IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Hinkley Point C
Topic Summary: From the point of view of the EDF-DECC
Created On: 21 October 2013 01:15 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 Next 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.
 21 October 2013 01:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1042
Joined: 05 September 2004

Hinkley Point C deal in the news

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hinkley-point-c

Initial agreement reached on new nuclear power station at Hinkley

"Building HPC will have significant benefits for the UK economy, including:
. A massive investment by EDF Group and its fellow investors of around £16 billion to build the plant. UK companies could benefit from getting up to 57% of the work;

. 25,000 jobs created during construction, with 5,600 people employed on site at peak of construction, and 900 permanent jobs over 60 years of expected operation;

. Power provided for nearly 6 million homes, an area almost twice the size of London, with the site meeting around 7% of the UK's electricity demand when running at full capacity; and

. A clean, home-grown source of electricity, which will reduce the UK's emissions by 9 million tonnes of CO2 per year, helping to meet climate targets."


So the cost of the two nuclear reactors has gone up £2 billion to £16 Billion now. Fully indexing of the strike price is a disgrace and will guarantee vast profits for the investors. "Up to 57% of the work" is a meaningless statement. There will be nothing like 57% in terms of contract value going to UK owned and located businesses. Political spin pure and simple.

Read the notes to editors:

"Compensation to the Hinkley Point C investors for their expected equity return would be payable in the event of a Government directed shut down of Hinkley Point C other than for reasons of health, safety, security, environmental, transport or safeguards concerns. The arrangements include the right to transfer to Government, and for Government to call for the transfer to it of, the project company which owns Hinkley Point C in the event of a shutdown covered by these provisions. The compensation arrangements would be supported by an agreement between the Secretary of State for DECC and the investors."

Standard nationalising the losses, privatising the profits doctrine that accompanies crony capitalism. I wonder if this will be a public agreement or a secret agreement!

Despite all the bluster...

"The commercial agreement reached today on key terms is not legally binding, and is dependent on a positive decision from the European Commission in relation to State Aid."

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 21 October 2013 02:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1042
Joined: 05 September 2004

Ed Davey said in the press conference that you would need to build 6000 onshore wind turbines.

3.2 GW *0.9 [utilisation] = 2.88 GW effective

2.88 GW / 6000 = 480 KW contiuous (see utilisation or capacity factor correction calculated below)

with £16 Billion / 6000 = £2.666 million per turbine.

How much do wind turbines cost and where can I get funding?

Using linear interpolation £2.66 million currently buys a 1.76 MW turbine.

Therefore DECC must have been assuming around a 27% utilisation or capacity factor for the wind turbines. This is on the high side so this must mean that the wind turbine costs they were using, must have been lower than I am assuming.

I suspect if you ordered 6000 2.5 MW wind turbines you would get them for a lot less than £2.66 million each.

Both energy generation methods require additional infrastructure to back them up. Nuclear plants need to shutdown for refuelling and preventative maintenance, normally this is programmed in in the summer months when we need less electricity. However unplanned shutdowns can and do occur outside of the summer months and so backup both spinning and reserve is required just in case.

The main difference is that onshore wind turbines brings us extra energy within the next 1, 2 or 3 years. We have plenty of back up plant in the form of idled and mothballed gas and coal stations, which we are probably going to have to unmothball anyway soon because of the predicted capacity crunch coming within the next five years.

Onshore wind turbines pay back over a shorter time interval (15 to 20 years) and then produce electricity that can be sold at market rates.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 21 October 2013 03:59 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

James,

Could we convert your verbosity to electricity there would be little to fear :-)

Ken Green
 21 October 2013 04:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1042
Joined: 05 September 2004

Just checking that Ed Davey was speaking something close to the truth in regards that Hinkley Point C is roughly equivalent to building 6000, 2 or 2.5 MW wind turbines, and he was.

[Of course the grid back up strategies are different, the carbon emissions are cerainly different over the next 10 years and the market price of concrete may be different for the next 10 years or more as well]

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 21 October 2013 10:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1042
Joined: 05 September 2004

Just to make it really clear, DECC have now calculated we would need to build 30,000 wind turbines, instead of 12 nuclear power stations...

Nuclear power station will avoid 'blight' of 30,000 wind turbines, minister says

"The Department for Energy and Climate Change said that Britain would need to build more than 30,000 onshore wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy, seven times the number currently in operation."

30,0000 2.5 MW wind turbines gives an installed capacity of 75GW

I like onshore wind turbines in comparision to other available options for subsidy - we are told we have to build new fleet of gas power stations (or revamp old ones) anyway in the next 10 years - and these could partner the onshore wind turbines to reduce the amount of gas we need to burn.

Onshore wind turbines are much cheaper than offshore wind turbines at the moment and they are certainly much cheaper than 3rd Generation Nuclear at any cost which needs inflated and guaranteed income for 35 years instead of 15 to 20 years for onshore wind turbines.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 26 October 2013 06:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Both energy generation methods require additional infrastructure to back them up. Nuclear plants need to shutdown for refuelling and preventative maintenance, normally this is programmed in in the summer months when we need less electricity. However unplanned shutdowns can and do occur outside of the summer months and so backup both spinning and reserve is required just in case.


Hi James, did I catch that right? Are you saying a nuclear power station, which can reliably generate baseload power for months on end, requires comparable backup to a windfarm, the output of which oscillates wildly with the cube of windspeed - unpredictably but regularly dropping to near zero output many times each year - sometimes for several days at a time?

If so, please pull the other one, it's got bells on.
 26 October 2013 07:54 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1042
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: Ipayyoursalary

Both energy generation methods require additional infrastructure to back them up. Nuclear plants need to shutdown for refuelling and preventative maintenance, normally this is programmed in in the summer months when we need less electricity. However unplanned shutdowns can and do occur outside of the summer months and so backup both spinning and reserve is required just in case.




Hi James, did I catch that right? Are you saying a nuclear power station, which can reliably generate baseload power for months on end, requires comparable backup to a windfarm, the output of which oscillates wildly with the cube of windspeed - unpredictably but regularly dropping to near zero output many times each year - sometimes for several days at a time?



If so, please pull the other one, it's got bells on.


I am just saying that everything needs backup, particularly one or two of a new kind, nuclear power stations.

When you manage to built a whole fleet of nuclear power stations then the grid back up needed as a percentage of the fleet is reduced (as long as you discount common mode design problems and failures). Last time the government tried to build a fleet of nuclear reactors, only one got built; Sizewell B.

Everything other than Sizewell B will be on the verge of shutting down by 2023; so just Sizewell B and Hinkley Point C will be running on their own soon after 2023. An increase in costly spinning reserve will be needed to back them up, because of the size of the Hinkley Point C reactors. This extra costly spinning reserve would not be needed for 6000 2.5 MW onshore wind turbines. I think you will find that the savings in regards to backing up nuclear only start emerging once a fleet is built and that is very unlikely to happen while we stay locked into a costly 3rd gen nuclear programme.

I am also admitting that everything we want to build now will be more expensive than what we already have in terms of infrastructure. Everyone agrees on this point.

I am saying that even if we start building one or two new nuclear power stations soon the electricity from them won't arrive for another 10-15 years.

Therefore the cheapest available alternative in the meantime, assuming the government decides that we can't build new coal stations, seems to be a mixture of on-shore wind and gas. After 15 years wind energy costs drop as the initial subsidies are withdrawn.

If we just build gas, then our fuel bills are at the complete whim of international gas markets and the country having enough foreign currency to pay for it. We won't get the benefit of a drop off in costs after 15 years, as we will with onshore wind.

If we build offshore wind now (which I don't recommend without cost reductions) we have to put up with ridiculous costs, on much the same scale to new 3rd generation nuclear.

If we put a lot of investment into wind (to bring down costs), and add plenty of gas back-up, with some demand management added in for good measure; then what's the point of building new 3rd generation nuclear as well, if new cheaper more flexible nuclear technologies can come on stream in the next 20-30 years, that also produce much less waste?

If the government allows new coal stations to be built then this will probably be the cheapest option for the next 10-20 years. There is quite a lot of vocal opposition to this route, and we would need to renegotiate our European commitments in regards to our CO2 emissions, so most commentators are saying that won't happen.

As you should know by now, I want to build flexible molten salt nuclear reactors and have them ready to roll out for 2035. But 2035 is 20 odd years away and we need generate out electricity in other ways between now and then, that doesn't waste too much public money for no good reason.

see Weinberg Foundation site here

on latest thorium energy conference...I am sorry but I didn't have the necessary spare cash to attend...but I do know people who are attending...which is the next best thing.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 27 October 2013 12:24 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Hi James,

This edf link says they ran Sizewell B for 1210 days before an unplanned shutdown. With that sort of reliability it would seem sensible to use only non-spinning reserve and large-user demand management to cope with unplanned outages. I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare this to the hot-standby needs of erratic windfarms who's output varies massively and unpredictably from week-to-week, day-to-day and even hour-to-hour.

As regards your claim that onshore wind turbines make economic sense for the UK consumer - I'll need to do some research but I'm pretty sure that's not case. I believe a gas fired power station is more economic ( even with the current high gas prices - but which look set to fall thanks to the worldwide impact of shale gas ). However, UK gas power stations are currently being mothballed. The reason for this is DECC's policy of always giving wind priority access to the grid - forcing gas stations to curtail their output ( and income ) whenever the wind blows - rendering them uneconomic to run. Thus wind is only made viable by subsidy and guaranteed priority access to the grid. And these measures are 'justified' by the claim that doing this will save the world from catastrophic global warming. I am not sure how long the business case for wind will last in the face of a continued plateau in global temperatures and dropping gas prices due to shale. Just look at the fuss caused by Milliband's energy price freeze promise to see how quickly the politics can change.
 27 October 2013 11:30 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1042
Joined: 05 September 2004

Ipayyoursalary,

If you look at this blog

"The changing face of UK electricity supply"

http://euanmearns.com/the-chan...k-electricity-supply/

It clearly shows that the day night variations in demand are mostly much bigger than the variations in wind energy supply at the moment. The day night variation is also mostly at a higher frequency than the aggregate winds supply variations.

By 2023 Sizewell B will be nearer the end of its design life, and Hinkley Point C, if built, will be at the beginning of its design life. It is therefore quite likely that Nuclear energy supply to the grid will be more intermittent and unreliable than it is now.

At the moment our shale gas reserves are not proven. I am not against fracking, I just believe you shouldn't force it on local communities that don't want it. Just as the government shouldn't force large scale on-shore wind farms on local communities that don't want them.

I think as long as we put money into the development of molten salt nuclear reactors (along with a lot of other nations, including the two most populous nations on earth, China and India) for roll-out in the mid 2030's, then building a few coal stations to tide us over in the meantime is not going to lead to catastrophic global warming, especially if at the same time we are insulating our houses to reduce fuel bills.

I actively do want to find economically viable routes through our current difficulties. I do it without the protection of anonymity. I do it unpaid. I do it independent of big business influence. I do it independent of government.

I can compromise on many things, but I am not going to support the building of 3rd generation nuclear on the terms and at a cost currently on offer.

Do you really believe Ed Miliband in his energy price freeze promise?
Even if you do believe him do you really think it will work, to slow the rate of rise of energy bills, as demanded by the master parliamentary Energy Bill?

Do you really believe he is going to enthusiastically 3 line whip his troops into voting for a crazy and nonsensical Energy Bill, just to destroy it a few months later?

Dream on.

My feeling is that Ed Miliband will say anything to get a sniff of power. If he really doesn't believe the Energy Bill will work in the interests of consumers, he and his chums should vote it down, so we can start again on building a coherent, realistic and cost-effective energy policy.

Even if it goes ahead, freezing energy prices for a short interval and replacing a few people at Ofgem doesn't amount to a coherent and well thought through energy policy.

Ed Miliband has to start walking the walk, not just talking the talk. If he really wants to nationalise parts of the industry and/or break up the big six (into generators and suppliers) as he says he does, then he must vote down the current text of the Energy Bill going through parliament, and produce own new amendments.

Ask yourself...

Why does Ed Miliband desperately want to vote through a bill he desperately does not want if and when in power?

James Arathoon


-------------------------
James Arathoon
 27 October 2013 06:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Hi James,

I have no disagreement with your views on Milliband's hypocritical ploy, nor on the foolishness of Davey's commitment to pay EDF double the going rate for the next 35 years. However, I do disagree with your assertion that wind would be a better solution: Before I address Euan's pro-wind blog a couple of references:

Here's a great graph that shows the variability of wind power injected  onto the grid over the last 6 months
(you need to untick all other fuel types to reveal the wind-only graph).

By contrast, on the gridwatch site you can see graphs of how regular and predictable the demand is on daily, weekly and monthly timescales.

Euan claims that this graph of wind, gas, coal and nuclear output during March 2012 shows the "rate of load change to accommodate wind is lower than the demand load shift"

I disagree for the following reasons:

1) The graph does not show demand variation so cannot be used to compare wind variability with demand variability. (even assuming it was valid to compare unpredictable wind variation with largely predictable demand variation).

2) The variability of CCGT shown in the graph is BECAUSE of wind injection. If wind was not being injected, gas output would be less variable. Therefore it is not valid to point at the forced variability of gas output as if it somehow makes the variability of wind seem less troublesome. It's variable *because* of wind.

3) The timescale chosen for the graph (30 days) disguises what can be huge swings in the wind output from hour to hour (eg. as may happen tonight when some farms are forced to suddenly shutdown if windspeeds get too high). I also suspect that Euan has chosen a month over which wind was relatively stable to aid his argument.

4) Euan attempts to equate demand variability with wind variability. However, the two are completely different:

Demand variability is an unavoidable effect which **serves a useful purpose** of supplying customers with energy when they need it.

By contrast, wind variability is an *avoidable* self-inflicted effect which serves *no useful purpose* other than making electricity more expensive so land owners & subsidy farmers can get rich.
 27 October 2013 07:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1042
Joined: 05 September 2004

Wind is maxing out at 5GW at the moment on gridwatch, it will be interesting to see how this changes through the storm event.

I suspect the higher frequency element to the aggregate wind energy supply curve, is much smaller than the low frequency element.

However if the high frequency element is causing enough of a problem to the grid to be charged for then, then it should be charged for (in specific frequency bands that allows cost effective storage solutions to be developed to meet the particular problem identified).

The low frequency elements to the wind energy supply curve are definitely predictable according the National Grid, several hours in advance.

This exceptional storm event is going to cause a lot more problems for the grid than the phased stopping of wind turbines as the storm passes through.

I will think further on other things you have said.

James Arathoon



-------------------------
James Arathoon
 28 October 2013 02:33 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1042
Joined: 05 September 2004

From Daniel Curtis Oxford data you link to it is clear how the coal stations and the combined cycle gas stations are being used together to flexibly meet the day night variation in demand.

At the moment the predicted aggregate wind energy that will be generated, can be netted out of the predicted demand curve, in a manner that can be predicted hours in advance. This can be done because the day night variations in demand are so much bigger than the wind supply variations.

As we build more wind energy generation capacity we need to think about how we fund energy storage as part of the deal.

We generally get more wind energy in the winter months when we need the extra generation capacity (the capacity factor being higher in winter). However how do we store some of that energy, to move it from periods of non-peak demand to periods of peak demand?

With 6000 2.5 GW new onshore wind turbines we would have a maximum generation capacity of 30 GW. If we want to store electricity at a maximum rate of 5 GW over 10 hours at night under windy conditions; we need an effective storage capacity of 37.5 GWh (assuming a 75% storage cycle efficiency). The idea would be to feed this power back into the grid during peak hours over the next day or next few days.

(Even during long windless periods in winter, this storage capacity could act in a peaking role by storing night energy from coal, gas and nuclear stations.)

As an example, the Longdendale Chain of reservoirs could perhaps store on the order of 375MWh at most (probably too expensive though in capital terms). We would need 100 schemes on that scale, around the country, to be able to store 37.5 GWh over 10 hours.

So can we as engineers build 6000 2.5 MW onshore wind turbines + 37.5 GWh of effective storage for less than £16 billion (the cost of two EPR third generation nuclear reactors)?

Example 1
If you could reduce the cost to £1.5 million per 2.5MW turbine installed on a 6000 turbine order, that would be £9 billion. That would leave £7 billion to build the storage, or £187,000 per MWh of net storage at 75% cycle efficiency, with 10 hour charge time

Example 2
If you could reduce the cost to £2 million per 2.5MW turbine installed on a 6000 turbine order, that would be £12 billion. That would leave £4 billion to build the storage, or £107,000 per MWh of net storage at 75% cycle efficiency, with 10 hour charge time.

Example 3
If you could reduce the cost to £2.333 million per 2.5MW turbine installed on a 6000 turbine order, that would be £14 billion. That would leave £2 billion to build the storage, or £53,300 per MWh of net storage at 75% cycle efficiency, with 10 hour charge time.

[For cost comparison purposes, the 100Ah Lucas Sealed Leisure Battery LL26MF is £68 including VAT (100 Amp hour 12V lead acid battery is 1.2 KWh of energy storage) which comes out at £56,700 per MWh of storage.]

It's late at night so I may have made some stupid calculation errors. But assuming I haven't, it looks to me like building 6000 2.5 MW onshore wind turbines + 37.5 GWh of effective storage, for less than £16 billion, might be possible.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 28 October 2013 02:53 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1042
Joined: 05 September 2004

One mistake found already...although it doesn't affect the later calculations on energy storage...

With 6000 2.5 GW new onshore wind turbines we would have a maximum combined power generation output of 15 GW. (not 30GW as I wrote above)

The energy store would be designed to take up to a third of the maximum output from the 6000 turbines for up to 10 hours at night.

This may be too much I am not sure what the ideal ratio of storage to maximum power output from a wind farm should be.

This level of storage capacity could give 3.2 GW of power back to the grid for up to 12 hours, following one 10 hour night charge.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 28 October 2013 10:51 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1042
Joined: 05 September 2004

Storage helps cope with the variability of wind energy, but it also helps use baseload generating stations cope with handling peak daytime demands.

If storage has 75% cycle efficiency and can be discharged at higher rates than charged

Then [power out during peak period]

= [baseload available for storage] x (( (24-[peak duration (hours)]) x 0.75) / [peak duration (hours)]) + 1)

constant squarewave peak with duration of 6 hours, meaning storage can be charged for the other 18 hours

The 1.6 GW baseload station supplying storage for 18 hours is then able to combine with storage energy output to supply the peak...

[power out during peak period] = 1.6 x (( (24-6) x 0.75) / 6)+1)
= 5.2 GW
(without the storage an additional 3.6 GW of generating plant would be needed in this 6 hour period to meet demand, with all generating stations sitting idle for the other 18 hours of the day)

The amplification factor in regards to supplying the 6 hour peak demand period = 3.25 (the shorter the peak in duration the bigger the amplification factor, and the more cost effective storage becomes)

The net storage needed in this case = 1.6 x (24 - 6) x 0.75 = 21.6 GWh

Storage of the right type can be used in supplying peak demand power from night baseload, as well as helping to make the output form windfarms more valuble.

How do you calculate how the cost of storage can be shared between storing windfarm energy and for storing excess night baseload for use in peak periods of the day?

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 31 October 2013 10:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1042
Joined: 05 September 2004

Liberum Capital has published a report on Hinkley Point C, which made the news yeasterday in a couple of papers.

http://www.liberumcapital.com/pdf/ULkWtp00.pdf

"Conclusions
Although we have yet to see the full terms of the contract (and we may never do so), based on the disclosure so far this looks likely to be an outstanding deal for Edf and its partners. Once again, the UK government is taking a massive bet that fossil fuel prices will be extremely high in the future. If that bet proves to be wrong then this contract will look economically insane when HPC commissions. We are frankly staggered that the UK government thinks it is appropriate to take such a bet and under-write the economics of any power station that costs £5m per MW and takes 9 years to build."


I've used the assumtions in the report to calculate some figures you can graph for yourselves. Stike prices are assumed to increase with inflation by 2.5% a year, and finance is assumed to come from a 35 year loan at 6% interest. Plant utilisation of 85% is assumed. Cost is 16 billion and power output is 3200 MW.

Income, Loan Repayments, 10% profit and Balance are all in millions.

Year From Start , Year, Income , Loan Repayments , 10% Profit , Balance
1 , 2023 , 2891.9 , 810.6 , 289.2 , 1792.1
2 , 2024 , 2964.2 , 830.9 , 296.4 , 1836.9
3 , 2025 , 3038.3 , 851.6 , 303.8 , 1882.8
4 , 2026 , 3114.2 , 872.9 , 311.4 , 1929.9
5 , 2027 , 3192.1 , 894.7 , 319.2 , 1978.1
6 , 2028 , 3271.9 , 917.1 , 327.2 , 2027.6
7 , 2029 , 3353.7 , 940.0 , 335.4 , 2078.3
8 , 2030 , 3437.5 , 963.5 , 343.8 , 2130.2
9 , 2031 , 3523.5 , 987.6 , 352.3 , 2183.5
10 , 2032 , 3611.5 , 1012.3 , 361.2 , 2238.1
11 , 2033 , 3701.8 , 1037.6 , 370.2 , 2294.0
12 , 2034 , 3794.4 , 1063.6 , 379.4 , 2351.4
13 , 2035 , 3889.2 , 1090.2 , 388.9 , 2410.2
14 , 2036 , 3986.5 , 1117.4 , 398.6 , 2470.4
15 , 2037 , 4086.1 , 1145.3 , 408.6 , 2532.2
16 , 2038 , 4188.3 , 1174.0 , 418.8 , 2595.5
17 , 2039 , 4293.0 , 1203.3 , 429.3 , 2660.4
18 , 2040 , 4400.3 , 1233.4 , 440.0 , 2726.9
19 , 2041 , 4510.3 , 1264.2 , 451.0 , 2795.0
20 , 2042 , 4623.1 , 1295.8 , 462.3 , 2864.9
21 , 2043 , 4738.6 , 1328.2 , 473.9 , 2936.5
22 , 2044 , 4857.1 , 1361.4 , 485.7 , 3010.0
23 , 2045 , 4978.5 , 1395.5 , 497.9 , 3085.2
24 , 2046 , 5103.0 , 1430.4 , 510.3 , 3162.3
25 , 2047 , 5230.6 , 1466.1 , 523.1 , 3241.4
26 , 2048 , 5361.3 , 1502.8 , 536.1 , 3322.4
27 , 2049 , 5495.4 , 1540.4 , 549.5 , 3405.5
28 , 2050 , 5632.8 , 1578.9 , 563.3 , 3490.6
29 , 2051 , 5773.6 , 1618.3 , 577.4 , 3577.9
30 , 2052 , 5917.9 , 1658.8 , 591.8 , 3667.3
31 , 2053 , 6065.9 , 1700.3 , 606.6 , 3759.0
32 , 2054 , 6217.5 , 1742.8 , 621.8 , 3853.0
33 , 2055 , 6373.0 , 1786.3 , 637.3 , 3949.3
34 , 2056 , 6532.3 , 1831.0 , 653.2 , 4048.1
35 , 2057 , 6695.6 , 1876.8 , 669.6 , 4149.3

The balance after loan repayments and 10% profits is what interests me. According to this estimation a total of just over £98 billion is required (over the 35 years) to cover operations, maintenance, decomissioning, waste costs, and regulation costs. Any Corporation Tax comes out of profits.

The total income being £159 billion over the 35 years. 62% of the overall income from electricity sales (over the 35 year subsidy period) must be required for thisngs like operations, maintenance, decomissioning, waste costs and regulation costs. (VAT may be extra to these costs and has not been included)

This puts the lie to idea that the main costs of nuclear are associated with the iniitial build of the plant; using these figures only 28% of the costs are associated with paying back the loan to build the plant completely over the 35 year period (assuming no equity financing component to reduce this percentage further)

Either this represents a true picture of actual and real running costs of third generation nuclear EPR's, or we are being deliberately and systematically lied to and this is really just a huge scam against the public, perpetrated and cooked up by EDF, DECC and the Treasury.

Please write to your MP's so they can explain to you how the balance of costs for operations, maintenance, decomissioning, waste and regulation will ultimately break down.

The strike prices increase with inflation as follows (assuming 2.5%)

year relative to start , year , strike price (£)
-10 , 2012 , 93
-9 , 2013 , 95
-8 , 2014 , 97
-7 , 2015 , 100
-6 , 2016 , 102
-5 , 2017 , 105
-4 , 2018 , 107
-3 , 2019 , 110
-2 , 2020 , 113
-1 , 2021 , 116
0 , 2022 , 118
1 , 2023 , 121
2 , 2024 , 124
3 , 2025 , 128
4 , 2026 , 131
5 , 2027 , 134
6 , 2028 , 137
7 , 2029 , 141
8 , 2030 , 144
9 , 2031 , 148
10 , 2032 , 152
11 , 2033 , 155
12 , 2034 , 159
13 , 2035 , 163
14 , 2036 , 167
15 , 2037 , 171
16 , 2038 , 176
17 , 2039 , 180
18 , 2040 , 185
19 , 2041 , 189
20 , 2042 , 194
21 , 2043 , 199
22 , 2044 , 204
23 , 2045 , 209
24 , 2046 , 214
25 , 2047 , 220
26 , 2048 , 225
27 , 2049 , 231
28 , 2050 , 236
29 , 2051 , 242
30 , 2052 , 248
31 , 2053 , 255
32 , 2054 , 261
33 , 2055 , 267
34 , 2056 , 274
35 , 2057 , 281


James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 01 November 2013 02:16 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



poo

Posts: 230
Joined: 07 May 2008

"The commercial agreement reached today on key terms is not legally binding, and is dependent on a positive decision from the European Commission in relation to State Aid."

What happened to the promise that there would be no more public subsidies for nuclear new build?

The government also said that EDF did not have to address the problem of disposing of the high level radioactive waste in their application to build Hinkley Point C because that problem had been solved.
It has not been solved. Many countries struggle with finding a solution to the high level radioactive waste.

If Hinkley Point C construction (if it is built) goes years over time and budget like the other two power stations EDF are building you would have to seriously consider why we should build any more.
 01 November 2013 03:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1042
Joined: 05 September 2004

poo,

It looks like there is plenty of money in this deal to cover even a £10 billion overspend. There is also plenty of money to completely renew and upgrade the plant prior to coming off the 35 year subsidy deal.

That means, no loan repayments after 2057, little repairs and maintenance to do, and all waste and decommissioning costs paid for.
Waste will be stored at the site for 100 years or more and will at some point over this period become the full responsibilty of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Hinkley Point C, and any successors at Sizewell, are a money making machine for the French and Chinese Government Wealth funds.

So while the french and chinese grandchildren and great-grandchildren are reaping the rewards from their soverign weath funds, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren are picking up all the bills for nuclear waste.

At today's prices market prices £55 per MWh they will earn £1.3 billion for the 25 years after the subsidy deal ends (nearly £33 billion in total), with very low running costs which have been minimised during the subsidy period.

Just to frighten you if you don't think your wages and pension will keep up with inflation; the actually income (after the subsidy deal ends) allowing for the current £55 per MWh to rise with inflation at 2.5 per year, rises from £4 billion per year in 2058 to £7 billion per year in 2082, a total over the 25 years of £139 billion. Most of this will go straight into the pocket of foreign investors.

What a deal the government has negotiated on our behalf! What value for money! I am astounded at the level of competence with which they run the country!

Surely British engineers can come up with a better deal for the British Public this heap of garbage!

I honestly despair of what this country has become; dim-wittedness, hedonism, self-interest and greed rule seem to rule this limp and overly consumerist country now; we have become incapable of doing major and important engineering tasks for ourselves anymore and we are about to pay for this mistake big time.

I am sorry this won't be changed by senior engineers like you remaining anonymous. At some point you will have to put your real name forward, put your reputation on the line, stand up in the full light of day and be counted like me.

Unfortunately I have made too many enemies in government and academia to do this on my own.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 06 November 2013 09:50 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



poo

Posts: 230
Joined: 07 May 2008

Sorry to disappoint James but I am just a retired sparky. I was living in Cannington, Somerset, when an inquiry was held there regarding the application to build Hinkley Point C in the late 1980s.
It was the biggest show in town.
I attended some of the sessions.
It was there that I found out that construction delays were not uncommon when we built the Magnox and AGR nuclear power stations.
Dungeness B nuclear power station was started in 1965 and first produced power in 1983.
I also found out that we did not have a permanent plan for the high level radioactive waste.
We did not know the cost of decommissioning the existing power stations then. Do we now?
Someone found an old newspaper cutting (circa 1960) stating that the new atomic power station would assist Britain in making our own nuclear bombs.
The inquiry was told that the lights may go out if we did not build Hinkley Point C.
That was 25 years ago.
Today we still have the same problems. What to do with the high level waste. Enormous construction costs even it they go to plan.
One thing is different, the guaranteed profits will now go overseas.
We still have the risk of a catastrophic accident. This is why insurance companies will not touch nuclear.
The Germans must look at us and wonder why we do not have a plan B.
 06 November 2013 11:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1042
Joined: 05 September 2004

poo,

Thanks for the reply. However just because I and everyone else now knows you are retired sparky, doesn't mean that younger engineers shouldn't look up to you as an experienced opinion former, broker and leader. The technicians, the artisans and skilled trades men and women in this institution have an extremely important role to play in deciding the direction Britain should take now. But as you quite rightly imply the middle sections of society have been sold one pack of lies after another on Nuclear Energy and its wastes., and are now completely alienated from the decision making process in regards to energy generation.

The future of our energy system is the most important issue facing this institution, probably for generation. From a large swathe of engineers who should know better (outside of the big companies where self-interest overrides their individual will), there is an almost unreal sort of silence. It's almost as if collectively as an institution we are embarrassed by the difficulty of the energy issues and want them go away without us.

It seems a cliché now to say that engineers were at the heart of cost-effectively designing, moulding, building, forming and directing the future of this country, but we were, we always were! Even though there were lots of mistakes along the way, and quite often engineers from other counties ended up finishing the jobs we started, at least we had the courage to fight against apathy and give it a go in the first place.

Where has this spirit gone now? Is Britain just a passive consumer nation now? Is that what we really want?

I have read a fighting piece from Catherine Mitchel this morning on IGov. It lifts my spirits a lot, because even though I don't agree with her on everything it helps push the debate forward in the right direction...

German wholesale prices have fallen by 50% since 2008 - why not in Britain?

"At the centre of this debate is the way that rapid technological change and innovation in designing, operating, managing and using the electricity, and wider energy, system is turning the economics of energy upside down in certain countries - just as it did for telecoms in the 1990s and just as it is doing for newspapers and social media now. Npower, for example, is owned by RWE which has just announced a change to its business model because of the 50% cut - yes, cut - in average wholesale prices in Germany since 2008. Renewable zero marginal cost electricity has brought the peak electricity prices tumbling down - wiping out the source of profit for these large companies. E.on, also German, has seen its income from conventional power fall by half since 2010. Renewable energy technology prices are tumbling as their volume manufacture increases and as they 'learn by doing'. Share prices of the European utilities have plummeted - E.on's has fallen by two thirds from its peak - at the prospect of the transformation from big kit, centralised, fossil dominated energy industries to a dispersed, multi-scale, multi-actor, flexible, actively managed model - and moreover, given the opportunity, customers and citizens jump to invest in this latter future. A key question is why is it that those new economics of energy are not visible in Britain and are not feeding through to customer bills? The answer has three parts to it."

James Arathoon


-------------------------
James Arathoon
 06 November 2013 12:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



drhirst

Posts: 46
Joined: 24 December 2002

James, et al,
The young engineers and technicians of today are those who will have to live with the consequences of decisions made now, and who will have to unpick the doublethink and hypocrisy of current energy policy. Yet the engineering institutions seem quite unwilling to challenge the neoliberal dogmas, and the nonsense that competition between large corporations will do anything but provide the corporations with a cash cow of consumers with no upper limit to the profits that can be extracted. In the words of a recent report on the railways (http://www.cresc.ac.uk/publica...of-rail-privatisation) it is "predatory contractualism", where the government is diddled into poor contracts that leave consumers with little option by to pay up, at least until the pips squeak too loudly. When the pips do squeak (as they seem to be now), government is left looking hopeless and foolish, but is unable to escape the contracts.
The shared electricity network, with common wires and substations serving streets and cities is fundamentally a monopoly. One can, at vast cost and complexity, create the appearance of competition between retailers, and so a sort of pseudo choice for consumers. But as an increasing portion of the electricity is of zero or negative marginal cost (depending on the subsidy regime), and uses ambient sources (solar, wind and tide) or is otherwise not controllable, like nuclear, then the fundamental concepts of price competition break down. It becomes a game, and the rules all serve to lower costs for the higher consumption of the rich; increase costs for the growing numbers of the poor; and give profit opportunities to vertically integrated oligopolies. How can consumers (or the taxpayer) benefit from this?
One day soon, I hope, reality will strike, and it will be painful. "Reality is only for those who cannot cope with the drugged consciousness." This time the drug we swim in is neoliberal economic thinking.
David Hirst

-------------------------
David Hirst
IET » Energy » Hinkley Point C

1 2 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



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