Posted By: fostertomExcept in sexy new railways.

Not an option there either in that no-one else would be dumb enough to invest in HS2 so the Government had to do it themselves - obviously this is in line with their borrowing theme because all the fincial benefits the rail ine will bring will more than cover the vast vast expenditure: makes sense to me

It's entirely possible that the benefits of a bit of infrastructure (a railway, say) go beyond what's reflected in the direct (e.g., ticket) sales so it's possible that it doesn't make sense for a company to invest but does make financial sense for a government which additionally gets to tax those other benefits - e.g, company and personal taxes on employment provided by business activity made possible by the infrastructure, reduce unemployment payments, whatever.

I've no idea if that really applies to HS2 but it's at least theoretically possible.

With a power station, on the other hand, electricity is a moderately fungible commodity so direct sales to the grid more-or-less directly reflect the overall value. Government funds would benefit very little in addition to the sales revenue so there's not likely to be additional benefit to a government financing it.

In some cases government gets additional benefit in the long term - e.g., when a new scheme results in technology development resulting in future business (ideally in the government's country, rather than elsewhere). That, it seems to me, is a good argument for government intervention in previous nuclear programs and currently in renewables. This power station, though, doesn't seem to be likely to lead to any new technology so that argument for support doesn't apply either.

Posted By: Ed Daviesfungible

My English teacher required: 'Look up, every day, one word that's new to you, and use it'. Thanks! Does this mean there a verb 'To funge'? Or is it like the perversion of 'To leverage'?

So lo-grade solar heat collected on-site is not fungible i.e. cannot be traded or exported/imported so has no market value?

And there's no funge is sight that can do anything about the inexorable global decline in EROEI? (upomn which western industrialised society is based?

Quickly double checks that fungible means what he thinks it means…yep, thankfully.

In the context of a typing problem I saw somebody using the word “fing” the other day; it's what a finger does, apparently.

Posted By: Ed Daviesdy using the word “fing” the other day; it's what a finger does

Now I am no English snob at all, but some words should not be turned into a verb

Most articulate of you djh

I was reading somewhere that to meet our targets one nuke will barely touch the sides. We will need 10-20.

Bit ironic the same week David does a deal with China on Hinkley then China shuts Grangemouth (50/50 JV with INEOS) Maybe a sign of things to come.

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_10_17_what_did_the_1973_oil_embargo_teach_us
A great all-round state-of-play summary.
Mentions 'nuclear proliferation', just like I said a few posts back!

Beats me why RMI gets so little interest or mention on GBF. Maybe because RMI is devoted to making the 'profitable business' path to the future work, while 'greenies' really prefer apocalypse followed by return (for the survivors) to peasant economy. However, few 'deep greenies' on GBF nowadays - I do miss them!

Not inherent or inevitable, so why might that be? See
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Escaping-Matrix-people-change-world/dp/0977098303/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1382695814&sr=1-1&keywords=escaping+the+matrix
Not so sure about the proposed remedy; the Transition movement says it better.
But the diagnosis is mind blowing. Like, we knew it already but here it is in full strength.

Grimshaw shd be ashamed
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/5062378.article?origin=BDweeklydigest
Sizewell as well.

There are 437 nuclear power station in operation, so I think the safety record is a bit better than 0.05%/year.
There is about 15,000 years worth of experience, say 4 major incidences (one minor, ours, and one due to tsunami), so the risk of accident is very low. http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm
A barrage will have huge environmental impacts for wildlife and though it may produce 7% of the nations power when measured as a percentage of annual need, it is variable, though this is manageable and not really a problem.
I am up for both, but we need to be realistic about the costs. I think a barrage would cost more, but may be worth more.
If wind turbines can be installed for £1/W, and I am sure the hardware can then we could have about 16 GW installed, yielding between 28,000 GWh/year and 56,000 GWh/year depending on location and weather. Probably as useful as a barrage and a lot less environmental damage and very easy to decommission. Even of the generator and blades had to be changed every 20 years, we could be starting this next year with a very quick deployment (if we could just overcome our irrational fear of them).

I still wonder if this EDF deal will go though, it is not approved yet by the EU.

Posted By: leakyPipessay 0.05% chance of a severe nuclear accident per year

What %age chance of a mad despot arising just once in the next 2000yrs? Bit higher than that, I'd say. Someone prepared to spread genetic catastrophe far and wide (poss in ignorance, during a future dark Age), for perceived advantage?

Tell me why it's unscientific to factor that in, seeing that at stake cd be survival, or not, of life on earth? Don't say that something that's hard to estimate doesn't exist, in Science.

Posted By: SteamyTeaThere are 437 nuclear power station in operation, so I think the safety record is a bit better than 0.05%/year.

Yes.

There is about 15,000 years worth of experience,

Sounds about right. 437 since 1950 would be 26'000 years experience but the fleet's been built up steadily but not much in the last decade or two.

say 4 major incidences

I'd say two major: Chernobyl and Fukushima. So that's 0.013% per year of operation.

If we go for a substantial proportion of nuclear, say 40 GW, we'd need about 12 plants the size of Hinkley C. If we run them for 40 years that's 12 × 40 × 0.013 = 6.2% risk. Is that acceptable?

Posted By: leakyPipesSorry tom, I don't understand. The chances of a mad despot emerging are surely not dependent on whether hinkley C gets built or not? and therefore can be excluded from any analysis.

He's talking about the chances of a mad despot with access to lots of radioactive material. Obviously.