IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: DECC-EDF makes yet another attempt to fund 3rd Generation Nuclear at any cost
Topic Summary: Jilted at the altar several times before, DECC-EDF is looking for partners bringing a large dowarie to the relationship.
Created On: 25 May 2013 12:04 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 Previous Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 07 June 2013 06:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

I should point out that the above senario is not government policy.

At the moment we have a multi-vendor multi-product plan for new third generation nuclear even though this is all being subsidised from tax payers and bill payers wallets, without them having any choice in the matter.

Which would be fine for ordering standard factory built equipment, but cannot lead to significant cost savings for on-site based construction projects with the number of replicas being 3 or less.

For long time scale non-factory based bespoke builds cost inflation of employing workers and supplying materials will dominate everything else.

For a supply chain contractor to maintain highly skilled on-call support staff dedicated to work on small numbers of working plants is extremely costly. There will be hundreds of SME contractors in the supply chain that need to be paid to support their bespoke installations. Their skills may only be needed once a year or once every few years per plant. The smaller the number of plants the higher the cost per plant to support it and maintain it.

I think politicians should go on a course to learn how the real world works, before being given a chance to destroy it.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 08 June 2013 11:28 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19730
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: jarathoon

Originally posted by: OMS



For example, some people participating in drug trials are paid to take a risk. Coal miners have known for generations that (in high probability) their health would be impacted in later life, from taking that particular career choice; and yet there has always been plenty of people willing to be coal miners.


LoL - I guess you've never been anywhere near the business end of a a coal mine in your life, James - and you've never spent any time in mining communities that's for sure.

Regards

OMS


I went pot holing and caving a few times in my youth (in limestone cave systems) and have been lowered down Gaping Ghyll. You don't get black with coal dust doing that, although it does on occasion get very wet and muddy, and when you switch off all the lights you can't see a thing. So can imagine what its like being underground, or even being briefly stuck underground, but not what its like to labour hard for hours underground.

James Arathoon


Too right you don't - that's just a jolly outing for college boys on a Saturday

Where I grew up, you didn't mine coal - you had to go and win it.

You are quite right of course that miners knew the job was killing them - they'd seen most of the older male members of thier families gasping away thier last breath trying to get up 3 steps to the local library, walking doubled over from crushing injuries when a bloody great stone fell on your back in your road, not able to grip anything due to vibration injury, deaf from noise induced hearing loss, and constantly blinking due to your eyes being blasted with highly abrasive particles.

Add to that, all sorts of minor amputations and musclo skeletal injuries - and of course nice blue scars to mark you out.

Try a google for such things as man riding belts or conveyors just to give you an inkling why pot holing and coal mining are fundamentally different things.

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 08 June 2013 12:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: jarathoon
If we start one build one every 1 year on average the build program lasts 19 years and requires a £38.5 billon outlay before any income starts arriving. The programme will finish in 2033 if started next year.

Are you sure about the .5 ?
Let's be honest if we could actually sort out the tax laws and get some more corporation tax from some of the avoiders then that sort of cost could easily be met. We go on about the cost of something which will deliver much needed energy security whilst at the same time we are losing billions from tax avoiders. Let's link the two....more tax to invest in energy security.

Regards.
 08 June 2013 12:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19730
Joined: 23 March 2004

I suspect we should actually dramatically reduce corporation tax - that will provide the incentive for many more global players to invest in the UK - that creates jobs, and those employees pay tax.

Chasing global players around the world for a UK corporation tax bill is just a non starter at every level.

Politicians can pontificate to thier hearts content about "moral obligations" - but that's the stuff of bleeding heart liberals - they need to sort out the tax legislation in the UK - because hoping everyone will join in with a global tax framework is just total bullshine.

How much is the UK annual defecit to the nearest £billion again ?

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 08 June 2013 04:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: OMS
I suspect we should actually dramatically reduce corporation tax - that will provide the incentive for many more global players to invest in the UK - that creates jobs, and those employees pay tax.

Quite happy to agree with that, but not for companies who avoid it by paying zero. There are plently of companies who do pay their tax and who also create jobs....maybe they could create more if the playing field was fairer.
Chasing global players around the world for a UK corporation tax bill is just a non starter at every level.

How much more are Starbucks paying again? Would you say that from a point of zero that any step forward is a start?
Politicians can pontificate to thier hearts content about "moral obligations" - but that's the stuff of bleeding heart liberals - they need to sort out the tax legislation in the UK - because hoping everyone will join in with a global tax framework is just total bullshine.

Mmm I did not know the current chancellor was a liberal, still we learn something new every day. Sorting out the UK tax legislation would be first on my agenda.
How much is the UK annual defecit to the nearest £billion again ?

Well if we could convert yours and mine bullshine into pounds then I am sure we could halve it.

Regards.
 08 June 2013 05:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: westonpa

Originally posted by: jarathoon

If we start one build one every 1 year on average the build program lasts 19 years and requires a £38.5 billon outlay before any income starts arriving. The programme will finish in 2033 if started next year.



Are you sure about the .5 ?

Let's be honest if we could actually sort out the tax laws and get some more corporation tax from some of the avoiders then that sort of cost could easily be met. We go on about the cost of something which will deliver much needed energy security whilst at the same time we are losing billions from tax avoiders. Let's link the two....more tax to invest in energy security.



Regards.


10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1=55 aggregate years just before the first electron flows

55*0.7=£38.5 billion (£0.7 billion is the average build cost per year)

Yes I am sure about the 0.5 from an arithmetic point of view. Although the error on this is likely to be +£15 billion or so, therefore I agree that the .5 is an irrelevant level of precision.

Don't forget we have to do this in N countries simultaneously to role out new nuclear globally. So N*£39 billion needed from the international investor comunity before one electron of new 3rd gen nuclear electricity flows.

This is going to either need a long list of dumb investors or a long list of governments willing to invoke authotitarian socialist tax raising policies to raid the wallets of tax payers and bill payers in order to get the money necessary.

Now I have received so many letters from the civil service saying that all this is wonderful, that I recommed

1. The civil service pension funds take the entire risk on this, without forcing us to buy the electricity if it's too expensive.
2. When it goes horribly wrong the richest civil servants lose their shirts first before the poorest.

Corporation tax take was at the £40 billion level in 2010-2011
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5885

As the first nuclear station can on line in this fast build senario (to get the new stations built before all the old ones are closed), a peak spend of £7 billion extra in Corporation tax would be needed. Doesn't seem realistic to me gven the present circumstances.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 08 June 2013 06:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19730
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: westonpa

Originally posted by: OMS

I suspect we should actually dramatically reduce corporation tax - that will provide the incentive for many more global players to invest in the UK - that creates jobs, and those employees pay tax.


Quite happy to agree with that, but not for companies who avoid it by paying zero. There are plently of companies who do pay their tax and who also create jobs....maybe they could create more if the playing field was fairer.

So get UK Gov to sort out the tax laws - no one is breaking the law here remember, they just employ brighter,sharper people than HMRC do

Chasing global players around the world for a UK corporation tax bill is just a non starter at every level.


How much more are Starbucks paying again? Would you say that from a point of zero that any step forward is a start?

Indeed - so we need to change the law if Starbucks are avoiding UK tax - or prosecute them if they are evading it - which one are they doing again ?

Bearded students popping in with a banner after lunch and shouting "Pay your Tax" isn't going to do it - and the Starbucks outside my office is doing roaring trade - so voting with your feet doesn't have much effect either - although I'm a Costa man myself, Starbucks is closer, so they get my hard earned pennies


Politicians can pontificate to thier hearts content about "moral obligations" - but that's the stuff of bleeding heart liberals - they need to sort out the tax legislation in the UK - because hoping everyone will join in with a global tax framework is just total bullshine.


Mmm I did not know the current chancellor was a liberal, still we learn something new every day. Sorting out the UK tax legislation would be first on my agenda.

Indeed - I was thinking more of the spectacle of the commons committee pretending to give Starbucks, Google, Amazon et al a jolly hard time - I'm in rowdier meetings than that on a daily basis.

How much is the UK annual defecit to the nearest £billion again ?


Well if we could convert yours and mine bullshine into pounds then I am sure we could halve it.

OMG - not another coallition - we'll end up costing more and saving less

I might be tempted to chuck James a few spare billion to get his Thorium salt reactor off the ground though - after sending him on work experience to a nice deep mine somewhere in China for a few months of course -




Regards.


OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 08 June 2013 09:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

OMS,


"I might be tempted to chuck James a few spare billion to get his Thorium salt reactor off the ground though - after sending him on work experience to a nice deep mine somewhere in China for a few months of course - "


Apparently there is a few tonnes of thorium squirreled away in the national archives somewhere; enough to start a thorium reactor development program, without needing to send be abroad to get some more.

However if the powers that be have mislaid our thorium stockpile or do not want to part with it because it has now has sentimental value after having sat there unused for so long, then I will be happy to visit China to search, beg or dig for some more thorium supplies. But even if I decend into a deep mine in China to scratch out some supplies, I still won't be able to say I've experienced working in a coal mine...

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 09 June 2013 11:09 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19730
Joined: 23 March 2004

LoL - it's China for coal, James - you'll need to get yourself out to India if you want to dig for Thorium - they've got tonnes of the stuff - but also a lot of people to provide energy for.

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 09 June 2013 09:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jcm256

Posts: 1889
Joined: 01 April 2006

Looks like UK will not bother with Thorium maybe because we do not have much thorium deposits and would have to rely on costly imports. India has the most as stated. Therefore, India reaffirmed its intention to proceed with developing the thorium cycle.

This is the UK view taken from web site below:

In 2010 the UK's National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) published a paper on the thorium cycle, concluding for the short to medium term:
"NNL believes that the thorium fuel cycle does not currently have a role to play in the UK context, other than its potential application for plutonium management in the medium to long term and depending on the indigenous thorium reserves, is likely to have only a limited role internationally for some years ahead. The technology is innovative, although technically immature and currently not of interest to the utilities, representing significant financial investment and risk without notable benefits. In many cases, the benefits of the thorium fuel cycle have been over-stated."


http://world-nuclear.org/info/.../Thorium/#.UbQyQ9uF-j8
 10 June 2013 10:36 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

jcm256,

We have four main options on Molten Salt Thorium Reactors:

1. Do nothing (in regard to this and other 4th generation technologies) to help out ourselves or anyone else, even though a considerable amount of the expertise that will be needed to get them designed and build cost-effectively is actually based here in the UK.

2. After having done nothing, later import the technologies without any homegrown industries to build support or run them.

3. Choose not to build them in the UK at first, but support all the SME businesses who will want to export 4th gen nuclear equipment abroad. Support the international discussions on how to regulate the Uranium-233 breeder technologies.

4. After having supported other countriies in building them, go on to build them here as well and import thorium from India, Norway etc.


Even though the "NNL" is nominally a private company it is in the process of being "reorganised", so we can at least look to following option 3 in some form, with the possibility still open for option 4 if private sector entrepreneurs want to take some sort of leadershp role on this.

The historic position on thorium reactors held by the NNL appears to be irrelevant now as China and others decide to go ahead with the technology. They only ever wrote one page on Thorium Molten Salt Reactors anyway.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 11 June 2013 11:26 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



poo

Posts: 230
Joined: 07 May 2008

We may not have much Thorium but we have heaps of Plutonium.


A controversial nuclear fuel plant that was closed down two years ago
left taxpayers with a £2.2bn bill instead of turning a healthy profit,
an government report has admitted. An internal report revealing the
full extent of the failure of the SellafieldMixed-Oxide (MOX) plant
concluded that the facility was "not fit for purpose" and its
performance over a decade was "very poor". The report is embarrassing
for the Government which is proposing to build a new MOX plant at
Sellafield to deal with Britain's civil plutonium stockpile - the
biggest in the world. Campaigners and MPs claimed yesterday that the
report's account of the events at Sellafield fatally undermined the
case for any further attempts to profit from the MOX process, which
uses reprocessed plutonium to make fuel for civil nuclear power
plants.

Independent 9th June 2013

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...eld-plant-8650779.html
 11 June 2013 02:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

poo,

I made reference to this on the 21st May 2013 in these forums. The person or organisation making the FOI request is not identified.

http://www.theiet.org/forums/f...d=52592&enterthread=y

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 12 June 2013 01:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



poo

Posts: 230
Joined: 07 May 2008

jarathoon,

Yes I missed that post ,sorry. When it's taxpayers money building nuclear power plants, no problem. When it is investors money it is a different story.


Edison International (EIX)'s decision to abandon its San Onofre
nuclear plant in California is the latest blow for an industry already
facing questions about its long-term survival. Edison, based in
Rosemead, California, announced June 7 it will permanently shut the
plant's two reactors, trimming total U.S. operating units to 100 from
104 at the beginning of the year and 110 at the peak in 1996. The
announcement brings to four the number of units permanently removed
from service this year, the most in any year since the nation embraced
nuclear power. The San Onofre nuclear plant was taken offline in
January 2012 after a radioactive leak and unusual wear on steam
generator tubes was discovered. Other facilities are nearing the end
of their projected lifespans and may need costly renovations while
cheap natural gas has siphoned off market share. Potentially expensive
regulations to bolster safety in response to a triple meltdown at
Japan's Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant in 2011 have raised the concerns of
investors. "The decision to shut down San Onofre is another sign that
the economics of nuclear are under pressure given the low cost of
alternative sources," Travis Miller, a Chicago-based analyst for
Morningstar Inc. (MORN), said in a phone interview. "Just five years
ago, nuclear power plants looked like a gold mine."

Bloomberg 10th June 2013
 12 June 2013 07:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19730
Joined: 23 March 2004

Directly attributable to, and predicted with the move to fracking shale gas in the US

The private money will always follow the best return regrdless of consequence.

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 15 June 2013 06:16 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



poo

Posts: 230
Joined: 07 May 2008

It will take until at least 2093 to decommission this nuclear power station below. What is this going to cost? Another reason why private money is nervous about nuclear power.


Up to 120 jobs at the redundant Sizewell A nuclear power station could
be lost after the completion of work to remove highly radioactive
spent fuel elements from its two reactors, it has been revealed. The
power station ceased operation in 2006 and is currently being
decommissioned, with a staff of 315 together with more than 100
contractors. More than 50,000 fuel elements are being removed and
transported to the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing works in Cumbria
and more than half have already been dispatched. Decommissioning work
will continue in phases for at least another 80 years but workforce
numbers will decline significantly over the period. Tim Watkins, site
director for Magnox Limited, the site operator, told the latest
meeting of the Sizewell Stakeholder Group (SSG) that up to 120 jobs
could be lost following the defuelling of the reactors, expected to be
completed by September 2014.

East Anglian Daily Times 11th June 2013
 15 June 2013 05:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1043
Joined: 05 September 2004

poo,

How much is waste processing and storage going to cost?, this really is a central question and it still remains unanswered.

I am continually staggered by how the established nuclear industry has incompetently mishandled the situation for far too long and still manage to limp on without even having a coherent strategy that might lead us to answer this engineering question definitively within an agreed and reasonable length of time.

Now I have been trying to think on this question in terms of Molten Salt Thorium Reactors. I realise it is a difficult question, but it is not anywhere close to the most difficult question I have ever come across.

I can only conclude that the people in charge of this problem in the UK, either have not been interested in solving the problem or are not intellectually capable of solving the problem (trapped by an inability to escape from their own group-think).

I think many of the people culpable in regards to the extreme lack of progress in solving the nuclear waste problem in the last 20 years, should start putting this on their CV's as a fair assessment of their career's work.

As I keep saying those in currently in charge of this mess should now move aside quickly to allow for a radical change in cultural ethos (i.e. much more clarity and transparency over the problems to be addressed) and in the process inviting in a new range of intellectual approaches to tackling the problem.

It is not a question of resources; they have burnt through vast quantities of tax money getting nowhere fast.

James Arathoon


-------------------------
James Arathoon
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.