UK « nuclear-news

What do do with Britain’s radioactive trash from nuclear submarines?

Radioactive waste from submarines is divided into three categories: high-level waste (HLW) from the reactor pressure vessel, intermediate level waste (ILW) that includes spent fuel, and low level waste (LLW) including contaminated equipment.

“As long as we cling on to the idea that we need a seaborne nuclear deterrent, we’re going to have the problem of what to do with the dangerous waste it creates.”

Naval bases could become nuclear dumps http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/naval-bases-could-become-nuclear-dumps-8906452.html Fears grow in dockyard cities over removal of radioactive material from decommissioned subs SAM MASTERS SUNDAY 27 OCTOBER 2013 Fears that two major naval bases sited near large British cities could become nuclear waste storage facilities “by default” have grown after it was revealed the Ministry of Defence proposes to remove low-level radioactive waste from the UK’s nuclear submarine fleet.

According to minutes of a submarine dismantling meeting, the “early removal of low-level waste” has been proposed at two major dockyards: Rosyth, in the Forth estuary, Fife, and Devonport, in Plymouth. Experts warned that removing radioactive waste would need to be explained “carefully” to ensure dismantling sites on bases near major population centres did not become waste storage areas “by default”. Continue reading →

October 29, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | UK, wastes | 1 Comment

Britain’s aging nuclear test veterans should be recognised

John Baron: Britain’s ageing nuclear test veterans need to be recognised at last The Independent 28 oct 13 With the debate over Trident renewal ongoing, we risk forgetting the invaluable and unique contribution made by our nuclear test veterans in the establishment of our deterrent. They have yet to be officially recognised in any formal manner, and Britain ranks towards the bottom of the international table of decency when it comes to how other countries treat their test veterans. The time has come to put that right, both for the surviving veterans and the descendents of those no longer with us. The second phase of a campaign sees this important debate in Parliament on Tuesday……

A crash programme followed which continued late into the 1960s, when the advent of more powerful hydrogen bombs once again necessitated an accelerated programme to keep parity with the US and USSR. Scientists played their part in this effort – but so did the over 20,000 British and Commonwealth servicemen who took part in the tests in the South Pacific and Australia from 1952 until 1967.

As these tests were carried out at the dawn of the nuclear age, the science was not properly understood – if at all. Precautions were primitive and inadequate, and often failed to properly protect individuals from the effects of blast, heat and ionising radiation. Many of the test veterans believe their health was adversely affected as a result of these tests, a view substantiated by scientific research undertaken by Professor Rowland, whose work was peer-reviewed and subsequently accepted by the-then New Zealand Government.

Armed with this research, the British Nuclear Test Veterans’ Association (BNTVA), of which I am patron, succeeded after a long campaign to persuade the MoD to undertake a Health Needs Analysis of all surviving veterans. This was completed in 2011, and many helpful practical measures are now being introduced as a result, particularly in relation to a veterans’ pathway through the NHS. The focus on health was our first priority, given the age and health profile of the veterans.

The veterans’ next priority is to secure recognition of their unique and vital service to the nation, which has never been forthcoming from the Government. For these aging men, official recognition, in either a written or oral statement from the Prime Minister, would mean so much. To this end, we launched a fresh ‘campaign for recognition’ in Parliament earlier this year, and have secured the support of over 80 MPs of all colours and hues……. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/john-baron-britains-ageing-nuclear-test-veterans-need-to-be-recognised-at-last-8907539.html

October 29, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Damian Carrington on UK’s new nuclear delusional dream

The nuclear industry has captured the government as comprehensively as the big six energy companies have captured the domestic energy market. Don’t forget that just 48 hours after the Fukushima catastrophe, government officials were working with the industry to play down the terrible events – before they had even unfolded.

Nuclear power’s broken promises means EDF deal is a delusional dream http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/oct/21/nuclear-power-energy-edf-deal The cost of nuclear energy has tripled in just five years, while the cost of renewable energy is falling fast, making the UK government’s deal a truly terrible one Energy efficiency is cheapest and the cost of renewable energy is falling. In contrast, gas prices have risen by 50% in five years and the cost of nuclear energy has trebled since 2008. Yet the UK government today staked a large part of the nation’s energy future on the latter, by agreeing a deal with EDF which might lead to them building a new nuclear power station. Ministers have not backed the favourite, or even a speedy but erratic outsider: they have backed a horse running in reverse.

The 60-year history of the nuclear industry is one unblemished by promises kept. From “too cheap to meter” to safe as houses, every pledge has been broken. When the UK government once again fell for the renewed vows of the nuclear industry in 2008, they were promised reactors would cost £2.8bn to build. Today’s deal shows the cost is now £8bn. They were promised electricity for £31-42 per megawatt-hour: today’s price is £92.50/MWh.

The trashed guarantees stack up as steadily as the toxic waste pile that already costs billions a year to store. In 2007, David Cameron said: “The problems of nuclear waste have to be dealt with to make any new investment possible.” In January 2013, Cumbria, the only place in the running for a permanent disposal site rejected the idea.

The government pledge that the private sector would build the new reactors has collapsed too: EDF is owned by the French state and can only move ahead itself with about 40% of the money stumped up by China.

The final crushed commitment comes from the 2010 coalition agreement: New nuclear power stations “will receive no public subsidy”. If forcing energy consumers to pay roughly £38bn above the current cost of electricity is not a subsidy, what is? If a government package of insurance against accidents and loan guarantees is not a subsidy, what is?

This farrago of fictions matters. EDF and the government say the deal protects the public against the near-certainty of broken promises on costs. But read the small print: “The strike price could be adjusted, upwards or downwards, in relation to operational and certain other costs.” Perhaps the government could bail out of the deal if the costs soared? No: “Hinkley Point C would be protected from being curtailed without appropriate compensation.” If new risks came to light increasing the cost of insurance, could we get out then? No: “Protection would be provided for any increases in nuclear insurance costs as a result of withdrawal of government cover.” No wonder opponents are terrified by the lack of any independent scrutiny to date of the deal struck by the government. Continue reading →

October 26, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Britain embarks on a lose – lose nuclear power program

Costs for renewables, on the other hand, are expected to drop further – the world-wide boom in investing in these technologies has just begun. And, in contrast to uranium, the “fuel” for wind and solar power is locally sourced and abundant in Britain, driving towards a more energy secure and independent country – the real win-win situation for everybody.

New nuclear is a lose-lose situation for Britain http://theconversation.com/new-nuclear-is-a-lose-lose-situation-for-britain-19530 Matthias Reeg 24 Oct 13, The first new nuclear power station in Britain in nearly 20 years is to be built, an announcement that comes only two and a half years after the disaster at Fukushima focused the world’s attention the drawbacks of nuclear power. At a first glance it looks like the nuclear industry is back in business in Europe.

The deal between French energy giant EDF, which operates Britain’s existing nuclear power plants, and the planned Hinkley Point C plant in Somerset, and the British government was pitched as a win-win situation for everybody. The consumers are assured of their electricity supply, the government invests in jobs and bolsters a “cutting-edge” low carbon technology that will help Britain hit it’s CO₂ emissions targets, and EDF secures a profit margin of 10%.

The deal guarantees EDF a price of £92.50 (about €110) per megawatt hour (MWh) for 35 years from the time the plant starts generating, inflation linked to the consumer price index. The UK government, in its overflowing generosity, has also agreed tounderwrite 65% of the £16 billion cost of building the plant.

But looking at the numbers more closely reveals a different picture. A picture, in fact, that is entirely the opposite. The deal is a confession in public, a statement of failure of a technology that was never and probably will never be built and operated at competitive cost. Continue reading →

October 26, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Uncertainty on costs of UK’s new nuclear power project

UK nuclear power plant contract: £80bn deal or no deal? Fiona Harvey and Patrick Wintour The Guardian, Monday 21 October 2013 Political parties and industry groups welcome low-carbon project as academics and campaigners question cost and waste. The British energy secretary, Ed Davey, has signed the first new nuclear contract with French state-backed utility firm EDF, admitting only a clairvoyant could know the true cost to the taxpayer of the 35-year contract because of the uncertainty of future energy prices.

Energy academics said on Monday that the deal was a gamble, but estimated the cost would be at least £80bn over the life of the two new reactors to be built in Somerset, or roughly £3.5m a day for each reactor at current rates. The cost will depend on how energy prices move over the next 30 years.

Ministers made it clear that future governments would be locked into the contract, set to run until 2058, or face large penalties to compensate EDF. The Treasury has also been forced to offer loan guarantees to underwrite the finance for the investment, which is being undertaken by a consortium of French and Chinese investors.

The contract – which was signed as npower became the third major energy supplier to announce inflation-busting price rises – attracted strong criticism from some environmental groups, who said the price was excessive and the issue of waste unresolved….

The coaliton agreement signed in 2010 opposed providing nuclear industry with any public subsidy, a position reaffirmed by the Liberal Democrats at their conference this autumn. The conference also ended the party’s opposition in principle to nuclear power……

David Boyle, a Lib Dem adviser to Nick Clegg, said: “Everyone knows that nuclear energy would be impossible without some kind of guarantee, and I seriously doubt whether EDF will ever make money even on that one. But that was not what we promised ourselves, let alone anyone else. The party’s embarrassing new policy repeats the same glib non-position – no nuclear subsidies – when that is precisely what is now being agreed.”…..

Antony Froggatt, from the Chatham House thinktank, said EDF’s costs projection had already increased markedly. “In 2006, its submission to the government’s energy review stated [the type of reactor to be used, a European pressurised water reactor] would cost £28.80 per megawatt-hour in 2013 values,” he said. “This more than threefold increase [to £92.50], over eight years, puts the cost of nuclear electricity at about double the current market rate – higher than that produced by both gas and coal-fired power stations, and more costly than many renewable energy options.”

Projects to build new reactors in France, Finland and elsewhere have run into delays and cost increases………. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/uk-nuclear-power-plant-contract-deal-no-deal

October 26, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

UK government heavily subsidises new nuclear power project

China’s need for nuclear power leads Britain to revive outdated technology , Terry Macalister, The Guardian, Sunday 20 October 2013
Critics say the new plant in Somerset will be heavily subsidised and cushioned from financial reality

The signing of a nuclear deal between EDF and the government is a landmark event for power generation. Today’s go-ahead for the Hinkley Point C plant shows ministers are prepared to commit Britain to provide decades of guaranteed financial returns (paid for by you and me as energy users) to companies in return for winning huge slugs of investment for new power stations…..

Ministers insist that the commitment to provide Hinkley Point with a guaranteed price of around double the market rate is not a subsidy. The final figure of £92.50 is a considerable step up from the £80 per MWhr said to be on the table when negotiations began in earnest, and that figure is said by some calculations to be worth around £80bn in guaranteed revenues, the cost of nine Olympics.
Critics will accuse the government of providing subsidies to an old technology that should not need handouts, while pointing out the safety dangers and the unsolved waste disposal problems raised by new nuclear. Questions will also be asked about the wisdom of providing a country alleged to be involved in cyber-spying, access to sensitive energy infrastructure via the involvement of a state-owned firm……..
Supporters of nuclear in Britain were keen to ensure that an existing industry – that arguably first started here and had operated largely trouble free since the 1950s – could gain a new lease of life. The expectations of Blair and others in the early days have been fulfilled then, even after the Fukushima accident in Japan – but only in principle. In practice, new nuclear was meant to be built by the private sector, without subsidy and only after a solution was found about where to store high-level nuclear waste.
A decision on which community would be willing to host a deep-level waste repository is as far away as ever after plans for the north west were scotched by Cumbria County Council. The new plant in Somerset will be owned, built and operated by EDF – 85% owned by the French state – with the help of China General Nuclear Power Group, which is 100% owned by the Beijing government. It will be capable of generating 3,200 MW, around one seventh of UK needs, compared to say the London Array off the coast of Kent, the world’s biggest wind farm, which has a maximum capacity of 1,000 MW.
The subsidy levels for onshore wind (£100 per MWhr) is close to that for the new Hinkley Point plant and much higher for offshore wind (£150). But these figures are set to fall. Craig Bennett, director of policy at Friends of the Earth, said it was astonishing that the government was planning such a long-term subsidy for foreign nuclear operators. “This is just another big bailout. Its an unbelievable wasted opportunity to spend this money in this way when the UK itself is an acknowledged leader in energy efficiency. Why give subsidies to an industry where we are not the leader any more?” he said.
Other supporters of renewable energy point out that public support is needed because these are new technologies which are coming down in price all the time. Nuclear cannot claim either, they say, and there are still questions on whether the European Commission will accept these payments.

The government has also already committed itself to providing financial guarantees of £10bn to cover the building of Hinkley Point, something not available to builders of solar or wind arrays.

Even Nick Butler, a former energy adviser to No 10 and a supporter of nuclear, believes the price is far too high. In a recent blog he warned: “Lower sources of power are available and have been rejected. When deals do not match the interests of both sides – producers and consumers – at a point of mutual advantage, they tend to unravel.”…..http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/china-nuclear-power-britain-outdated-technology

October 26, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley nuclear power plant irrelevant to UK’s energy problems

UK nuclear power plant contract: £80bn deal or no deal? Fiona Harvey and Patrick Wintour The Guardian, Monday 21 October 2013 “……..John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: “Hinkley C fails every test – economic, consumer and environmental. It will lock a generation of consumers into higher energy bills via a strike price that’s nearly double the current price of electricity, and it will distort energy policy by displacing newer, cleaner technologies that are dropping dramatically in price.”

Nina Skorupska, chief executive of the Renewable Energy Association, said the nuclear deal would not solve the short-term problem of keeping the lights on as current nuclear and many coal-fired power stations were expected to shut down in the next few years, long before Hinkley C started operating.

“[It] is a major development for the UK energy mix, but does nothing to address the looming capacity crunch. Hinkley will still be a construction site when old coal and nuclear capacity is shut down,” she said…..http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/uk-nuclear-power-plant-contract-deal-no-deal

October 26, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

European Union studying UK nuclear deal

EU to examine govt aid for UK nuclear deal France 24 22 Oct 13 AFP – The European Commission said Tuesday it would examine British government support for a massive 19-billion-euro nuclear plant to be built by French and Chinese firms…….

Colombani said the Commission would shortly update its guidelines covering state aid for the energy market in general.

These “will not include specific guidelines as concerns nuclear power,” he said, and will instead feature “case-by-case assessments.”

The deal has angered anti-nuclear activists.

“Instead of subsidising nuclear energy production, the government should be investing more in safe, clean and affordable renewable energy,” said Kate Hudson, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

The EU is divided over the future of nuclear energy, with some member states even arguing that it should be considered as a renewable. http://www.france24.com/en/20131022-eu-examine-govt-aid-uk-nuclear-deal

October 25, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | EUROPE, politics, UK | Leave a comment

China General Nuclear Power Group – does it have the know how to safely run Britain’s nukes?

China’s need for nuclear power leads Britain to revive outdated technology Terry Macalister The Guardian, Sunday 20 October 2013 “…………But while EDF has now convinced government of the need to provide these different support mechanisms, the hard work begins for the French and its Chinese partner. The nuclear industry has a terrible reputation for completing new plants years late and over budget. Areva, the French nuclear engineering company providing the EPR design for Hinkley, is involved in similar plants at Flamanville in France and Olkiluoto in Finland. Both are proving more difficult than expected: the Finnish reactors are expected to be at least seven years late and at least £1.4bn over budget; Flamanville is two years late and believed to be as much as £2bn over budget.

And there is good reason to believe that British companies are going to miss out in Somerset. Centrica has already given up its opportunity to participate as an owner, while EDF has indicated the UK may not have the high-tech engineering skills to compete for supply contracts……

Western nuclear experts claim Beijing has a lot to prove that its own regulation is up to standard, and there will be intense pressure on the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation not to dilute standards to help Chinese firms operate their own plants here. There is already an inquiry going on into whether too many concessions have been made by George Osborne into a separate deal under which Chinese banks can operate more freely in London.

China General Nuclear Power Group is one of the biggest companies you have never heard of. In fact, it took a new name only six months ago. The change reflected its ambitions to establish itself on a world stage, outside its home base of Guangdong province. Involvement in Hinkley Point is a key part of the globalisation strategy…….http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/china-nuclear-power-britain-outdated-technology

October 25, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Even George Monbiot condemns UK government’s new nuclear power plan

The farce of the Hinkley C nuclear reactor will haunt Britain for decades The Guardian, George Monbiot, Monday 21 October 2013 “………… the government has plumped for outdated technology at the worst price imaginable “…..Nils Pratley warned in the Guardian last week that “if Hinkley Point’s entire output is tied to the rate of inflation for 40 years, we could be staring at a truly astronomical cost by the end of the contract.” The City analyst he consulted reassured him that “the government surely can’t be that dumb”. Oh yes? Payment to the operators, the government now tells us, will be “fully indexed to the consumer prices index”. Guaranteed income for corporations, risk assumed by the taxpayer: this deal looks as bad as any private finance initiative contract.

That’s not the only respect in which the price is too high. A fundamental principle of all development is that we should know how the story ends. In this case no one has the faintest idea. Cumbria – the only local authority which seemed prepared to accept a dump for the nuclear waste from past and future schemes – rejected the proposal in January. No one should commission a mess without a plan for clearing it up….

October 25, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

New untested nuclear reactors – a gamble for UK

U.K. Nuclear Future Relies on Reactor Plagued by Delays: Energy Bloomberg, By Tara Patel & Sally Bakewell – Oct 22, 2013 To ensure the future of its nuclear power industry, the U.K. is relying on an unproven reactor design plagued by delays and billions in budget overruns.

The government’s deal yesterday with Electricite de France SA to build a $26 billion plant at Hinkley Point in England involves two European Pressurized Reactors. The first EPR project in Finland, led by Areva SA (AREVA), the French company that designed the technology, is seven years behind schedule and won’t be completed until 2016. The second, an EDF project at Flamanville in northwest France, will cost more than twice as much as expected…..

History suggests the plan for the U.K., which needs to replace aging reactors built in the 1970s, isn’t ironclad, said Roland Vetter, head of research at CF Partners (UK) LLP, which runs a fund that invests in utilities.

“Nuclear is the biggest gamble in power generation,” said Ingo Becker, an analyst at Kepler Cheuvreux in Frankfurt. “At 16 billion pounds ($26 billion) for two EPRs, they have probably taken into account possible cost overruns.”….

The U.K. project, expected to take 10 years, will be more expensive because soft local soil means it needs deeper foundations, requiring 30 percent more concrete, EDF said in a presentation yesterday. The Paris-based company also has to build an atomic waste facility and 3.8-kilometer (2.2-mile) pipes to carry seawater to cool the reactors….

The EPR was criticized in France for being too big and costly after an Areva-led group lost a $20 billion atomic contract from Abu Dhabi in 2009.

“The credibility of both the EPR and the ability of the French nuclear industry to successfully build new reactors has been seriously undermined by difficulties” at Finland’s Olkiluoto site and Flamanville, according to a report ordered by former President Nicolas Sarkozy and published in 2010. It found the plant’s complexity was “a handicap.”….http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-21/u-k-nuclear-future-relies-on-reactor-plagued-by-delays-energy.html

October 25, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK’s new nuclear power – a bad financial gamble

‘New generation’: The UK bets on a nuclear future, DW, Emma Wallis, 21 Oct

“….…Hidden costs Pete Roche works at “Spinwatch”, an organization that aims to highlight the true meaning behind government PR, or “spin.” Roche’s area of expertise is “Nuclear Spin.”

The UK government, he believes, “thinks they need [nuclear power] because there are an awful lot of coal fired stations due to close over the next few years, and the gas from the North Sea is also reducing.”

He also feels that consumers are not being told the true cost of nuclear energy. “At the beginning of all this we were told that nuclear is the cheapest for providing low-carbon electricity,” something he says is not necessarily true.

Price comparisons

By comparison, offshore wind costs 130 British pounds per megawatt, a figure that might drop to 100 by 2030. Although on the government press release for Hinkley Point, they estimate that Hinkley Point on 430 acres will be able to generate 26 terrawatt hours of electricity, compared to 130,000 acres of solar farms needed and 250,000 acres of onshore wind farms.

Roche told DW that Germany is “showing us the way,” clearly wishing that the UK had also decided after Fukushima to phase out its nuclear power, not increase them.

“The first difference that I like to highlight between Germany and the UK is that Germany expects to reduce energy consumption by about 20 percent, I think. And the UK is expecting our energy consumption to increase. If we went for the kinds of reduction in consumption that Germany is going for, it would be much easier to implement a renewable energy strategy.”…..http://www.dw.de/new-generation-the-uk-bets-on-a-nuclear-future/a-17171536

October 25, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Financial reality makes UK’s new nuclear not look too good

The government has also already committed itself to providing financial guarantees of £10bn to cover the building of Hinkley Point, something not available to builders of solar or wind arrays.

Even Nick Butler, a former energy adviser to No 10 and a supporter of nuclear, believes the price is far too high. In a recent blog he warned: “Lower sources of power are available and have been rejected. When deals do not match the interests of both sides – producers and consumers – at a point of mutual advantage, they tend to unravel.”

China’s need for nuclear power leads Britain to revive outdated technology , Terry Macalister, The Guardian, Sunday 20 October 2013 Critics say the new plant in Somerset will be heavily subsidised and cushioned from financial reality.

The signing of a nuclear deal between EDF and the government is a landmark event for power generation. Today’s go-ahead for the Hinkley Point C plant shows ministers are prepared to commit Britain to provide decades of guaranteed financial returns (paid for by you and me as energy users) to companies in return for winning huge slugs of investment for new power stations…..
Ministers insist that the commitment to provide Hinkley Point with a guaranteed price of around double the market rate is not a subsidy. The final figure of £92.50 is a considerable step up from the £80 per MWhr said to be on the table when negotiations began in earnest, and that figure is said by some calculations to be worth around £80bn in guaranteed revenues, the cost of nine Olympics.
Critics will accuse the government of providing subsidies to an old technology that should not need handouts, while pointing out the safety dangers and the unsolved waste disposal problems raised by new nuclear. Questions will also be asked about the wisdom of providing a country alleged to be involved in cyber-spying, access to sensitive energy infrastructure via the involvement of a state-owned firm…….. Continue reading →

October 22, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Britain has smarter, less costly energy options, than its new nuclear deal

COLUMN-British nuclear embrace fails to convince: Wynn By Gerard Wynn Oct 21 (Reuters) – Britain’s investment in new nuclear power is a result of a previous decision to limit the country’s options, and depends on an argument for energy security that fails to convince.

Britain has ruled out new coal power and adopted tough carbon emissions targets as well as a carbon tax on energy, given concerns about climate change.

In addition, European Union pollution curbs on sulphur and oxides of nitrogen require the imminent closure of several of the country’s existing coal-fired power plants.

That has created a dependence on gas and low-carbon power.

Britain’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) on Monday outlined the details of a commercial agreement with French state utility EDF to build the UK’s first new nuclear power plant since 1995, to be commissioned in 2023.

The agreed contract of about 90 pounds ($150) per megawatt-hour should not be compared with the wholesale power price, which records only operating costs including those from subsidised wind and solar power, which have zero fuel costs.

It should instead be compared with the calculated, full cost of power generation, including capital and operating costs.

In those terms, the contract appears competitive with renewable power but is more costly than gas.

Nuclear has the advantage over gas that it is less carbon-emitting, and over wind and solar power that it is baseload, available on demand rather than according to the weather.

But that is before taking into account the cost of radioactive waste, for which Britain still has not identified a long-term disposal site after a tentative agreement with a local council in northwest England recently collapsed.

And the government does not appear to account for the alternative of building sub-sea interconnectors, with which Britain could instead tap lower wholesale power prices in Germany and Scandinavia…….

COST

Monday’s announcement was thin on important details, such as the rate at which the operator will be compensated when its electricity is not required, for example when demand is weak…….

“The UK’s ‘energy island’ strategy for security of supply is not practical in light of excess power capacity across the EU,” argued the UK-based corporate advisory firm Alexa Capital in a report published on Monday, “UK energy in perspective: is there a better way forward?”.

“We ask whether British business and consumers would not be better off contracting for a greater proportion of electricity from interconnection.”

The cost of building an interconnector would add only a few euros per MWh to the cost of importing electricity.

The full cost of buying electricity from German gas plants would probably therefore be cheaper than the new nuclear deal, without the worries of radioactive waste disposal.

It may have been better for Britain to invest in new subsea cables and pick up the phone to E.ON and RWE , not EDF. ($1 = 0.6178 British pounds) ($1 = 0.7302 euros) (Editing by Dale Hudson) http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/10/21/column-wynn-nuclear-britain-idINL5N0IB0TV20131021

October 21, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | 1 Comment

Many a slip likely in the China-France nuclear project in Britain

China’s need for nuclear power leads Britain to revive outdated technology , Terry Macalister, The Guardian, Sunday 20 October 2013“…..while EDF has now convinced government of the need to provide these different support mechanisms, the hard work begins for the French and its Chinese partner. The nuclear industry has a terrible reputation for completing new plants years late and over budget. Areva, the French nuclear engineering company providing the EPR design for Hinkley, is involved in similar plants at Flamanville in France and Olkiluoto in Finland. Both are proving more difficult than expected: the Finnish reactors are expected to be at least seven years late and at least £1.4bn over budget; Flamanville is two years late and believed to be as much as £2bn over budget.