Originally Posted by Norm_uk (Post 10954563)

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.

Originally Posted by Sandboy (Post 10955439)

So we sell the utilities to put them in the hands of the public and 25 years later we're being held to ransom by the Chinese Communist Party and our dear old friends the French, nice one Maggie

Originally Posted by OleJanx (Post 10954587)

A great deal of this stupidity is based on the fact that conservatives will never forgive the NUM for pushing the limits in 1974 and 1984-5, Coal makes sense but is unacceptable to Cameron and company. Much better to let the uncertainty of China and France ***** things up and have the consumers up against a brick wall.

Originally Posted by Norm_uk (Post 10955533)

Indeed. The Chinese have a lot experience with nuclear technology as well - and are hardly incompetent at the high level - they put people in space and are playing aircraft carriers...both benchmarks in engineering and organisation.

Might do it better than us :p

N.

Originally Posted by Millhouse (Post 10955497)

Not really. Once the thing is built, the investor really is not in a strong position. Look at what the Spanish did to the feed-in tariffs in the solar sector.

Originally Posted by Norm_uk (Post 10955533)

Indeed. The Chinese have a lot experience with nuclear technology as well - and are hardly incompetent at the high level - they put people in space and are playing aircraft carriers...both benchmarks in engineering and organisation.

Might do it better than us :p

N.

Originally Posted by Inselaffen (Post 10955548)

playing with an old Russian aircraft carrier!

Originally Posted by Scamp (Post 10955358)

Meh, why not?

The UK is going to be in trouble if it doesn't get more leccy on the grid. The 'double current market price' is true today but that price doesn't start coming until the plant is operational in a decade. What will the market price be in a decade?

I'm amazed that nobody has mentioned HS2 yet and how that money could be spent.

EDF have struck a deal that apparently makes them 10% margin, that's not particularly offensive at all, especially if they HAVE carefully considered the decommissioning costs properly.

The Chinese have 19 Nuclear plants and are building another 30 odd or something, they probably know more about this shit than we do....although they are still not to be trusted.

Originally Posted by Boomhauer (Post 10956704)

Westinghouse sold 3 or 4 Nuclear reactors to the Chinese a few years back. No doubt there are also a lot of Western and or Russian techs who guided the Chinese through from construction to operation.

So from a comptency standpoint I would think Western firms have the best technology and operational expereince. It will most likely be operated by Brits but how much veto power will the Chinese have over procuring equipment, safety and enviromental suggestons??

Originally Posted by Bahtatboy (Post 10980578)

Switching hobby horses for the moment...

Clean-up costs for Fukushima estimated at $50-100 billion (not that anyone seems to be doing any real estimating). And that's without compensation.

An island of (potentially contaminated) debris the size of Texas approaching the US's east coast.

Starfish disintegrating (ok, nobody's proved a link. Yet.).

Scotland produced 38% of its energy by renewables last year (ok, that's 38% of not so much, but still).

And we're set to build a plant costing 4-6x what a conventional plant would cost. And its uninsurable, so if it goes pop we pay again (if we're still there).

Seriously?