumes would have the potential to impact the gas and electricity prices somewhat.
It is true.
The UK has been using gas for many things for 100+ years, prior to the 1990s most power station use of gas was open-cycle, essentially jet engines hooked up to generators as rapid-start, inefficient, emergency supply for short-term coverage of peaks. From 1990 on it moved to closed-cycle generation as a much more efficient main power source. That's when the numbers of gas power stations shot up, and coal-fired ones were closed.
Yes. The very best CHP designs for generation are at most going to return approx 50 to 60% of the heat released as electricity, If they are operating at absolutely optimal conditions. Some variation with respect to transmission losses and the distance that has to be covered from the generator too.
Burning at a boiler at home, for heat, you can get a return of 90+%.
Of course gas used to be treated as a premium fuel. It was only legislation changes in the very late 80's that opened up Gas as a generation source.
The solutions to shortfalls and/or excessive reliance on gas is in building something else. Nukes; Windmills, Solar, Storage Systems. And we cannot deliver those nearly quickly enough due to 4 decades of delay and blunder. Yet another problem has come to the fore recently. The available bays to connect new customers in substations, both transmission and distribution - nearly all of them are accounted for. The networks have transmission capacity, but not the place to connect people in.
This is now the main blocker to progressing our work to deal with our addiction to O&G. Ofgem needs to re-invent itself and it's agenda to progress the transition; and do so on timelines that look beyond the next general election or two.
Hmm, dubious numbers.
Typical heatpump CoP (coefficient of performance) around 3 to 4. So let's say closer to 4. If you get a little over half the energy out by converting from gas to lecky, then overall you'll be running at around twice the heat out as if you just burned the heat in a modern high efficiency boiler (hooked up to a heating system that allows it to actually be efficient*) - and that's if you pick the best figures, a lot of the time they will be significantly worse.
Heatpumps don't sound quite so good now do they.
Of course, part of the lecky mix is low or zero carbon, so great. But as all that is use at present, additional load created by adding lecky heating will - in this country - come from additional output from gas turbine plants. So realistically, we need to compare between gas heating, and burning more gas for lecky heating as there isn't spare renewables or nuclear power to supply that increment.
* In many cases, the condensing boiler won't be condensing for a significant part of it's output. That's especially if the radiators are too small, so the temperature has to be turned up, and when the return temperature goes above about 54˚C then it doesn't condense and efficiency drops dramatically. Counter-intuitively, this is worse when on part load as the return temperature rises as thermostatic valves close due to the requirement to have a minimum flow rate in all these boilers designed (being charitable) for 20th century heating systems.
They do exist - but are not very efficient, and are a bit complex.
According to Wikipedia, CoP is only around 1.2 to 2.5 - and I suspect the higher figures are only achieved under ideal conditions. It also says that ΔT is generally 30–50 °C. To put that latter bit into context, if you are trying to pull heat out of the environment when it's freezing outside, and you want to heat your hot water to (say) 50C+, then it's going to be struggling.
I know with a previous work hat on we very briefly looked into using some waste process heat to drive an absorption chiller - while it could have worked, the plant would have been exceedingly expensive with no prospect of financial payback (ever, not just in the sort of timescales beancounters like to work in).
The really ridiculous thing is that we are looking at cutting spending because as a result of spending an estimated £140 billion quid on keeping the gas and power bills at the level they are this year (as opposed to "bankrupt everybody").
It's fine. Our Prime Moron is in Egypt telling the world that we need moar wind and solar. Even though that policy has created this mess. He also doesn't understand supply and demand, because one of his first acts as Prime Moron was to re-ban fraccing and gas exploration again. But see also-
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/11/06/would-we-be-better-off-now-if-we-had-more-renewables/
The only correct way to compare costs is to look at avoided marginal costs of gas, which the above chart does. Between 2018 and 2022, they reckon we would have had to buy an additional £33.5 billion worth of gas, if we had not had renewables.
Sounds impressive? .
Well, not really, because in the last five years, subsidies for renewable energy have cost the UK £75.7 billion – see here. These are the costs officially listed by the OBR as “Environmental Levies”. This actually understates the true cost, as it does not include the tens of billions spent on upgrading infrastructure and balancing the grid, both necessary to cope with the intermittency of renewables.
Where Greenwood gives another fisking to the 'renewables' lobby's most gullible PR company. Obviously the 'renewables' blob does not want to lose the billions in subsidies they're happily collecting, and demand more. And our Prime Moron seems determined to hand even more of our money to them.
They therefore consider cutting the governments £1.7 billion pound investment in a nuclear power plant, which will reduce the gas requirement in the future.
This is the other point. "Reviewing" CAPEX (funded by borrowing) to fill a black hole in your OPEX budget(1)? Nope, government finances don't work like that. Cancelling HS2 or Sizewell C will provide you with exactly £0 to spend on hospitals or schools.
Actually, I tell a lie. It'll cost you money immediately as all the cancellation and penalty clauses are invoked. And then cost even more to make the abandoned construction sites, half-dug tunnels and half-built bridges safe... (at this point, cancelling and closing down HS2 is actually a minimum 3-year project in itself).
1. Govt spending notionally funded by taxes. It isn't really - taxes don't fund spending. But they should - somewhat - match it, plus or minus a bit depending on what the rest of the economy is doing.
That it is and the fact that nuclear energy represents the only credible near term solution to cutting carbon emissions.
Solar and Wind are great but not reliable enough.... unless we get a break through in storage/battery technology.
Barring any such break throughs...I'd like to think energy beaming becomes a thing i.e satellites beam power down.
Well taking some things on face value...
According to an oil industry analyst a few weeks back there are roughly sufficient known fossil fuel reserves to maintain current consumption levels for circa 35 years. Now I know Tim Worstall will have things to say about reserves, but it is probably a safe assumption there is no vast (ie. 200+ year) reserves yet to be discovered. Likewise we can assume that consumption levels will actually increase in the coming years...
So things are not looking good in circa 25~35 years. Hence the really important question is how long does it take to build and commission a new nuclear power plant?
Well we know from Hinkley Point and Sizewell-C that once site work actually starts that's 8~12 years. However, planning is a big variable and unknown adding a further 5~10 years on to the above.
So things are starting to look very tight...
It does look like they will complete HS2 and have to immediately mothball it - unless we use smart meters to cut people off so there is spare electricity to run the trains...
According to an oil industry analyst a few weeks back there are roughly sufficient known fossil fuel reserves to maintain current consumption levels for circa 35 years
Can anyone else remember in the late 70's people were saying that the existing oil and gas reserves would run out in 20 years? No? Maybe I'm a bit older than most.. And then the prices go up (and Opec being idiots didn't help)
(Strangely enough, the oil and gas companies put a lot more effort into discovery and, lo and behold, there's suddenly more oil to be had! But, of course, the prices don't go down..)
More on the oil crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
And, of course, the energy-hungry nations still haven't learnt the lesson about putting your energy supply into the hands of your enemies.
Don't remember the 20 years panic, but the forecast from the early 1970's studies I remember reading suggested circa 200 years, which given the massive increase in consumption since then and the forecast in the late 1990's for 50~80 years, means the observation of someone with a vested interest in there being a fossil fuels market isn't too far out of line.
However, note I omitted any reference to how much of our consumption in the coming decades needs to remain in the ground and not put into the atmosphere...
> a lot more effort into discovery and, lo and behold, there's suddenly more oil to be had! But, of course, the prices don't go down..
However, none of the new reserves have the efficiency of extraction as arabia hence why the prices aren't coming down.
Also it is because of this discovery effort and the nature of the reserves they are discovering and wanting to exploit, we can be reasonably confident there isn't another arabia to be discovered.
Interestingly, Putin has a vested interest in the reversal of climate change and for Russia to get colder, as Russia has massive reserves of natural gas trapped in the permafrost, so temperatures rise so that reserve simply escapes into the atmosphere.
the oil and gas companies put a lot more effort into discovery and, lo and behold, there's suddenly more oil to be had! But, of course, the prices don't go down..
Basically, when oil is cheap(ish), there isn't the money to go off looking for more reserves. As prices rise (typically as some reserves start winding down in output), then the incentive to go off and look for more, and to convert what's already known about into flowing fuel, rises - so that's what happens. So over time there's this bobbing up and down as cycles come and go.
But, it's not as simple as that. Finding the oil is one thing, getting it out of the ground is another. So naturally, the companies will go for the easy (cheap) to extract reserves first, and as time goes on, converting reserves into flowing oil or gas gets more and more expensive.
So prices may not go down all that much, but they don't go up half as much they would do if resources weren't continually converted into reserves, and reserves continually converted into flowing fuel.
In an ideal world things would be relatively smooth. But as we know, there are lots of things that can upset the system. As a result, the whole oil and gas industry is very cyclical - for one thing, if prices rise, then multiple players may bring new supplies online, which then depresses the prices and puts the "search and develop" part of the industry into a hiatus. I had a relative involved in exploration (but for fate, it could have been his rig instead of Deepwater Horizon drilling in the gulf ...) - rigs would get laid up for years, then suddenly there'd be demand from multiple customers for a few years, rinse and repeat.
There's no way they can give a green light to HS2, to knock a few minutes off the journey time to Brum (and then stop), at the same time as giving a red light to our chances of having enough power to heat and light our homes. That would be certifiable idiocy.
Except, of course, none of these decisions are being made rationally. They are all being made politically.
The reason it needs to go fast is for capacity. Fast means more capacity. HS2 is roughly equivalent passenger capacity to the car carrying capacity of three motorways. Conventional rail would not be as capable; for similar amounts of disruption.
Solutions that don't involve mass volumes of cars to travel moderate to long distances must involve rail of some description. West coast mainline is already at capacity. Where's the extra traffic going to go, if it can't go down the roads or down the existing railway?
With that necessary pre-amble out of the way, the only remaining decision is HS rail over regular rail. Given the civil engineering and disruption requirements for conventional rail over HS2 are more or less the same; there is no good reason NOT to opt for a high speed rail solution.
Now, I agree, a better goal would be to reduce the reliance on people having to waste 4 hrs a day on a commute to London when they could work from home; but who else is going to cover the mortgages on all that "prime retail real estate" in London... The effects of extended WFH on the economy are already plain to see from COVID. The economy would have to adapt massively for that to be really practical in the long run. I don't think the markets are ready for that, not the way they are rigged as they are.
The vested interests of Westminister and landowners stick out a mile when you put it like that. But for all of HS2's foibles I think I'd much rather see that programme through than drop it.
Can major civil works in the UK be made "cheap" again? Not with planning laws as they are. And this is a problem for all kinds of infrastructure that mostly needs scaling up massively to satisfy current objectives (net zero, etc.)
HS2, to knock a few minutes off the journey time to Brum
It's a pity they used that argument to sell it - because it's not really the reason. As already mentioned, the main purpose of HS2 is to shift traffic off the WCML (West Coast Main Line) which doesn't have any spare capacity to shift freight off the motorways onto rail.
@Roland6
Yes I would agree it takes about 10 years, and perhaps less when the experience and the people are there.
But what prevents you from starting ten projects at the same time, except the people and the money perhaps.
Right now there are +50 new coming up during the next 10 years, probably more.
>But what prevents you from starting ten projects at the same time
I thought that was part of the rationale for the Sizewell design - build a fleet of identical reactors.
As to how much you can do in parallel, I suspect the real limiting factor is going to be manufacturing - for example the manufacture of the steel containment for Hinkley seemed to be highly problematic.
>Right now there are +50 new coming up during the next 10 years, probably more.
Who said going green would deny us economic growth?
In this instance, and in terms of energy security, it is important that this nuclear power project goes ahead to provide reliable base load electricity supply in the long term.
If the government really wants to make savings then the politicians should axe the Boris Johnson vanity project that is the £110 billion+/$126 billion+ HS2 rail and money pit project. The UK could have had up to four new nuclear power stations for that amount of money.
As far as I recall, it was the British 2010 coalition government that started the ball rolling on HS2. While it is predicted to open in 2033, that deadline will almost certainly be broken so it will probably be nearer 2040 by the time it comes into operation by which time the final cost might very well be £150 billion+/$173 billion+.
No way does that represent public value for money and the very well paid executives at HS2 are keeping up the propaganda to keep the unsustainable vested interest project going so that the £600k/$692k annual salaries continue.
the choice had been made, lots of money already spent. You cant keep cancelling infrastructure spending
Ever hear of the Sunk Cost Fallacy?
Not quite what was being mentioned - at least somewhere in the thread !
If we were, for example, to cancel HS2 then we'd still be on the hook for massive costs - penalties to contractors, costs making everything safe, costs putting temporary sites back to greenfield, etc. So it's very much not as simple as "cancel the projects, the costs stop".
Plus, we'd have spent a not inconsiderable amount to end up with nothing in return. We can argue about the cost-benefit of HS2, but it is actually required if we are to achieve certain other aims (not least, sending more stuff by rail).
The West Coast Main Line (WCML) is "quite busy", and it's hard to either add more traffic or mix passenger and freight. HS2 will (would have ?) shifted a good chunk of passenger traffic off the WCML, freeing up space for other traffic. That's a complex cost-benefit analysis and I'm not qualified to do it.
"If we were, for example, to cancel HS2 then we'd still be on the hook for massive costs - penalties to contractors, costs making everything safe, costs putting temporary sites back to greenfield, etc. So it's very much not as simple as "cancel the projects, the costs stop". Plus, we'd have spent a not inconsiderable amount to end up with nothing in return".
But even then, and given the huge financial predicament now, it is still worth cancelling this gross white elephant scheme because it will cost another £100 billion/$115 billion to complete.
Rail passenger traffic has fallen by a fifth overall because of the use of home working, Zoom etc during the pandemic plus Samsung high speed trains and electrification can now go a good way to getting cost efficient speed improvements.
plus Samsung high speed trains and electrification can now go a good way to getting cost efficient speed improvements
That only works for single use lines - it doesn't improve capacity when you are trying to mix freight and passenger (and passenger traffic is further divided by long-distance/high-speed and short-distance/multiple-stops (a.k.a. commuter traffic)). So completing HS2 would shift enough passenger traffic off the WCML to significantly increase its freight capacity.
Even with a 20% drop in passenger numbers (which I suspect will creep back up in time), parts of the WCML really don't have spare capacity and that's a hindrance to shifting lorries off the road.
Again, in very broad terms.
It's good to review Sizewell C's finances.
Because of it people are saying that nuclear power is needed and must be paid for. Thanks to this discussion the pro-nuclear voices are outnumbering the anti-nuclear ones who would commit us to an energy policy that could not meet demand through the year.
They have since said that it's NOT under review, and is definitely going ahead.
At last, some sense prevails.
Even Hinkley Point's initially expensive-looking price per MWh is looking reasonable now, let's hope that Sizewell comes in around the same price (copy of Hinkley but with the bugs ironed out).
We have 'invested' incredible amounts in cheap and plentiful renewable energy for some time now so we will see our energy prices hit the floor any day now? I hear that moron Militwit is saying we could have 100% renewable (and nuclear) energy by 2030.
And the poster-child Germany is so serious about climate change they have ripped up wind turbines to strip mine lignite coal.
I've always thought it's amazing what we could achieve if we all worked together. On one hand, that involves Russia not invading Ukraine in an attempt to die in a blaze of glory that'll take the rest of the world with it.
On the other hand, imagine what we could do if people like you stopped bitching and moaning at every single fucking thing that anybody ever does.
Tell me, have you ever had a single positive thought in your life? Aside from the time you spent 3 months dealing with the raging hard-on that you got when the referendum came up leave?
@ArrZarr
"I've always thought it's amazing what we could achieve if we all worked together. On one hand, that involves Russia not invading Ukraine in an attempt to die in a blaze of glory that'll take the rest of the world with it."
Great in a world of dreams. Now back to the real world.
"On the other hand, imagine what we could do if people like you stopped bitching and moaning at every single fucking thing that anybody ever does."
About the same but I wouldnt be here saying I told you so. It was so damn obvious even I saw it. Also I dont moan at everything, only the very stupid. I praise good ideas.
"Tell me, have you ever had a single positive thought in your life? Aside from the time you spent 3 months dealing with the raging hard-on that you got when the referendum came up leave?"
Aww, now I see why your so sour.
Positive thinking by itself doesn't achieve much.
On the flip side, I didn't say positive thinking was the answer. I said working together would be a novel concept that made shit actually get done.
I'd rather drive over a bridge designed by an engineer who was happy to work with the builders and the funders than a bridge designed by an absolute diva who couldn't work in a team to save their life.
@ArrZarr
"I'd rather drive over a bridge designed by an engineer who was happy to work with the builders and the funders than a bridge designed by an absolute diva who couldn't work in a team to save their life."
Thats a good idea, makes sense. So when it comes to energy generation would you continue generating energy while experimenting with other technologies? Or would you abandon energy generation in favour of monuments leaving you perilously dependent on gas? Would you also ban domestic exploration and exploitation of gas at the same time?
Or would you agree that proven technology for power generation would be better?
"On the flip side, I didn't say positive thinking was the answer. I said working together would be a novel concept that made shit actually get done."
And the example you are commenting against is generating power. Compare your view and mine. Mine would be to generate power so we wouldnt be in the bad economic position we are in. Your view requires us all to sing Kumbaya and Russia not to invade Ukraine. Aka you have sweet thoughts but fail when meeting reality.
Actually no, I agree with you that nuclear power is a very good option and that the govt have been putting it off for far, far too long.
I think we disagree on renewables (I know you put a lot of numbers into your comments to add legitimacy, but we both know how easy it is to cherry pick the best looking numbers for any given argument, so I hope you don't mind if I completely disregard any numbers you put forwards)
My issue with you is partly that we're basically on polar opposite ends of most political spectra and partly the fact that you just seem like a really miserable sod who only seems to get joy out of complaining.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions but it does genuinely blow my mind how somebody can have (most) of your political opinions in good faith.
@ArrZarr
"Actually no, I agree with you that nuclear power is a very good option and that the govt have been putting it off for far, far too long."
Ok.
"I think we disagree on renewables"
I have no issue with their existence but surely you agree that they are unreliable and increase our dependence on gas.
"My issue with you is partly that we're basically on polar opposite ends of most political spectra"
I can understand that, but I dont complain about you posting. I certainly dont get 'incandescent with rage'.
"and partly the fact that you just seem like a really miserable sod who only seems to get joy out of complaining."
Really? Guess you must only read some of my posts on few subjects I would complain about. But it was you complaining about my sarcastic comment which is on the topic of UK energy generation concerning an article complaining about UK energy generation.
"You are, of course, entitled to your opinions but it does genuinely blow my mind how somebody can have (most) of your political opinions in good faith."
As it seems to bother you so, explain which opinions cause you issues?
The one that rankles the most is Brexit, of course, but, as I'm sure will horrify you, I'm in favour of some sort of "United States of Europe" under the EU model rather than abandoning the union as a bad lot. (You might be interested to know that I originally voted leave for economic reasons but over the past 3 years or so, I've come to really regret the lack of a higher elected body than the scum currently in Westminster)
Beyond that, you seem to be pro-republican when it comes to US politics and given all the shit they've done even in the last 2 years while not in power, I just genuinely can't understand anybody who sees life that way. For me, the Democrats are too far to the right, but at least they pretend that they give a damn about people.
If we were to sit down and have a conversation, we'd probably find more things we agree on. I'm in favour of a small government - it just seems that every political party that wants a small government is also in favour of treating people like dirt. As mentioned above, I think that Nuclear is a good medium-term option while renewables and storage are worked on. I don't think Fission is a viable long-term option because there's only so much radioactive stuff around and storage is always going to be a problem, but as long as it is a medium-term plan and we actually keep investing in improving renewable options to find a way to deal with weather fluctuations, it's fine. Fusion, it it ever happens, would be something I consider renewable.
Finally, I post a lot less than you do, so my original comment was just a bubbling pot boiling over. For all I know, you're a lovely person but your political opinions are (in my opinion) garbage, but you are very willing to share them in the comments section and it usually surprises me just how awful your takes on subjects are.
@ArrZarr
"The one that rankles the most is Brexit"
I am very positive about brexit and certainly not a topic of bitching and moaning from me. Agree with my views or not I am often positive about brexit while others are negative about it. I too voted brexit partly for economic reasons as well.
"Beyond that, you seem to be pro-republican when it comes to US politics"
I dont really have any allegiance to any party in the UK or US or anywhere. I am more interested in policies/action and not necessarily left/right but libertarian instead of authoritarian. But again while others were very negative during Trumps presidency I was mostly positive while also acknowledging problems.
"I'm in favour of a small government - it just seems that every political party that wants a small government is also in favour of treating people like dirt."
The first trick is finding one in favour of a smaller government. I keep looking but I dont see many options. This is one I do bitch and moan about which I do feel fits with my views of the EU being more layers of government.
"As mentioned above, I think that Nuclear is a good medium-term option while renewables and storage are worked on"
That you seem to agree with my comment that you originally attacked is what I find odd.
"Finally, I post a lot less than you do, so my original comment was just a bubbling pot boiling over. For all I know, you're a lovely person but your political opinions are (in my opinion) garbage, but you are very willing to share them in the comments section and it usually surprises me just how awful your takes on subjects are."
We can hold the same opinion of each others political views but its not worth letting the pot boil over. We can still shake hands, grab a beer and carry on.
The impression I get from your posts is that you're very down on renewables, which is what frustrated me. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it as being very down on the implementation in the UK, which is (probably) flawed. There's so much energy available to us but renewables need to be tailored to the local environment. Solar is obviously a weak option in the UK but even using the basic Wind and Solar there are relatively uncomplicated ways to handle their fluctuations.
Scotland and Wales are basically just mountain ranges so why do we have four pumped hydrostations rather than forty? That kind of vast energy storage is perfect for a grid powered by weather reliant renewables. I suspect that we only have four because it's way less investment to set up the equivalent investment in wind or solar in small chunks rather than the larger layout you'd need for what is basically a full power station.
The whole energy situation in the UK is screwed, and that's squarely on the shoulders of NIMBYs and the governments who didn't want to lose votes, but it's all structural problems rather than the fault of the renewables themselves.
Of course, when somebody makes a panel which generates electricity from water flowing over it, then we'll be laughing.
@ArrZarr
"The impression I get from your posts is that you're very down on renewables, which is what frustrated me. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it as being very down on the implementation in the UK, which is (probably) flawed."
The implementation in the UK and Germany and so on. I dont care at all if people try to make these things work and if they become a working technology that can be effectively and economically applied then I have no problem with that at all. My problem is the mass propaganda about free energy and how these wonderful things were to produce so much electricity, at a time when we knew it was all bull. The UK expanded the deployment of these monuments but closed and didnt replace actual energy generation which led to rising bills and now serious economic damage. Most of the problems we face right now are due to our energy policy.
"Scotland and Wales are basically just mountain ranges so why do we have four pumped hydrostations rather than forty?"
To be fair I dont know why. I understand ecological opposition to them but also that they do actually work.
"The whole energy situation in the UK is screwed, and that's squarely on the shoulders of NIMBYs and the governments who didn't want to lose votes, but it's all structural problems rather than the fault of the renewables themselves."
I would agree but for the renewables bit. They are not ready for deployment here, they dont work (wind/solar). Great strides have been made in solar and yet it is still impractical for the UK. Wind is a dream until the storage issue is resolved. Serious opposition to nuclear right up until now when the lights are close to out was short sighted often by the greenies wanting to save the earth.
"Of course, when somebody makes a panel which generates electricity from water flowing over it, then we'll be laughing."
They do keep trying. And thats how it should be. Hopefully something succeeds. But when schools are looking at 3 day weeks, some people were concerned about heating vs eating before Ukraine and we are all poorer due to an overenthusiastic push to deploy technology that didnt and still doesnt work.
I'm not going to suggest that pumped hydrostations are the be-all-end-all to our energy woes - the pumping energy needs to come from somewhere, after all, but they cover an enormous amount of the weaknesses of wind/solar power. Solar is weak at the time we need electricity the most, over the winter but generally wind is stronger at the same period (and frankly, the Orkney/Shetland isles could probably power half the UK on wind when the rest of the country is experiencing a dead calm).
The big weakness of wind and solar is that they aren't consistent. They never will be. Sometimes they'll overproduce and sometimes they'll underproduce but again, pumped hydro is a beautifully elegant solution that accommodates both situations and it purely becomes a question of capacity.
The whole "energy too cheap to meter" dream is never going to happen unless we end up with a hugely distributed power generation capacity through mass deployment of solar on existing rooves or something cleverer where buildings generate a sizeable chunk of their yearly power themselves (although given the nature of the UK I'd prefer somebody comes up with a good rooftop wind design you can stick on a terrace).
All of this is wishful thinking. I know that. It goes back to my original point about working together rather than starting wars or instinctively arguing about something. In the perfect world that we definitely don't live in, there would be no need to build new nuclear stations because those in power would have figured out the best way to actually run sustainably on renewables without gas or nukes with enough pumped hydro (or similar) capacity for a perfectly still, freezing winter night where England are in the world cup finals and everybody puts the kettle on at the same time.
I know we don't live in that world, but I refuse to stop hoping to get there one day.
@ArrZarr
"I'm not going to suggest that pumped hydrostations are the be-all-end-all to our energy woes"
I agree with you about hydro being a good energy store.
"The whole "energy too cheap to meter" dream is never going to happen"
Agreed. Keeping the costs down is very important but too cheap to meter is probably a dream.
"It goes back to my original point about working together rather than starting wars or instinctively arguing about something"
But this is where my original comment and your original response diverged. While we can wish for a utopia I was pointing at the real world. We have kneecapped ourselves because some were pulling us down while believing in an unachieved utopia. All pulling together has brought a number of countries to potential blackouts and freezing over winter. Pulling together towards the cliff edge does not fix the issue.
Except we haven't all pulled together.
Sure, the sanctions on Russia have caused hella problems but such overwhelming support for one side of a war is almost unique. The sanctions leading to high energy prices are exacerbating the weaknesses of the generation capacity and storage that is the result of people in charge *not* pulling together.
@ArrZarr
"Sure, the sanctions on Russia have caused hella problems"
But the problem is pre the war. The war exposed part of the fatal flaw but the problem is and was that we were pulling together to replace energy generation with monuments. The problem is that a utopia dream resulted in countries turning off power generation, not replacing it and their utopia dream requires the use of even more electricity and gas.
Reality as I point out is that to have energy we must produce energy. The fantasy of having energy but not producing it is how the people in charge have been pulling together. That is literally why we have an energy crisis, public services looking at closing things to save energy and our costs across the board going up so much. And its not just the UK, and its a direct result of collaboration by those in charge to pull together for our *brighter future*.
On the other hand, imagine what we could do if people like you stopped bitching and moaning at every single fucking thing that anybody ever does.
Tell me, have you ever had a single positive thought in your life? Aside from the time you spent 3 months dealing with the raging hard-on that you got when the referendum came up leave?
Stop bitching and moaning says the guy that's still clearly incandescent with rage about a democratic decision that didn't go his way, SIX years ago!
Oh the irony.
It will take legislation to reduce "green" electricity. Currently (pun intended), all energy is sold at the price of the highest priced source. This means the solar and wind generators whose operating costs have gone up only with the cost of living (in simplified terms), are making out like bandits because they are selling product at the vastly inflated price of gas generation.
The legislation is required to unlink the "strike price" of gas from non-gas sourced generation. Despite all the hot air coming out of Westminster, I'm not seeing any suggestion that the Government is even considering this, let alone acting on it yet.
The legislation is required to unlink the "strike price" of gas from non-gas sourced generation. Despite all the hot air coming out of Westminster, I'm not seeing any suggestion that the Government is even considering this, let alone acting on it yet.
CfDs kinda make sense, but as always the devil is in the details. So recent capacity auctions have allowed the 'renewables' scumbags to bid <£50/MWh and claim 'renewables' are the cheapest solution evah! Yet electricity prices continue to soar as we add 'renewable' capacity, because of all the hiddent costs and subsidies that are glossed over. Plus as you say, the massive windfalls currently being generated due to the price being set at the most expensive level, and most of the lowball CfDs not actually being in-contract yet. If they're operational though, and can actually be economically viable at the price bid, they're producing collosal profits.
Strange the way that consumers on '100% renewable' contracts aren't seeing these low prices, given their electricity isn't affected by the cost of gas.
But as you say, the market is fundamentally broken and needs complete reform to actually act in the interests of consumers. It's a brilliant example of the dangers of regulatory capture though.
CfD is just a way of bankrolling the construction of a generator.
In a "free market" this shouldn't be necessary. Whatever happened to Speculate to Accumulate? However, when governments willingly mortgage up billpayers to carry out the bankrolling, why would anyone choose to speculate when you get guaranteed returns while taking less risk?
With high prices CfD is basically irrelevant other than in the context of the "next" generator which will no doubt ask for guarantees at levels reflective of current pricing, because once the stone has been milked why not ask for some more?
£500/MWh is coming.
As noted by Joshua, the only way to win is not to play. Running your own diesel generation come April 2023 will be plausibly economic. Ludicrous? Well, it is analogous to using your own transport over public transport (because of cost and service standard failings).
Something IS going to break if this situation is left unchecked. And frankly, not before time.
CfD is just a way of bankrolling the construction of a generator.
In a "free market" this shouldn't be necessary. Whatever happened to Speculate to Accumulate?
CfDs aren't paying the capital costs - what they are doing is providing some guarantee that having spent many years and potentially billions of pounds, you'll have something guaranteed at the end of it.
The problem is that with the large power plants, especially nuclear, the numbers involved are so high that it's impossible to get the funding without such a guarantee. Just consider the pitch to investors : We want you to lend us £10b (or whatever large number is involved), it'll take us 10-20 years to build the plant, and at the end of it, there's no guarantee that we'll be able to charge enough to cover the costs and pay you back. That's why nuclear in particular really isn't going to happen without state involvement - and why most of the proposals never got anywhere.
And if lecky costs have gone up, the CfD doesn't do anything. It only comes into play if lecky costs go down substantially, which given the externalised costs of renewables I suspect isn't going to happen too fast or too soon (ignoring the effects from Russia & Ukraine), in which case the government in only on the hook for the difference between market price and CfD price.
Re. Not financing the capital : CfD absolutely does.
CfD allows the generation firm to borrow money with some sort of guarantee they will get a return if they build the plant.
If they need that sort of guarantee, why do we insist on private ownership and all the middlemen this entails?
An organisation a bit like the CEGB could do the generation much more efficiently in terms of end-to-end costs, while addressing long term needs. And Thatcher systematically destroyed it.
Like I said, it gives the certainty (over prices) to make borrowing possible - but it does not directly finance the project. The investors still take big risks - while there's a guarantee of prices, there's no guarantee that the project will actually get as far as having energy to sell. And there's no guarantee that it won't get destroyed by some "act of god" - such as a tsunami.
As to CEGB, I agree - to a point. The idea of actually planning the energy mix rather than fiddling with distortions to the market to push private investors to provide the mix you want seems like a good idea. However, like most state industries, it wasn't exactly a paragon of efficiency - I've heard some "interesting" tales from an insider, especially of the age old problem of having to promote some truly inept people to get them away from doing harm since sacking them for gross incompetence would cause an all out strike by the unions.
This means the solar and wind generators whose operating costs have gone up only with the cost of living (in simplified terms), are making out like bandits because they are selling product at the vastly inflated price of gas generation.
That's why there's a forthcoming windfall tax/revenue cap on renewable generators. Or at least, there was at the start of October. This week? Today? This afternoon? Who knows!? It'll all have changed by tomorrow anyway.
Does seem like it would be wise to shift the way electricity is priced as well. The current live-auction where everyone gets paid what the last-in producer is getting paid works acceptably when costs are comparable, or at least stable. With wild fuel prices, the system starts to look a bit unhinged.
The Germans are removing some wind turbines (eight in total by end 2023) to extend an existing mine
This was known to be an issue when the turbines (1MW/hour types) were first built twenty years ago
About 500 turbines were given planning permission in Germany this year.
The optics of this one case aren't good but the situation is nuanced and Germany is not turning its back on renewables.
@graeme leggett
"The optics of this one case aren't good but the situation is nuanced and Germany is not turning its back on renewables."
Thats great news. And its only lignite coal, which Germany relied on to keep the lights on. The optics looked bad before the war because Germany was anticipating the lights going out in a few years because of their energy choices and lack of will to do anything about it.
The stupid decision the Germans made was to close their nuclear plants in a fit of insane panic after a massive earthquake and tsunami broke the diesel pumps in a plant on the other side of the world.
They even had at least one brand-new plant almost complete, I think it was only awaiting sign-off before fuelling.
If they had not panicked, and instead actually looked at the real risks in a country where tsunamis are literally impossible..
@Richard 12
"If they had not panicked, and instead actually looked at the real risks in a country where tsunamis are literally impossible.."
Very true. But then that is the opinion I hold for a lot of the energy decisions made in parts of the west for some time. Panic over the new religion has led to policy decisions that have no basis in reality and now we are short of energy. Even in believing the 'science' the actions taken have been far more damaging than necessary and even counter-productive.
EDF said it would have no cost impact on British consumers or taxpayers. The power station had been due online by 2017
Well, it clearly will as if it had been completed and was running by now, it would have been reducing our dependency on gas for power production, and would have had an impact on our energy bills as a result. (ok, I know that's an over-simplistic view and probably the cost of non-gas-energy would still be higher, but I'm sure there would have been some impact)
Decades of living beyond our means, with braindead politicians in charge. Leave-it-to-the-market Tories and their light blue Blair friends. This country is basically bankrupt. If you can't pay off a debt that is basically what you are. We are at the stage where all the credit cards are maxed out. Truss's solution: get a bigger credit card. Ha. Living permanently with debt is also not a "solution". Don't pretend that it is.
The governments celebrate the spivs rather than people who do actual work. The hot money is still coming into the country. All those butt-ugly buildings along the Thames are not paid for by people doing ordinary jobs.
The writing is on the wall. Wait until China starts a rival to Lloyds. It will happen. The City people will plead for protection and say they are "a special case". Where were they when shipbuilding went overseas? Cheering on the job cuts, that's where.
Again I have to agree with VoiceOfTruth. This is the way of the current world. Debt to pay off debt. The Biden govt printing money to pay off debt to buy votes but the reality is you are just kicking the can down the road.
https://grrrgraphics.com/kick-the-can-down-the-road-again/
I'm sure I will also get some thumbs down for this but it is the reality.
Decades of living beyond our means, with braindead politicians in charge. Leave-it-to-the-market Tories and their light blue Blair friends. This country is basically bankrupt.
Sorry, but this is Gold-Standard-era thinking, and one of the reasons we have such big problems. Suggest you read the Deficit Myth. You don't have to agree with the politics or policy prescriptions, but the description of how government spending actually works under the hood is enlightening. Break out from this dreadful (and - most importantly - wrong) idea that government spending works anything like a household or even a business.
All money is government debt. The money in your pocket is money that the government has spent but not taxed back yet (if it came from anywhere other than the government then it's counterfeit. Notwithstanding fraction-reserve banking, but that's off to one side, mostly managed via central interest rates and doesn't change the private-public interchange of currency). Somewhere along the line, the government had to run at least a temporary deficit to leave cash circulating. If the government had no debt, then you'd have no money! The entire economy is built on government spending.
Since un-pegged, fiat currencies (like USD, GBP, YEN) only relate to the perceived strength of the economy, it actually doesn't matter how much you print (provided the markets think your economy is strong - they did not rate Venezuela).
The habit of accounting for things like infrastructure spending as "debt" and selling it as bonds is purely paper-pushing - especially when it's the Central Bank buying the bonds. You can basically print as much money as you like so long as it keeps the economy going. Arbitrarily deciding you want to run a government surplus (even if it means cutting vital public services) is generally a bad idea - because the markets want those nurses and teachers to pay their mortgages and buy a new TV. Debt defaults are bad for people and bad for business.
Clinton was running a surplus to the point where the Fed wouldn't have any bonds on issue. There were wild stories about "Life after debt". Then someone pointed out that if the Fed wasn't selling bonds, then they had no monetary control over interest rates - so they stopped and kept a bit of debt knocking around for control purposes, and because they'd reduced the monetary supply to the point where it was hurting the economy.
It's basically the government's job to run a deficit when the economy slows down. Everyone knows that. FDR knew it in the 1930s, JFK knew it in the 1960s. But nobody has told the Austrians at Tufton Street.
You cannot create wealth out of thin air.
You’re conflating “wealth” with “money”.
If you magic some bonds out of nowhere, we’ll them to the BoE and then a contractor is willing to build a hospital for you, then the contractor has made money, the community has a hospital, and yeah - you basically created it out of thin air.
We’re not on the gold standard. A pound isn’t backed by a lump of gold, nor pegged to another currency. If we print it and someone thinks it is worth taking in return for their labour then that’s good enough.
You can. That's exactly how it works.
Heck, even on the "gold standard", that's how it works. Someone digs up lots of gold, and poof, they have more wealth. All else equal, that makes the value of gold drop so everyone else is poorer, of course.
And if there isn't enough gold circulating, the value of gold goes up, poof, wealth.
And the reason the gold standard is a terrible idea is because there's no way to control inflation/deflation. It will simply bounce up and down depending on the relative size of the economy and the gold in the economy, screwing people over as it does so.
-> And the reason the gold standard is a terrible idea is because there's no way to control inflation/deflation. It will simply bounce up and down depending on the relative size of the economy and the gold in the economy, screwing people over as it does so.
You know absolutely nothing. Currencies linked to gold were stable. Inflation and deflation did not "bounce up and down". I suggest you read a bit more before making comments which are so easily disprovable, Start here: "https://globalfinancialdata.com/the-century-of-inflation".
Small quote to put your nonsense to rest: The result was a century of price and currency stability. The value of the US Dollar relative to the British Pound Sterling was the same in 1914 as it had been in 1830. Because currencies were tied to gold, fluctuations in exchange rates were minimal, rarely moving more than one percent above or below par.
The oft mentioned adage is that an ounce of gold would buy you a good suit. That was true 100 years ago as it is today. £10 100 years ago would buy you something very good. Today it buys you a pint and a half.
Another representation of the same idea: Money is only abstract, but people working and consuming is real.
However, you then have to worry about whether the work that people are doing is making the necessary goods to be consumed.
That's supposed to be the utility of capitalism and a balanced budget.
However, if you can import those goods from China, and pocket the difference "investing" in a tax free Cayman Islands hedge fund, that's just faux capitalism, and eventually the infrastructure will degrade and the countries economy will peter out.
This might be an out of date analogy, but bump starting your vehicle can get it running again, although that's not a substitute for regular maintenance.
I had a quick look at Deficit Myth and the author appears to be one of those people who has only ever been in academia or government. The recommendations on amazon are just as good. All along the lines of self help books, give me money and I can solve your problems, and written by people who have never actually produced something the world needs.
Not long ago I stumbled upon a startup called Heat Wayv.
They are trying to build microwave based boilers as a direct plug in to replace gas combis.
Can’t buy shares in them... yet. Might be worthwhile to keep an eye on.
BTW, Does anyone know if the research being done on corrugated solar cells has got to the garage roof suitability stage yet?
Icon because nuclear.
Heating bulk water by microwave has no energy advantage over a resistive element. Might even be worse if you don't completely capture the cooling/waste heat of the microwave device(s).
The only reason is it more efficient when cooking is you heat the water in the food quickly, not the whole oven for long periods.
They're either deluded or fraudsters.
Electric heating using a resistor is 100% efficient. That is the absolute best a perfect microwave heater could ever achieve.
Electric heating using a heat pump is 300-500% efficient. Even higher efficiencies may be possible depending on the "cold sink" available.
nothing...
There was an article on the BBC website yesterday that summed up the situation regarding our power generation problems
In that Labour under blair and the Tories were quite happy to kick the can down the road because nothing bad was happening now.
Sadly the can has landed and no amount of kicking will shift its position.
Gas supply cannot be assured, wind/solar are intermittant, hydro... non starter due landscape,and capacity plus the demand thats no where near the areas with output.
The only really effective solution is nuclear.
But no one wanted to sign off on building nuclear as it would be 'unpopular' although as the tories are about to find out, not as unpopular as the lights going out.
As for the decision for closing down our 90 day gas storage sites... those who signed off on it should be tied to an execise bike linked to the national grid and made to pedal for the rest of their lives as an example for the rest of the political class.
Coat as I'll be needing to wear it indoors soon...
It sounds to me like the projects are undercooked when they are started. Most homes have a full set of plans before ground is broken for the foundation. You would think that for something as complex as a nuclear generating station that the plans would be even more detailed and the project schedules more firmly tied down. It would be silly to start building the plant while metallurgists are still working out an alloy for a critical part of the reactor cooling system or they don't know how to fabricate some pipe sections. Do we need to engage some people that manage residential developments and juggle all of the timing that various trades need to start and finish? How much of what materials need to be delivered on site, that sort of thing.
I get that the continuous parade of lawsuits and judges issuing orders to halt construction can lead to headaches, but something must be able to be done about all of that. Would it make more sense to have a longer commentary period and bar lawsuits when construction commences except for problems caused by the construction itself? (dust, depletion of aquifers, damage to local roads from heavy machinery/trucks). If traffic and road quality are an issue, construction wouldn't automatically cease, but better roads would be mandated and even improved if they were rather narrow to begin with and paid for by project. Even that sort of thing should be worked out in advance.
Ever heard of inflation? Do you have a magic ball that can predict future material & fuel costs and all possible difficulties? No, well neither do they. ALL such major projects are expected to cost more to build than is originally budgeted for. Then there is the problem caused by companies underbidding to get the supply/work contract, and then adding additional costs in so as to make a profit. No plan EVER survives contact with the enemy, and in these cases the enemy is the real world!
"Do we need to engage some people that manage residential developments and juggle all of the timing that various trades need to start and finish? How much of what materials need to be delivered on site, that sort of thing."
Have you seen the quality of new builds recently? I wouldnt put any of the major house building firms in charge of planning a piss up in a brewery let alone a power station.
Sure it will be on time and budget, but the doors to the reactor wont quite fit unless you put your shoulder into them. The "radition proof" windows looking into the reactor core will have 3 inches of mastic round them and the air bricks will be below the damp course in the cooling towers!
"Have you seen the quality of new builds recently?"
Nope. My house is quite old and I have no plans to move. The issue you bring up is a matter of workmanship rather than planning. It might even be a matter of poor design upfront, but the point I wanted to make is developers can be very good at project management and scheduling.
With modern CAD/CAE, there should be no excuse for having 3" of gap between a window and the casing unless somebody screwed up. Identify who that is and fine them for the issue. Either the window was built 3" too small or the casing 3" too big. Somebody wasn't paying attention to the plans.
If the French and the Chinese were willing to pay for it, did you think they were doing it out of the kindness of their hearts?
The UK needs forests of turbines and fields of solar, plus those giant batteries Musk builds.
If you want turbine-free views, you can have them, in your electricity-free homes.
Nuclear only makes sense if the French and Chinese are willing to take all the waste home with them and bury it there.
"The UK needs forests of turbines and fields of solar, plus those giant batteries Musk builds."
There are many much better choices for batteries than Tesla. Beyond on that, I'll keep my banging on about EV's being those batteries rather than a utility installed facility. There just needs to be a standard way to tell the EV's when power is cheap, and therefore, plentiful and a way for the EV's to be able to supply a certain amount of power back to the grid when needed and at what price. Wind and solar do work, but for them to work very well they need to power things that can work with an intermittent supply. Most EV's have enough range that they don't need to be charged every night/day, but most EV owners would be more than glad to top up when power is especially cheap. They might even be happy to sell back power if the price was high enough and they could place a limit on how much they'd be willing to sell back.
Not one penny of renewable subsidies will be affected.
And the UK gummint is not funding Sizewell. EDF is. At a strike price well below the holistic cost of any renewable+grid extension+ gas backup + rotten capacity factor + short lifetime + STOR plant + battery short term grid stabilisation + cost of inevitable grid outages..
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
