US tarrifs. 10% U.K., 20% EU.

Nuclear isn't as expensive as often claimed. Especially compared with renewables.

The issue here is mainly that renewables' cost claims omit the cost of backup, be it storage or a fossil fuel back up. You need that extra capacity to make renewables technically feasible, and this adds to the cost. To rely on renewables entirely, and to build enough backup to supply enough power over every foreseeable issue, would be entirely uneconomic.

However, there is also the fact that fossil fuel companies have pulled back from renewables. Why? Because even though they are cheap (at the point of installation), they are not profitable compared with fossil fuels.

But it goes further than this when comparing the cost of energy sources. Renewables are often quoted as being cheaper but this goes by Levelised Cost of Energy. This is poor metric to compare nuclear with renewables. The reasons are lengthy, and here is a good discussion as to why:
But basically, it doesn't account for the fact that a nuclear plant supplies reliable energy for many more decades over the life of the plant that the equivalent sized wind farm or solar farm would. There are other issues, but this is a key point.

Then there's the cost of carbon that isn't accounted for when comparing with fossil fuels. If you account for the hidden cost of fossil fuels, they suddenly cost far more.

Renewables look cheap ATM, as they don't have to rely on a large proportion of back up to keep them viable, but they are built in enough quantities to keep the costs down. We need more of course, but there is a limit as to what we can achieve by renewables alone.
I don’t know if electricity storage is really scalable, but there are quite a few options including the obvious battery and hydro….and if storage was able to make renewables stand without fossil or nuclear back up that must be considered.


Currently the cost of electricity is multiple times more expensive than gas, so it’s going to hard to ditch gas boilers in favour of heat pumps anytime soon.

For people without access to the gas network and on oil, heat pumps are probably a realistic option.


The new Rolls Royce mini nuclear power plants are interesting, I’m not how the numbers stack up.

The Kw price of Hinckley C is just nuts. We do not need any more French construction combined with Chinese funding.
 
Heat pumps are ok in new build propertys designed with efficiency and insulation values to suit a heat pump, not in propertys that are victorian and have high heat losses.
 
At some point, a house will be so effectively insulated that it will cost nothing to heat.

Lighting can already be serviced through a little battery storage.

Laundry, likely the same.

Cooking, a little greater challenge?


What I'm leading to is that, the endgame is that UK energy requirement could be much, much lower than it currently is.

With a consistent and concerted approach to energy efficiency.

Then, huge amounts of storage and backup would be irrelevant.
 
Its just to get everyone rushing to do a deal, that they don't want to do, to come of his naughty list. Its his only negotiating style - show you what bad looks like, so you are happy with less good.
How is Trumps "negotiating style" now :ROFLMAO:
 
Nuclear isn't as expensive as often claimed. Especially compared with renewables.

The issue here is mainly that renewables' cost claims omit the cost of backup, be it storage or a fossil fuel back up. You need that extra capacity to make renewables technically feasible, and this adds to the cost. To rely on renewables entirely, and to build enough backup to supply enough power over every foreseeable issue, would be entirely uneconomic.

However, there is also the fact that fossil fuel companies have pulled back from renewables. Why? Because even though they are cheap (at the point of installation), they are not profitable compared with fossil fuels.

But it goes further than this when comparing the cost of energy sources. Renewables are often quoted as being cheaper but this goes by Levelised Cost of Energy. This is poor metric to compare nuclear with renewables. The reasons are lengthy, and here is a good discussion as to why:
But basically, it doesn't account for the fact that a nuclear plant supplies reliable energy for many more decades over the life of the plant that the equivalent sized wind farm or solar farm would. There are other issues, but this is a key point.

Then there's the cost of carbon that isn't accounted for when comparing with fossil fuels. If you account for the hidden cost of fossil fuels, they suddenly cost far more.

Renewables look cheap ATM, as they don't have to rely on a large proportion of back up to keep them viable, but they are built in enough quantities to keep the costs down. We need more of course, but there is a limit as to what we can achieve by renewables alone.
You have omitted the vast costs of decommissioning nuclear plants and the storage of nuclear waste for thousands of years in your claim...
 
Nuclear isn't as expensive as often claimed. Especially compared with renewables.

I don't know what figure you have in mind as "often claimed "

But when Theresa agreed a figure for the French/Chinese nuke build contract, it was vastly higher than the contracts for offshore wind. And contained an escalation guarantee.
 
I don't know what figure you have in mind as "often claimed "

But when Theresa agreed a figure for the French/Chinese nuke build contract, it was vastly higher than the contracts for offshore wind. And contained an escalation guarantee.
You need to read my post again about this.
 
It doesn't say what figure you have in mind.

The additional costs of decommissioning and the first thousand years of guarded storage can only be estimated, but are part of the cost.
 
You have omitted the vast costs of decommissioning nuclear plants and the storage of nuclear waste for thousands of years in your claim...
When a nuclear plant runs for 60-80years with a capacity factor >92%, the cost of these is insignificant compared to the output over its life.

Compare this with offshore wind, where they haven't lasted as long as anticipated (25years or less).

Then there's the cost of disposal of the blades.... Currently looking at landfill, or at best, incineration. Companies that cut them up to make into bike sheds are a niche market. Put it into cement production? There is s limit to that demand as well, especially if you are looking to power the UK by renewables.

To replace Hinckley Point C with wind turbines, you'd be looking at the disposal of about 256,000t of blades at the end of their life. That's just composite material (fibreglass and wood). They would need to be disposed of, likely landfill.
 
It doesn't say what figure you have in mind.

The additional costs of decommissioning and the first thousand years of guarded storage can only be estimated, but are part of the cost.
Re-processing nuclear waste not only reduces the amount disposed of, but reduces the amount of time to return to the radioactivity levels of uranium ore to about a few hundred years. This is a non-issue, and one that a facility is already being built in Finland for once through fuel, so the engineering and cost are well known.

The only argument against nuclear power is based on fear and nothing else.
 
Re-processing nuclear waste not only reduces the amount disposed of, but reduces the amount of time to return to the radioactivity levels of uranium ore to about a few hundred years. This is a non-issue, and one that a facility is already being built in Finland for once through fuel, so the engineering and cost are well known.

The only argument against nuclear power is based on fear and nothing else.

We had at least one reprocessing plant. What happened to it/them. I have a vague memory of still having enormous amounts of waste to process but getting shut down.
 
Secondly the UK is now a bit player in the scheme of things, and without the EU is powerless to retaliate...
Mottie's "Brexit Bonus" lasted 4 days :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

oh dear Mottie is now back to 0 Brexit bonus
The EU's 'discount' has only been suspended. I wouldn’t be laughing quite so soon if I was you.

50% now. :eek: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:


IMG_5799.gif
 
Last edited:
Back
Top