Booker: It Is Wind Power That Will Send Our Bills Sky-High

[Damik]

So basically it has no insurance and EDF's electricity prices are being subsidized by taxpayers who will pick up the cost of any accident that occurs. Zero difference to the subsidy that banks have with their taxpayer guarantee.

Therefore EDF is getting a massive yearly state subsidy.

This is what you are saying yes? And why are you not against this subsidy? I thought you hated subsidies.

EDF is owned by the state. EDF's electricity prices are not being subsidized by taxpayers, because taxpayers own the EDF

you can not subsidise your self

[Damik]

It does not say that this is its disposal solution. Its reference solution is long term storage of long-lived wastes. Long-livid wastes in nuclear terminology explicitly means the actinides that have half-lives of tens of thousands of years. That means storage for tens of thousands of years.

This formally declares deep geological disposal as the reference solution for high-level and long-lived radioactive wastes"

So once again I ask where has EDF costed for this long term storage, it's own statements show only 100 years.

yes, and this is the whole point of the transmutation to turn the long-lived one to the medium-lived one. so you do not need to safely store it for the 10000s of years

common; the wiki page is written quite simply ..

[snowflux]

yes, same as nuclear power stations in 1950. it is called a progress ...

Ah yes, when proponents of nuclear power confidently predicted that it would enable the generation of electricity "too cheap to meter". Never mind, I sure the cost of commercial transmutation of radioactive waste, although as yet completely untested, will lie within estimated bounds.

BTW, despite the waste disposal and other problems, I am not an opponent of nuclear power and believe it has an increased role to play in the future, alongside gas and renewables. It's just your fanatical cheerleading of nuclear power and casual dismissal of all alternatives that seems silly.

Edited November 21, 2012 by snowflux

[alexw]

EDF is owned by the state. EDF's electricity prices are not being subsidized by taxpayers, because taxpayers own the EDF

you can not subsidise your self

Right so then you'd be happy with the UK government buying up wind farms and selling the electricity at 1/10 the price of other sources? Because as you say those wind farms would be owned by the state thus tax payers, and you cannot subsidize yourself....

Honestly you seem to be arguing for china-style communism now. The government owning the means of production and selling it below the actual cost to produce when all costs are factored in.

Edited November 21, 2012 by alexw

[Damik]

I happen to run a couple of modern industrial gas fired CCGTs (run as near as 24x365 as possible with all the toys inc HRSG and STs) and the annual gas bill is bigger than the as new construction cost! (The annual gas bill is 8 digits + decimal places)

There are already lots of lightly utilised or mothballed GTs around the country we had a good local choice when we bought ours 2nd hand.

so, how do you explain this?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/energy-turnaround-in-germany-plagued-by-worrying-lack-of-progress-a-860481-3.html

In the past, power plant operators were able to charge higher electricity prices around midday. But now there is more competition from solar plants at this time of day. On days when there is a lot of wind, the sun is shining and consumption is low, market prices on the power exchange can sometimes drop to zero. There is even such a thing as negative costs, when, for example, Austrian pumped-storage hydroelectric plants are paid to take the excess electricity from Germany. The prospects are so poor that energy providers have little interest in building new power plants. Under current conditions, even the most modern and efficient combined steam and gas power plants are not recovering billions in investment costs.

"It's hard to justify building new conventional power plants in this difficult transitional phase," says RWE CEO Peter Terium. If companies had their way, they would also demolish old plants like Franken 1.

The Economics Ministry is drafting a new regulation under which power plant operators could be forced to keep their old plants connected to the grid. But the companies won't stand for that. Although they are willing to make short-term compromises, they are not about to keep any power plants connected to the grid in the long term if "they don't recover their capital costs," Terium says.

What this amounts to is that companies will be compensated in the future for keeping their backup power plants up and running. As the government considers writing a bill to this effect, electricity consumers will once again be the ones to foot the bill.

[Damik]

Right so then you'd be happy with the UK government buying up wind farms and selling the electricity at 1/10 the price of other sources? Because as you say those wind farms would be owned by the state thus tax payers, and you cannot subsidize yourself....

excluding the possibility of a tsunami or meteor strike the nuclear electricity is cheaper than the wind one. and I am excluding costs of the wind back-ups

your example does not make any sense

[Damik]

Ah yes, when proponents of nuclear power confidently predicted that it would enable the generation of electricity "too cheap to meter". Never mind, I sure the cost of commercial transmutation of radioactive waste, although as yet completely untested, will lie within estimated bounds.

BTW, despite the waste disposal and other problems, I am not an opponent of nuclear power and believe it has an increased role to play in the future, alongside gas and renewables. It's just your fanatical cheerleading of nuclear power and casual dismissal of all alternatives that seems silly.

what seems silly is suggesting that French should build more wind mills and gas power back-ups so they can increase their electricity costs

[alexw]

excluding the possibility of a tsunami or meteor strike the nuclear electricity is cheaper than the wind one. and I am excluding costs of the wind back-ups

your example does not make any sense

It makes perfect sense.

Publicly owned EDF does not have insurance cover for nor will pay the potential costs of a catastrophic nuclear accident. This cost is borne by the state making its electricity prices cheaper than they would otherwise be.

Publicly owned wind farms would receive subsidies. This cost would be borne by the state, making their electricity prices cheaper than they would be.

Where exactly is the difference?

Edited November 21, 2012 by alexw

[Damik]

Ah yes, when proponents of nuclear power confidently predicted that it would enable the generation of electricity "too cheap to meter". Never mind, I sure the cost of commercial transmutation of radioactive waste, although as yet completely untested, will lie within estimated bounds.

BTW, despite the waste disposal and other problems, I am not an opponent of nuclear power and believe it has an increased role to play in the future, alongside gas and renewables. It's just your fanatical cheerleading of nuclear power and casual dismissal of all alternatives that seems silly.

the main point of the nuclear or fusion electricity is the energy density. this is the reason, why it is cheaper and less demanding on the environment. plus it kills the smallest amount of people per generated TWh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

[snowflux]

what seems silly is suggesting that French should build more wind mills and gas power back-ups so they can increase their electricity costs

Are you aware that France now has more wind generation capacity than the UK, having overtaken us back in 2007? Presumably not.

[Damik]

It makes perfect sense.

Publicly owned EDF does not have insurance cover for nor will pay the potential costs of a catastrophic nuclear accident, making its electricity prices cheaper than they would otherwise be.

Publicly owned wind farms would receive subsidies, making its electricity prices cheaper than they would be.

Where exactly is the difference?

the difference is that the tax payer has to pay double or tripple for the wind electricity. as it does not make a difference if the wind mill is private or public

[alexw]

the difference is that the tax payer has to pay double or tripple for the wind electricity. as it does not make a difference if the wind mill is private or public

??

Don't understand what your trying to say there.

[snowflux]

the main point of the nuclear or fusion electricity is the energy density. this is the reason, why it is cheaper and less demanding on the environment. plus it kills the smallest amount of people per generated TWh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

Now that has got to be the daftest thing you've written on this thread! It's such a stupid comment that I just don't know where to begin discussing it. Why on earth would a high energy density fuel be cheaper and less demanding on the environment than a low energy density fuel?

Edit: Also, your post appears to have no relation whatsoever to my post that is was apparently replying to, in which I was pointing out why estimates of the cost of radioactive waste transmutation were unlikely to be accurate.

Edited November 21, 2012 by snowflux

[Damik]

Are you aware that France now has more wind generation capacity than the UK, having overtaken us back in 2007? Presumably not.

anything to do with the EU policy for renewable energy, which does not care about costs ???

[snowflux]

anything to do with the EU policy for renewable energy, which does not care about costs ???

Maybe, but I thought it was common wisdom on this board that the French simply ignore EU directives they don't like. This one appears to have been taken up with enthusiasm.

[Damik]

Now that has got to be the daftest thing you've written on this thread! It's such a stupid comment that I just don't know where to begin discussing it. Why on earth would a high energy density fuel be cheaper and less demanding on the environment than a low energy density fuel?

Edit: Also, your post appears to have no relation whatsoever to my post that is was apparently replying to, in which I was pointing out why estimates of the cost of radioactive waste transmutation were unlikely to be accurate.

because you have to manipulate with 1000s time more of the material; it costs more, effects more the environment and kills more people per generated TWh

[Damik]

Maybe, but I thought it was common wisdom on this board that the French simply ignore EU directives they don't like. This one appears to have been taken up with enthusiasm.

as far as I know every EU country has to comply with the renewable targets and French tried to lobby, but failed

http://www.skeptically.org/env/id24.html

BRUSSELS (AFP) - The European Commission will on Wednesday unveil detailed plans to slash greenhouse gases by 2020, with the focus on renewable fuels and emissions trading, despite French attempts to push the nuclear option. France has recently been joined by Britain at the forefront of the pro-nuclear lobby, extolling it as a more reliable, less polluting fuel supply which cuts down on Europe's huge dependence on Russia and the Middle East for increasingly scarce and expensive fossil fuels.

[Damik]

??

Don't understand what your trying to say there.

if the state owns all windfarms the wind electricity is still more expensive than the nuclear one

[alexw]

because you have to manipulate with 1000s time more of the material; it costs more, effects more the environment and kills more people per generated TWh

Lol ummmm. Your digging yourself a big hole here.

You mean like most uranium mines where you have to process huge quantities of rock to obtain 1 kg of uranium?

[snowflux]

because you have to manipulate with 1000s time more of the material; it costs more, effects more the environment and kills more people per generated TWh

I think you'll find it's not quite as straightforward as that. Coal and oil, for example, are pretty high density power stores, but their use is very harmful to health and the environment compared to, say, wind power. Also, fusion power stations do not exist and are not likely to for many years yet.

[snowflux]

as far as I know every EU country has to comply with the renewable targets and French tried to lobby, but failed

http://www.skeptically.org/env/id24.html

BRUSSELS (AFP) - The European Commission will on Wednesday unveil detailed plans to slash greenhouse gases by 2020, with the focus on renewable fuels and emissions trading, despite French attempts to push the nuclear option. France has recently been joined by Britain at the forefront of the pro-nuclear lobby, extolling it as a more reliable, less polluting fuel supply which cuts down on Europe's huge dependence on Russia and the Middle East for increasingly scarce and expensive fossil fuels.

That article was published in 2008, when French wind capacity had already exceeded that of the UK. The French were already enthusiastically expanding their wind capacity before then.

[alexw]

if the state owns all windfarms the wind electricity is still more expensive than the nuclear one

You mean the implicit subsidy for wind farms would be larger than for nuclear.

What do you base this on?

I'm looking for stuff on this, and everything i find seems to suggest the implicit subsidies are absolutely huge for nuclear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate#Indirect_nuclear_insurance_subsidy

http://www.planetworkshops.org/en/post/777/the-biggest-nuclear-subsidy:-pathetically-inadequate-insurance-for-a-colossal-liability-by-robert-bell-ph.d..html

http://timeforchange.org/cost-advantage-of-nuclear-energy-pros-cons

As examples -

"If for example nuclear power plants were to be insured for 300 billions Euro (400 billions USD), the cost of nuclear electricity would be increased by 0.031 to 0.063 Euro (by 4 to 8 US-cents) per kWh. This would increase the current production cost by more than 100% and therefore make nuclear power economically much less attractive compared to electricity from renewable sources. The committee for energy from the National Council of Switzerland concluded „...increasing the legal liability to 300 billions Euro (400 billions USD) ... would basically make it impossible to implement new nuclear power plants."

"Interestingly, in 2003 the European Commission released a report it had commissioned which gave a rough order of magnitude for how much private insurance for a major nuclear catastrophe would increase the cost of French nuclear power per kilo Watt hour (kWh). The report titled Environmentally harmful support measures in EU member states, discussed a scenario in which “the operator is privately insured for the full risk of severe accident, but in this scenario the higher end of damage costs is used for premium calculation.”

So, what would happen if the operator had to pay the full freight of buying private insurance for the worst possible catastrophe? According to the report, “This insurance scenario would thus lead to a tripling of total generating costs.” (For the full discussion, please see: http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/resources/EC_env_subsidies.pdf, pp. 131-140. The quote is on page 136.) Clearly, if nuclear operators had to pay the sort of liability insurance nearly every other business had to pay, renewable energy would look pretty good by comparison."

Edited November 21, 2012 by alexw

[fluffy666]

Ah yes, when proponents of nuclear power confidently predicted that it would enable the generation of electricity "too cheap to meter". Never mind, I sure the cost of commercial transmutation of radioactive waste, although as yet completely untested, will lie within estimated bounds.

BTW, despite the waste disposal and other problems, I am not an opponent of nuclear power and believe it has an increased role to play in the future, alongside gas and renewables. It's just your fanatical cheerleading of nuclear power and casual dismissal of all alternatives that seems silly.

In an ideal nuclear fuel cycle, you do a complete burnup of the Actinides (Thorium, Uranium, Plutonium and so on). These are typically the long-lived nasties with inconvenient half-lives (i.e. between 1000 and 100,000 years). So then your waste has a mixture of relatively short half-lives (mostly <100 years), which have uses in their own right - typically as the ultimate UPS - or half lives so long that they are not actually dangerous.

Plus, of course, you want to use reactor designs that are inherently safe. Which pretty much rules out PWRs and BWRs.. unfortunately, although those designs can be made extremely safe through engineering, that's not the same as things like the Advanced gas cooled reactor (UK design, totally meltdown-proof), or things like the molten salt designs.

It really is a case of needing to make the investment, though. And it's not helped by knee-jerk anti-nuclear sentiment.. (not that I'm accusing you of this).

The insurance aspect is interesting. Even outside the nuclear industry, the insurance industry is getting to the stage of dictating what people can and can't do (drive, for instance). Of course, it's massively biased towards preventing insurable things happening.. and if people die due to lack of energy, the insurance industry doesn't care. There's no claim there.

Personally.. I think there is huge scope for both Nuclear and Wind generation, with things like demand management (call it Economy 7 on steroids..).

[robmatic]

yes, that is the whole point to shorter the half time so they will not be radioactive for very long; it is written on the same page. perhaps just read it:

Artificial nuclear transmutation has been considered as a possible mechanism for reducing the volume and hazard of radioactive waste.

MSc in Computer Science

I hate to break this to you but Computer Science... isn't really a scientific background.

[LJAR]

If you want cheap, plentiful, relatively low carbon energy then go for shale gas.

problem mostly solved for the next 50-100 years until we can get cheap enough solar power - which will happen.