Green Building Forum - Is Hinkley C dead? Mon, 07 Sep 2026 13:44:28 +0100 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=245909#Comment_245909 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=245909#Comment_245909 Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:16:35 +0100 Flubba Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=245985#Comment_245985 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=245985#Comment_245985 Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:31:50 +0100 fostertom http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1403506/windeconomics-offshore-industry-aims-%E2%82%AC80-mwh-2025
today £100 worldwide (and in UK shallow waters knock £10 off that) and falling for each incremental new windfarm, relative to hinkley £92.50 and rising to the 'go' date then a fixed millstone for 35yrs.]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=245988#Comment_245988 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=245988#Comment_245988 Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:51:04 +0100 SteamyTea I think you are getting two different numbers mixed up.
The £92.50 is the guaranteed price that EDF will get (so 92.50 - what they sell the power for). Then there is the build cost of whatever (£3 or 6 or 12 or 24bn).
The wind farm costs is an amortised price for the life of the farm. So expected capital cost / expected generation revenue (in €/MWh.

I think.]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=245989#Comment_245989 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=245989#Comment_245989 Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:06:54 +0100 fostertom Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=245992#Comment_245992 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=245992#Comment_245992 Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:11:59 +0100 Flubba
What is the point in lots of 'cheaper' energy produced by wind when it's not available when and where it's needed with little to no ability to realistically store it on any meaningful scale. Speaking of which I don't think there has been any progress on the proposed Coire glas or Balmacaan pumped storage schemes each at something like 30GWh's of storage.]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=245994#Comment_245994 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=245994#Comment_245994 Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:03:08 +0100 fostertom https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1781256357/ref=pe_385721_146292851_TE_item but even that missed new groundbreakers like
http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14413&page=3#Item_5
It's happening far faster, at lower price, than anyone imagined. Tear up all existing conventional pessimism about intermittency, base load, battery ability, NIMBYs etc - where technology takes off vast resources follow. It will also be even more distributed, even autonomous, than anyone hoped (or feared - depending on your (ultimately) political leaning).]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=245998#Comment_245998 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=245998#Comment_245998 Fri, 19 Aug 2016 18:12:13 +0100 ringi Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246012#Comment_246012 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246012#Comment_246012 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 09:28:30 +0100 renewablejohn Posted By: ringiTo do a far comparison, wind would have to be a lot cheaper then nuclear due to the cost of storage (will never be cost free) and the cost of building gas power stations for when the wind does not blow. Hence I think the “green” party and lib dems should be taken to task on why they allow their members and councillors to put up the cost of wind by being NIMBYs.

How much more gas capacity do you want. When we already have sufficient to cover UK demand with gas generators with more being built and some still in mothballs.]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246013#Comment_246013 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246013#Comment_246013 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 10:13:39 +0100 Peter_in_Hungary Posted By: ringiTo do a far comparison, wind would have to be a lot cheaper then nuclear due to the cost of storage (will never be cost free)
Since we are talking about storage, does the cost of nuclear include the cost of the storage of the spent fuel for as long as necessary?]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246019#Comment_246019 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246019#Comment_246019 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 12:59:10 +0100 fostertom Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246025#Comment_246025 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246025#Comment_246025 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 15:17:37 +0100 Flubba
Pretty much the same language and arguments being used by 'environmental' lobbyists for the past decades...]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246029#Comment_246029 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246029#Comment_246029 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 17:57:03 +0100 fostertom Posted By: Flubbadue to the failure to innovate and experimentYou mean, trust that someone during the subsequent Dark Ages would have found a way to safely neutralise (or beneficially convert) the probably undocumented stashes of waste, rather than using it on the neighbouiring warlord?]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246031#Comment_246031 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246031#Comment_246031 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 18:31:23 +0100 skyewright Posted By: SteamyTeaTom
The £92.50 is the guaranteed price that EDF will get.
Probably already covered (I'm not visiting as often as I was), but remember that £92.50 was the price at the time of the agreement. Due to the built in inflation proofing indexing the figure has already increased. Somewhere around £102?]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246032#Comment_246032 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246032#Comment_246032 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 18:32:10 +0100 Flubba
Although the optimist in me would say that without nuclear weapons maybe there wouldn't be as much of the fear factor which stifles experimentation and innovation, many things could have went down the same path e.g. Electricity and Radio communication.]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246037#Comment_246037 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246037#Comment_246037 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 20:31:13 +0100 Ed Davies Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246041#Comment_246041 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246041#Comment_246041 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 21:47:31 +0100 fostertom
Technology-supporting political stability may continue for that unknown time, or it may not. Even short of catastrophic breakdown, society may drop back to a more basic re-equilibrium, whether enforced or gladly, which isn't capable of supporting such technology.

All nuclear programmes stupidly ignore such possibilities, rely 100% on just one of the above cases. And equally rely on not one single mad warlord deciding to use the lethal waste that s/he controls. Considering the stakes i.e. survival of life on earth, either absolute, or in freedom from massive malign genetic mutation, this deep stupidity is blinding.]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246043#Comment_246043 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246043#Comment_246043 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 22:05:12 +0100 Flubba
As far as I know the bulk of nuclear waste such as irradiated concrete and steel is generally low level waste with much more human timescales before they decay to the point of being "safe". Even then the bulk of material isn't radioactive, it's like sorting through a bucket of sand to remove the activation products which doesn't financially stack up.]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246044#Comment_246044 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246044#Comment_246044 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 22:24:56 +0100 SteamyTea There are some methods that they think can speed up the decay times (as odd as it sounds it varied with our distance from the sun), Then there were methods to allow it to 'torpedo' to the Earth Core (I liked that one).
Finally there was the low depth storage method, which is just political, not technical at all.

But for the last 60 years, we have stored it pretty well, stored by the same forces that may one day have to use a valuable by product.

Modern designed reactors also produce a lot less waste.


When I lived in the USA, I was a couple of miles from Three Mile Island, it was only when I had a day to kill before I left that it was suggested that I take a tour of the site. In 18 months no one had ever mentioned the place but I often looked at it as I crossed the river.]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246046#Comment_246046 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246046#Comment_246046 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 22:49:07 +0100 Flubba
Even with current technology waste stockpiles can be utilised as fuel reducing the activity and volume of material needing to be stored, with reprocessing and transmutation technically much more can be done. I'm not really arguing for business as usual, the once through fuel cycle, but I don't see how 1 unit of waste is really all that different from 100 units of waste the genie is already out of the bottle and can't be stuffed back in. The more immediate problem is how we provide for our energy needs while limiting the impact that has on the environment and of course many think Nuclear should be ruled out completely and that's fine.

As with most things it's not our technology that actually limits what we can do... :sad:]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246047#Comment_246047 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246047#Comment_246047 Sat, 20 Aug 2016 23:22:41 +0100 atomicbisf
I think it's telling no one is even talking about new nuclear in America as it's a non starter on cost alone. It was an avenue worth pursuing in the 20th century, but it turned out to be a dead end in my opinion.

Ed]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246048#Comment_246048 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246048#Comment_246048 Sun, 21 Aug 2016 01:25:44 +0100 Mike1 Posted By: SteamyTeaBut for the last 60 years, we have stored it pretty well...Well, apart from the bits that maybe can't be properly traced - like these, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/feb/14/sellafield-records-nuclear-waste And the allegedly intermediate level waste dumped in low level disposal trenches - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49_IU4wzVG8#t=38 And the 170kg of enriched uranium that may (or may not) have gone missing - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/105564.stm And the waste that was dumped at sea - http://www.davidsmythe.org/nuclear/flowers%20commission%201976.pdf until the London Convention on dumping came into force. And the (authorised) breaching of waste storage limits - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/14/sellafield-nuclear-waste-storage-safety-limit-relaxed

So pretty well, but could do better.]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246049#Comment_246049 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246049#Comment_246049 Sun, 21 Aug 2016 05:05:19 +0100 SteamyTea Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246051#Comment_246051 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246051#Comment_246051 Sun, 21 Aug 2016 09:48:39 +0100 Ed Davies Posted By: FlubbaAs with most things it's not our technology that actually limits what we can do...:sad:Exactly. There are a whole lot of other considerations: environmental, social, and so on. My gut feeling against nuclear comes from the way it forces/comes from are rather centralized and controlled society. The only country which has made much of a success of nuclear is France (and the sustainability of that's a bit questionable) but, compared with most western countries, they're pretty tightly controlled socially. Not in a terribly bad way but still something which most Anglo-Saxons would find uncomfortable.

Around here (Caithness) the local industries (apart from sheep) are the decommissioning of Dounreay and a lot of wind farm building (onshore and, soon, offshore) and associated grid strengthening. Dounreay is patrolled by lots of rather threatening and heavily armed police, the wind farms and grid substations aren't. When some plutonium is to be flown out of Wick it's moved with an escort of something like 250 police (I'm told, not seen it myself). When you meet a wind turbine hub moving down the A99 (as I did the other day) all you have is a couple of police cars politely asking you to park off the road for a minute or two to let it by.

OK, so Dounreay was a fast breeder motivated at least as much by weapons production as electricity generation. However, I've yet to see convincing evidence that there's enough uranium around for nuclear to make a significant dent in the world's energy[¹] needs without some sort of breeding and fuel reprocessing with all the associated security concerns of moving really nasty stuff around in significant quantities. There's also the proliferation considerations: if it's OK for Britain to be making and reprocessing plutonium (even for purely civil purposes) then presumably it's OK for Iran as well?

Posted By: atomicbisfIt [nuclear] was an avenue worth pursuing in the 20th century, but it turned out to be a dead end in my opinion.
I think that sums it up nicely.

[¹] Not just the electricity needs of a couple of western countries.]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246059#Comment_246059 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246059#Comment_246059 Sun, 21 Aug 2016 13:27:22 +0100 djh
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles.aspx

As well as the perenially useful:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246065#Comment_246065 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246065#Comment_246065 Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:04:05 +0100 Flubba Posted By: Ed DaviesHowever, I've yet to see convincing evidence that there's enough uranium around for nuclear to make a significant dent in the world'senergy[¹] needs without some sort of breeding and fuel reprocessing with all the associated security concerns of moving really nasty stuff around in significant quantities. There's also the proliferation considerations: if it's OK for Britain to be making and reprocessing plutonium (even for purely civil purposes) then presumably it's OK for Iran as well?

[¹] Not just theelectricityneeds of a couple of western countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfNPP5tYaZo

Nuclear in my opinion should be part of the energy mix if anything for science as well as actual power generation, of course business as usual in managing the fuel supply isn't going to work. Moving the stuff around is already done on a regular basis along with all sorts of other dangerous and hazardous materials often in much larger quantities without nearly the same level of scrutiny. At the end of it you end up with much less dangerous and shorter lived waste not to mention less of it to actually store and guard for that shorter timespan.

Proliferation concerns are political, we and others happily supply nuclear technology to countries frankly more dangerous than the likes of Iran and it doesn't really seem to bother most people. Iran bothers the political classes because they don't blindly follow what is dictated to them by the old boys club that is the UN security council.]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246075#Comment_246075 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246075#Comment_246075 Sun, 21 Aug 2016 19:12:05 +0100 Ed Davies Posted By: FlubbaProliferation concerns are political,…Doesn't mean they're not real, though. Just 'cause somebody irradiated you for political reasons, rather than technical, wouldn't be much consolation. Yes, Iran is a tricky example but proliferation in general is a difficult thing to control which would be made a lot harder if there was a lot of reprocessing going on.

OTOH, shutting down running nuclear plants in the absence of specific safety concerns does seem nutty. Most of the waste (and any risk) is already committed to, the incremental amount from running them for a few more years is small.]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246083#Comment_246083 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246083#Comment_246083 Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:25:19 +0100 ringi Posted By: FlubbaIran bothers the political classes because they don't blindly follow what is dictated to them by the old boys club that is the UN security council.

The problem with Iran along with a lot of the middle east is that:
a) A lot of the population believe that drying in the name of god is the most worthwhile thing they can do in life.
b) The leaders of the country does not put much value on the life of their population, or of the solders in their army.
Therefore the concept of deterrents does not work well against them, so for example if they got the option of wiping out Tel Aviv in exchange for the death of half their population, they may choose to take that option. The counties that may be “more dangerous” tend to care about their population, so we can use our nukes capacity to make us believe we have no real risk from them using theirs.]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246084#Comment_246084 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246084#Comment_246084 Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:35:25 +0100 ringi
The low level waste just need to be left for 100 years before it becomes harmless, most of it is less harmful the a normal smoke alarm! The mid level waste takes a few 100 years to become harmless. The high level waste is very little, about the size of one brick per person in the UK for all the power that a person would use over their life – but it does need to be stored in a way making it stable for 1000s of years.

And unless we go for many more nuclear power stations then are planned we will mostly be using up high level “waste” while we operate them, if we choose to rum them that way.

However give me 500 normal size project rather then 1 large project any day, as the risk is so much lower unless the large project give a lot lower predicted cost of power.....]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246096#Comment_246096 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246096#Comment_246096 Mon, 22 Aug 2016 08:50:24 +0100 Ed Davies Posted By: ringibelieve that drying in the name of goddrying up?

Are Nick and I the only ones who find Ringi's typos a source of humour? Or do others just not notice?]]> Is Hinkley C dead? https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246099#Comment_246099 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=14100&Focus=246099#Comment_246099 Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:47:40 +0100 fostertom Posted By: ringiThe high level waste is very little, about the size of one brick per person in the UK for all the power that a person would use over their life – but it does need to be stored in a way making it stable for 1000s of yearsThat is an appalling quantity per person for ... how many generations? That sentence alone is why nuclear power in its presenbt form is staggering folly, a poor bet that my great great great grandchildren may die or be deformed for.

Other than that, I have no objection to nuclear, apart from its gigantism, as ringi says.]]>