Bahtatboy

Simply, WTF?
A new nuclear power plant, which will produce up to 7% of the UK’s energy needs, and quite probably will set the scene for further investment, will proceed as follows:
• 35-40% Chinese owned
• 55-65% French owned
• Cost of energy produced to be twice the current market rate
• Decommissioning costs allegedly included in the capital cost (I don’t believe that: the Treasury in April announced that it had underestimated the cost of decommissioning the UK's nuclear plants by the same £16bn, with a new total of some £60bn, without any guarantees that that estimate won't rise)

So, if its going to produce electricity at a cost of twice the current market cost, HTF will the investors recoup their investment without doubling the price to the consumer?

As a comparison:
New Hinkley Point: 3,600MW, cost £16bn, construction period 10 years.
Coal-Fired Plant: 4 x 900MW, cost £2.4bn, construction period 1 ½ - 2 years.

Saving some £13bn, potential to re-generate the UK coal industry, pour loads of money into carbon-capture technology, and keep the investment in-house.

This is so mad it smells of corruption. Or just madness.

OleJanx

I'm not sure which one it is either. Probably a mixture of the two with added indifference.

Boomhauer

There has to be considerable benefits to Nuclear that makes it attractive over coal.

OleJanx

I think the things which make nuclear more attractive than coal are Joe Gormely and Arthur Scargill. No conservative will touch coal due to the unfortunate legacy of the South Yorkshire NUM activity.
And that is a case of cutting your nose off to spite your face - but Cameron is too young and too stupid, yet indoctrinated against coal to recognise it.

Boomhauer

Correct me if I am wrong; Coal even with scrubbers is quite polluting. Nuclear is clean, in that it isn't releasing Greenhouse gases into the atmosphere now but the trade off is radioactive waste that will last thousands of years but the consolation is that the waste is small relative to Coal or Oil.

I guess as technology advances we will find a way to neutralize the waste, so maybee the nuclear proponents are banking on technology to save us.

OleJanx

Coal has many advantages if people are willing to follow it through,
On the whole CO2 pollution, whilst unwelcome is better than a relaps of Chernoble.
The early plastics industry was from coal not oil and it also backs up a proud industry - Chinese investment in Nuclear industries is not encouraging...

flares

We're making weapons...I knew it

mikewot

I'd rather spend money on green Nuclear than windfarms.

Beakersful

Nuclear for the medium term till a new power source is found.

I heard we need 4-5 new nuke stations to keep up on current and projected needs since we haven't been building them to replace the ones going offline. Also, if we go full electric cars we'll probably need 40-45 to cope with the recharging needs surely?

OleJanx

Windfarms are fueled by myopic hot air from unrealistic green twunts.
Grow up and accept Nuclear power has much to recommend it compared to feeble arguements from the greens.

Bahtatboy

For what? Do nuclear weapon heads have a shelf-life? Do we need it for nuclear subs? Surely we can buy from one of our nuclear allays. Pakistan?

Edit: Ah, thought you meant nuclear weapons needs, not power needs. Yes, we need more power generation, but it certainly doesn't have to be from nuclear.

Millhouse

Yes.

Bahtatboy

10,000 years?

OleJanx

Who cares? You'll be dead in forty years...!

Norm_uk

I think the UK should not allow foreign investment in critical sectors like nuclear energy and water. I am not against nuclear power but this doesn't seem sensible as it will raise the cost to consumers massively. It could be done cheaper I am sure...the whole of idea of nuclear is long term power at an affordable price isn't it?

I think we should look at carbon capture tech and utilise some of our coal reserves alongside whatever else we do.

Meanwhile more government madness has our next generation of aircraft carriers being powered by diesel...completely stupid for a large military vessel and most of the Navy seem to be against the idea but they are 'cutting costs' which is fine now but when petroleum is high will they use rubbing alcohol and meths to get our ships running?

N.