Hinkley Point protest: Blockade at nuclear power station

Its time that crappy nuclear reactors of West be shut down else you might have another Fukushima

Well some more on this

Anti-nuclear protesters have declared the mass blockade at Hinkley Point today as a victory over EDF Energy. The nine-hour blockade in Somerset attracted supporters from all over the UK. Several came from as far afield as Ireland, Germany and Belgium.

Angie Zelter, who hit the headlines in 1996 when she and other activists attacked a Hawk jet destined to suppress protests in East Timor (and was subsequently cleared of criminal damage by a jury), blasted EDF’s claims that Hinkley Point is sustainable.

She added: ‘Over its lifetime, Hinkley will consume more energy than it produces - if you take into account the energy used to extract uranium and the power needed to store radioactive waste for hundreds of years. It doesn’t add up.’

Zelter said the risk of flooding is an increasing worry. ‘Locals are well aware of the constant danger of flooding around Hinkley,’ she continued. ‘We have information from workers there that several years ago, floodwater breached the plant’s retaining walls.’

1

So the containing walls are not safe from normal severn tidal surges flows, a Tsunami or massive storn surge would surely swamp it and risk meltdown.

Kind Regards,

Elf

reply to post by MischeviousElf


Angie Zelter is a professional activist. I don’t think she is an expert on flooding nor do I think she has an impartial point of view. She’s a “if it’s nuclear it’s bad” type person. The Somerset Levels are a low lying area, so to say there is a flood risk in the area is stating the bleeding obvious. In fact, in the lower lying parts of the Levels there is regular flooding.

Anyway, read all about the flood risk.

hinkleypoint.edfenergyconsultation.info...

Regards

reply to post by MischeviousElf


Thats incorrect.

Relative Subsidies to Energy Sources

Subsidies per produced energy unit (TWh):
Nuclear energy: 1,7
Renewable energy: 5,0
Biofuels: 5,1
Fossil fuels: 0,8

We do not have any better energy source than modern nuclear. Unless you want to use fossil fuels.

Also, how come that France, which produces 80% of its electricity from nuclear, has one of the lowest electricity prices in Europe? If what you say was true, it should be one of the highest.
rwecom.online-report.eu...

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by MischeviousElf
Thats incorrect.

Relative Subsidies to Energy Sources
Subsidies per produced energy unit (TWh):

reply to post by Maslo


Ahem

Oh I am awfully sorry are you stating that the MULTIDISCIPLINARY Updated Study held at one of the premier if not Premier university and gathering of experts in this field worldwide were wrong in their study?

Do you question their figures?

Sources to debunk please.

You do know the US government also used the report as it was so widely accepted as being the most detailed, accurate independent and in depth studies of nuclear power, its costs both financially and also in terms or risk ever conducted?

Yeah right ok whatever you say I suppose.

The 2003 MIT study on The Future of Nuclear Power, supported by the Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation, has had a significant impact on the public debate both in the
United States and abroad and the study has influenced both legislation by the
U.S. Congress and the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) nuclear energy
R&D program.
This report presents an update on the 2003 study.

MIT

The figures I linked are from the studies more recent 2009 update, and unlike other "flase figures" includes the true cost of subsidies, grants, loans, clean ups, true electricity costs over reactor time, decommisioning and storage... (more than generated!)

Please read the linked study listen to the top experts in this field being unlike normal very candid.

Even looking at conservative economists who would normally be in favor of these massive projects have found when looking at the true numbers and taking away all lobbying and not even including full subsidies and 10,000 years of cleanup it is much much more exp[nsive than nearly every other energy source:

A cold-blooded examination of the industry's numbers bears this out. Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf concludes that the total cost of juice from a new nuclear plant today is 4.31 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's far more than electricity from a conventional coal-fired plant (3.53 cents) or "clean coal" plant (3.55 cents). When he takes away everyone's tax subsidies, however, Metcalf finds that nuclear power is even less competitive (5.94 cents per kwh versus 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents, respectively).

Cato institute

Some very noted experts put the true cost much much higher than ive mentioned so far:

According to Benjamin K. Sovacool, the marginal levelized cost for "a 1,000-MWe facility built in 2009 would be 41.2 to 80.3 cents/kWh, presuming one actually takes into account construction, operation and fuel, reprocessing, waste storage, and decommissioning"

World Scientific

And all of this without the TRUE hidden cost as the Japanese just found out in financial terms

The nuclear energy industry only exists thanks to what insurance experts call the “mother of all subsidies”, and the public is largely unaware that every nuclear power plant in the world has a strict cap on how much the industry might have to pay out in case of an accident.

In Canada, this liability cap is an astonishingly low 75 million dollars. In India, it is 110 million dollars and in Britain 220 million dollars. If there is an accident, governments – i.e. the public – are on the hook for all costs exceeding those caps....

4

On the french side well tax tax tax subsidies subsidies subsidies, and it is often CHEAPER than solar and renewable, its an myth an meme that its cheaper, like "Scientists" said tabacoo was safe, lobbying, massive capital projects, huge subsidies... and wind frams are not problems financially or to health the environment if they go wrong!

Its lifetime load factor was less than 7%. Plagued by technical problems and a long list of incidents, the cost of the adventure was estimated by the French Court of Auditors at FRF60 billion (close to €9.15 billion) in 1996. However, the estimate included only FRF5 billion (€0.760 billion) for decommissioning. That figure alone had increased to over €2 billion by 2003. At a lifetime power generation of some 8.3 TWh, Superphénix has produced
the kWh at about €1.35 (to be compared with the French feed-in tariff of €0.55 per building integrated
solar kWh).

Report Commissioned to be Presented to the EU

Kind Regards

Elf

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
Oh I am awfully sorry are you stating that the MULTIDISCIPLINARY Updated Study held at one of the premier if not Premier university and gathering of experts in this field worldwide were wrong in their study?

The problem is that for every study or report that says nuclear is costly, there’s another saying it’s reasonably priced. Therefore, we can all be selective on the report to prove a point.

For example, and et cetera.

www.world-nuclear.org...

One thing is clear though is that in the UK at least the tax payer is paying through their noses for renewable energy. £100bn (est) between 2002 and 2030. I would stick in a few more nuclear power stations and be done with it. But that’s another discussion.

Regards

reply to post by MischeviousElf


Coal, nuke whatever I am not going to join in the argument of the relative merits of the various power supply sources. The problem for the UK is simply this. If you close coal as you are about to, and also close nukes you cannot build enough CCGT stations to make up the difference in the time available, and renewable won't hack it all the time. You cannot simply close one sector that provides a substantial amount of the power resource.



www.bmreports.com...

30% of so of the energy gone would be a shortfall that wind and other renewables simply cannot make up for a very long time to come. Right at this moment wind is close to peak and that is only say 8% of the power. 5 times the amount of wind turbine output would be required to make up that shortfall - along with 12 to 15 CCGT 600 Mw or more stations to stand idle until the wind stops blowing. In addition the more wind component in he mix the more unstable the grid will become and maintaining 50 cycles will become more and more difficult. Whilst modern turbines are better than they used to be we, for example, have to suffer 244V and overcycles as we are surrounded by wind farms. Blows a UPS in under 1 year. Ruins electrical equipment and blows light bulbs in no time.

Originally posted by lifeissacred
Nuclear power is one of the most cost effective and efficient methods of generating energy.

Yeah, it's real cost effective to give millions of people cancer, and blight the Earth with new 50km-radius death zones every decade or two. Totally sensible.

reply to post by Observer99

Yeah, it's real cost effective to give millions of people cancer, and blight the Earth with new 50km-radius death zones every decade or two. Totally sensible.

Make it hundreds of thousands at most. Then when you compare deaths per TWh produced, it is indeed sensible, because of the sheer amount of power nuclear produces. It is even competitive with renewables. Do not let emotions cloud your judgement.

nextbigfuture.com...

And nobody is saying that nuclear is perfect (altough modern plants are very safe), some accidents and leaks will simply be the cost of civilisation.

When we get rid of much more dangerous fossil fuels, then we can think about getting rid of nuclear, if it will be even possible. Otherwise it is a sign of empty populism.

Originally posted by Observer99
Yeah, it's real cost effective to give millions of people cancer, and blight the Earth with new 50km-radius death zones every decade or two. Totally sensible.

Well, it does not.

The irrational fear of nuclear is based on no solid foundation. I appreciate that there are studies left, right and centre which allege this, that and the other, but the consensus of proper peer reviewed studies shows no – or little – raised cancer risk from nuclear power.

The whole area is clouded by myriad reports and studies, some amateurish and others appearing scientific but pushed by one lobby group or another. It would (for example) be surprising for Greenpeace etc., to agree to pay for independent research which contradicted their long held view that we’re all going to die from cancer and the world is going to be transformed into a wasteland etc and blah, blah, blah unless we stick a few thousand wind turbines over the Shires and close down nuclear.

news.bbc.co.uk...

To topic. Hinckley Point C should go ahead. It’s just a shame that the UK governments of the past were so short-sighted and that they sold out the nuclear industry and we now have to rely on the French.

Regards

The UK is facing a capacity gap due to gas peaking in the north sea and a lack of capital investment. It is only likely to expand as its current generation of nuclear reactors are shut down. While the UK is focusing heavily on implementing renewables, due to the relatively high cost of renewables compared to nuclear or integration issues, a lack of nuclear likely means a greater capacity shortfall and either more electricity imported from nuclear France or more dangerous explosive natural gas imported from Russia.

The nuclear reactors that is most likely going to be built in the UK is the EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) which has twice the active emergency cooling systems over current reactors, a passive safety system (no electricity required) which no current reactors have, as well as two containment vessels designed to withstand an airliner hit. Each will put out around 1650 Megawatts (over two million horsepower) of electricity, last 60 years and operate about 93% of the time with refueling once every two years. Two of them will be built at Hinkley Point, providing enough power for between 4 and 6 million people.

“When the Fukushima nuclear power station failed so disastrously in Japan earlier this year, President Obama ordered the evacuation of all US citizens within a 50-mile radius of the disaster site. "

Since when did Obama become a credible source on ATS? Also the 50-mile radius was quiet arbitrary.

[4] Nuclear [5] Coal [6] Gas
$/kW $4,000 2,300 850

Those are overnight costs rather than levelized costs. They completely neglect things such as discount rate, construction time, operational life, decommissioning cost, capacity factor, fuel cost, transmission cost and maintenance cost. Nuclear has low transmission costs, low maintenance costs, very high capacity factor (>90%), very long operational life (60 years), very low fuel costs which significantly offset the capital cost. You might want to actually... uhm... read the report you cite.

Nuclear: 8.4 c/kWH
Coal: 6.2c/kWH
Gas: 6.5c/kWH

But they are estimates for the United States and it was done by MIT which has been accused of being in bed with the coal industry. I assume we're talking about the United Kingdom as that is where Hinkley Point is. A well known engineering firm in the UK came out with its own cost estimates:


hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com...

An older Mott Macdonald report actually showed that nuclear costs could reach coal without a carbon tax if economies of scale from building multiple units kicked in.

Since its beginning, nuclear power has cost this country over $492,000,000,000 -- nearly twice the cost of the Viet Nam War and the Apollo Moon Missions combined.

The nuclear power stations that will be built in the UK will not be built with subsidies. Instead a carbon tax is going to implemented. I'm betting the NEIS counted anything and everything as being a subsidy, probably also nuclear weapons research and developmental of naval reactors and things that can apply to any and all sources of power.


source: www.issues.org...

Also this neglects that coal has external costs that total between 250 billion and 500 billion dollars in the USA, each year. Renewables and nuclear get government support. Fossil fuels don't. Instead they just don't pay for any of the damage they cause.

Despite this poor economic performance, the federal government has continued to pour money into the nuclear industry the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included more than $13 billion in production subsidies, tax breaks and other incentives for nuclear power.

Table ES2. Quantified energy-specific subsidies and support by type, FY 2010 and FY 2007 (million 2010 dollars)

2010 Totals:

Nuclear 2,499 million
Renewables 14,674 million
Coal 1,358 million
Gas 2,820 million

www.eia.gov...

She added: ‘Over its lifetime, Hinkley will consume more energy than it produces - if you take into account the energy used to extract uranium and the power needed to store radioactive waste for hundreds of years. It doesn’t add up.’

Yes... according to some bogus debunked report.

A cold-blooded examination of the industry's numbers bears this out. Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf concludes that the total cost of juice from a new nuclear plant today is 4.31 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's far more than electricity from a conventional coal-fired plant (3.53 cents) or "clean coal" plant (3.55 cents). When he takes away everyone's tax subsidies, however, Metcalf finds that nuclear power is even less competitive (5.94 cents per kwh versus 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents, respectively).

That difference is less than the external cost disadvantage that coal and gas have which makes the true cost of coal and gas higher than nuclear.

Also the CATO institute? Are you kidding me?

According to Benjamin K. Sovacool, the marginal levelized cost for "a 1,000-MWe facility built in 2009 would be 41.2 to 80.3 cents/kWh, presuming one actually takes into account construction, operation and fuel, reprocessing, waste storage, and decommissioning"

You have one source that says 41.2 to 80.3 cents per kilowatt hour and one that says 5.94 cents per kilowatt hour. Both you seem to think are... uhm... credible. Make up your mind.

On the french side well tax tax tax subsidies subsidies subsidies,

LCOE is not that much higher than coal or gas and then they avoid all of the external costs that come with both.

Its lifetime load factor was less than 7%. Plagued by technical problems and a long list of incidents, the cost of the adventure was estimated by the French Court of Auditors at FRF60 billion (close to €9.15 billion) in 1996. However, the estimate included only FRF5 billion (€0.760 billion) for decommissioning. That figure alone had increased to over €2 billion by 2003. At a lifetime power generation of some 8.3 TWh, Superphénix has produced
the kWh at about €1.35 (to be compared with the French feed-in tariff of €0.55 per building integrated
solar kWh).

Superphenix was a highly experimental liquid metal fast reactor. It faced political problems right from the start including having mortars fired at it from another country. It had technical difficulties. Towards the end of its life when they started fixing the technical difficulties politics shut it down. The average capacity factor for nuclear reactor in France is about 80%, low because they load follow, in the USA it is about 92%. Russia has a capacity factor of about 80%. Both Russia, France, and the USA have operated liquid fast fast reactors reliably.

Wind has an average capacity of 35%.

Solar is closer to 20%.

Gas and Coal vary.

reply to post by C0bzz


a nucke industry spokesman