Vocal Voices

So EDF, major shakeholder the French government, at long last after years of negotiation, eventually get around to agreeing to build what is effectively an unproven nuclear power station, the only other two examples of which are incomplete and massively over cost and time budget.

The party tent is erected and the champagne on ice for the signing ceremony. But the UK Government then says, "ummm, let's just hang on a minute and look at it all again ... "

Priceless! I wonder how much of our government's delay is down to setting up another Brexit bargaining chip?

Or could it be that newer GIII reactors have simpler designs, are quicker to build, have reduced capital costs, are more fuel efficient and also inherently much safer?

We could build three for the price of Hinkley, in different locations, and not create a hot-spot for the National grid. If one goes down we still have two working. If Hinkley goes down, that's it.

TheOstrich wrote:I wonder how much of our government's delay is down to setting up another Brexit bargaining chip?

Let me see..... Hostile French Government, hostile French ex minister running Brexit and we're going to hand an 18bn reactor build to EDF which is hugely French government owned, then agree to pay twice the going market price for the electricity for the next 35 years.

And our new executive says "hang on a sec maybe we might just need some of that money".....

It may be a bargaining chip. But then again we might just need that 18bn and also the hugely inflated energy subsidies we're agreeing to. I'd rather that than printing money to support a foreign company to create a dubious reactor at ruinous cost and operating cost.

If we're thinking clearly we would do it ourselves with UK companies paid for by the UK government who are going to get taxes back from the companies they are giving the money to.

if we're leaving the EU, the rules on competitive bidding no longer apply and we can take a bid from a UK company which is more expensive, but, through taxation, be cheaper in the long run.

There is a lot to think about now which was not there before. Bargaining chip? More like a penalty clause up front to ensure better behaviour during the negotiations. Well that's how I would do it anyway. One cast iron loss with the threat of more to follow if they don't start playing fair and stop beating their breasts.

Sorry, but I think it has sod all to do with Brexit.

I think that the government's brain cell has woken up and realised that there are more cost-effective and more efficient solutions out there.

Workingman wrote:Or could it be that newer GIII reactors have simpler designs, are quicker to build, have reduced capital costs, are more fuel efficient and also inherently much safer?

We could build three for the price of Hinkley, in different locations, and not create a hot-spot for the National grid. If one goes down we still have two working. If Hinkley goes down, that's it.

Hmmm, looking at the wiki page it says

A generation III reactor is a development of generation II nuclear reactor designs incorporating evolutionary improvements in design developed during the lifetime of the generation II reactor designs. These include improved fuel technology, superior thermal efficiency, passive nuclear safety systems and standardised design for reduced maintenance and capital costs

But of much more interest is the following statement in the article

Generation III+ designs offer significant improvements in safety and economics over Generation III advanced reactor designs certified by the NRC in the 1990s.

Looking at the Advanced CANDU reactor, to me, it would be much better to resurrect the relationship we had with them up to 2008 and convince them that a partnership with the UK would be very much in their interests.

Their statement on working with the UK was

AECL was marketing the ACR-1000 as part of the UK's Generic Design Process but pulled out in April 2008. CEO Hugh MacDiarmid is quoted as stating, "We believe very strongly that our best course of action to ensure the ACR-1000 is successful in the global market place is to focus first and foremost on establishing it here at home

It is quite possible that the EU procurement process for major government projects put them at too much risk. That risk is now gone.

I'd rather see us partner with Canada to deliver a very advanced Gen III+ reactor complex (or several), than throw billions at a Gen II reactor built by the French at massive operating cost for 35 years.

Suff, all I was doing is pointing out that there are other options than the one at Hinkley.

Which one, type, manufacturer, size, colour or acoustic resonance emissions (they do hum) are neither here nor there.

All I was saying is that they do exist and it could be that someone has pointed this out to our ever-so-unknowledgeable politicians before they spend lots of our money.

Why this was not done yonks ago is a mystery, but we are both right. The info is out there should the politicos want to look for it.

It seems a very expensive deal and Theresa May is quite right to put the brakes on while she has a good look at the fine print.