Why we need "Net zero"

[LnP]

On 09/05/2026 at 21:03, Beelbeebub said:

Ultimately the tax payer is the decomissioner of last resort though. You can write all the contracts you want but if EDF go bust what are we going to do?

 

EDF go bust? Wholly owned by the French state. Seems rather unlikely.

[LnP]

On 10/05/2026 at 10:49, JohnMo said:

UK government is the majority stake holder with 45% ownership and £14+ billion stake in it. Government money comes from taxes. The UK government funds its 44.9% stake in Sizewell C through a combination of direct taxpayer-funded capital allocations and sovereign-backed financial instruments.

 

So level playing field 

Never said and never thought renewables are an only solution - but add battery storage, hydro storage, hydrogen generation from excess spinning reserve all help.  Hydrogen going to hydrogen gas powered combined cycle turbine generators for background load and or gap filling.

You're talking about Sizewell C, I was talking about Hinkley Point C. In both cases, though in different ways, the funding model is designed to recover the decommissioning costs from bill payers. I agree though that nuclear power is expensive (Hinkley strike price currently £135/MWh) and that decommissioning costs are a risk. At least the funding models are intended to recover all the costs from consumers. 

 

My post though was making the point that renewable aren't cheap either. That's because the system costs don't show up in the e.g. £91/MWh strike price agreed for off-shore wind in AR7. The point I was making was the facilities you mentioned - battery storage, hydro storage, hydrogen - are expensive pieces of kit and will only be required to run when the wind doesn't blow. So their capital costs will have to be recovered from the few MWh of electricity they produce, which makes that gap filling electricity very expensive. And if we want to compare intermittent wind with firm nuclear on the same basis, we have to add the cost of the gap filling to the £91/MWh ... in which case wind won't look so cheap. And that's even before we talk about the cost of the grid upgrades required for off-shore wind.

 

BTW, I strongly support decarbonisation and that renewables will play an essential role. I just like decisions to be made on the right information.

[SimonD]

1 hour ago, LnP said:

That's because the system costs don't show up

I think generally this is the problem with all types of energy - there still isn't a consistent way to assess them on a like-for-like life-cycle basis. And each side tends to provide limited or incomplete information. 

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, LnP said:

their capital costs will have to be recovered from the few MWh of electricity they produce

That would be the same for (new) pumped storage though.

Pumped storage was commissioned so that nuclear does not have to throttle back at night.

So probably very expensive.

[saveasteading]

2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

probably very expensive.

Having been in the shaft under construction for one, it felt expensive even before any mechanical kit.

The land-rover drove us into the mountain to the man made cavern.

There may have been 2 tunnels, one for pipes and one for people.

Very James Bond.

[SteamyTea]

49 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Very James Bond

Was that Dinorwig, or that new one in Scotland?

[Roger440]

On 09/05/2026 at 14:54, Beelbeebub said:

 

 

Low cost energy is an important economic advantage. 

 

At last.

 

However, this statement seems rather at odds with many of your previous ramblings.

 

So which is it?

[Beelbeebub]

5 hours ago, LnP said:

EDF go bust? Wholly owned by the French state. Seems rather unlikely.

The design life of hinckley C is about 30 years or to the 2060's 

 

That's a fair old time. We've seen countries dissappear and appear. Alliances crumble and old friends become enimies and vice versa. We've seen giant companies who ruled the commercial sphere vanish to be replaced with companies in sectors that didn't exist. 

 

We have no firm idea of what the landscape will be by the late 20XXs, all sorts of things could happen. French revolution, UK breakup, Cold war between Eurasian Alliance and the Anglo-American commonwealth who knows. 

 

What we do know is there will be a nuclear reactor that needs an expensive decommissioning process sat in what is currently the UK and that history has shown that companies, when faced with expensive clean up costs after the money making bonanza is over, quite often shuffle away from their responsibilities.

[Beelbeebub]

3 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

At last.

 

However, this statement seems rather at odds with many of your previous ramblings.

 

So which is it?

Entirely consistent with the whole purpose of this thread. 

 

That we need "Net zero" policies to ensure our energy security. 

 

This thread started over a month before the Iran war. At the time gas prices were predicted to fall as more Lng capacity from the gulf and at European Lng terminals came on stream. 

 

My point was that if we abandoned NZ policies for a fossil fuel past/future (as some advocated) it would be bad for the UK in terms of energy security/prices - that we would be subject to fluctuations in the gas price that we had zero control over. 

 

I think, even you, would agree that I have been proven correct in the assertion that the uk is too exposed to fossil fuel price fluctiaons. 

 

Here's a thought experiment. 

 

The price of coal has jumped from just over 100USD to just over 130USD?

Have you heard anyone in the UK panicking about the price of coal? Are we worried about it's impact on our economy? Are our electricity prices rising because of the price of coal? 

Nope - because coal is such a tiny part of our energy mix. 

 

We should aim to do the same with oil and gas. 

[-rick-]

59 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

The design life of hinckley C is about 30 years or to the 2060's 

 

Honestly surprised by this. Given the cost of it (financial and environmental) I was thinking it was more like 50years. AFAIK, the last gen of nuclear is generally delivering 50 years ish of life.

[SteamyTea]

36 minutes ago, -rick- said:

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

The design life of hinckley C is about 30 years or to the 2060's 

 

Honestly surprised by this

They extend the life of them, at great expense.

 

https://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/from-our-perspective/energy-theme/nuclear-power/about-nuclear-power/the-future-of-nuclear/plant-life-extension

 

 

[-rick-]

12 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

They extend the life of them, at great expense.

 

Well quite, it's why I'd expect a new plant to be designed to last at least as long without the expensive life extension.

 

Obviously maintenance, even fairly expensive maintenance, will be required to last that long. But if planned for upfront it's a lot cheaper than just building for 30 years and dealing with extension at a later date.

[SteamyTea]

5 minutes ago, -rick- said:

it's why I'd expect a new plant to be designed to last at least as long without the expensive life extension

I am sure some economists, accountants, engineers etc go through all this at the initial stages.

 

30 years ago,  no one bought a car thinking it would last 20 years, let alone 30. But we have a lot of 20 year old cars on the roads these days (mine is 16 years old). 

But then, 30 years ago, no one would have thought a Ford Escort, no Focus, would be a £30k car.

Or that PV would come in at 10p/W.

[JohnMo]

33 minutes ago, -rick- said:

30 years

That's a long design life for industrial equipment. Nuclear design life's for equipment is generally way shorter than the same piece of equipment in general industry and it's maintained multiple more times frequently. 

 

Think the issue with nuclear plant design is the reaction containment and it's certification.

 

The balance of plant i.e. Pressure vessels, steam turbines, water pumps, piping etc will be overhauled and recertified many time in 30 years plus, with the pressure containing parts regularly recertified, following inspecting for cracks, material loss and wear etc.

[-rick-]

Just now, JohnMo said:

That's a long design life for industrial equipment. Nuclear design life's for equipment is generally way shorter than the same piece of equipment in general industry and it's maintained multiple more times frequently. 

 

Think the issue with nuclear plant design is the reaction containment and it's certification.

 

The balance of plant i.e. Pressure vessels, steam turbines, water pumps, piping etc will be overhauled and recertified many time in 30 years plus, with the pressure containing parts regularly recertified, following inspecting for cracks, material loss and wear etc.

 

Sure. I would expect that for a plant opening today that very few of the components would be original in 30 years time. But that to me is maintenance. If our existing fleet is running for 50 years, it just seems like we should design new plant to have the same life (with the expected maintenance).

 

It's the parts that can't easily be swapped out that need to be designed to live the longest. And if we have managed to get parts that we built 40-50 years ago to live until today then we should be able to design the new parts to do the same. Not maintenance free for 50 years, but to last 50 years with planned and scheduled maintenance. Most importantly with a design that allows for all the maintenance tasks we have found necessary on the old plant to be possible and planned for on the new plant.

[scottishjohn]

1 hour ago, -rick- said:

 

Honestly surprised by this. Given the cost of it (financial and environmental) I was thinking it was more like 50years. AFAIK, the last gen of nuclear is generally delivering 50 years ish of life.

I suspect the design life is to justify the high price they want per kilowatt as if they gave it a 50 year life the capitol  rite off costs per year would be 50% CHEAPER 

[-rick-]

1 minute ago, scottishjohn said:

I suspect the design life is to justify the high price they want per kilowatt as if they gave it a 50 year life the capitol  rite off costs per year would be 50% CHEAPER 

 

Yeh if it's a case that the financals work out for 30 years but the plant has been designed to last longer then fine. Someones planning for future profits, that's a different issue.

 

If we get to 30 years in and they then turn around and say we need further massive investment if you want to continue for another 20 years then given the previous massive investment it's very poor planning.

[scottishjohn]

wind power --who in their right mind would sign a contract that says they get paid if they turn them off

I would love to have run a company  where i got paid if I did not produce anything 

and if you work out how much pollution is caused making the things and the amount of c02 in the huge concrete bases 

and when they get replaced they need a new base --it just don,t stack up 

 its about getting a quick return not what is best long term 

 we have hydro scheme on the river Dee in s.w scotland -uses same water 3 times and was built in1937

 still running now --that is the right way 

hydro and tidal barages 

but they do not get a [payback for a long time compared to wind or solar

 

 the desert in america is full of old wind turbine blades that they cannot recycle economically - so they just lie there --thats not net zero

 

Edited 1 hour ago by scottishjohn

[SteamyTea]

24 minutes ago, -rick- said:

It's the parts that can't easily be swapped out that need to be designed to live the longest

I think by the nature of high energy particles, and the need to contain them safely outside of normal operating conditions, planned replace is almost a new reactor core.

 

Going back to my car analogy, it is like @Onoff's Capris. While old, they are mothballed till they get rebuilt. Very hard to mothball a glowing nuclear reactor till it is safe to send they boys in.

They are still making Chernobyl safe after 40 years. It had only been running 9 years.

 

I really do not see the need for nuclear in the UK, we have wind, solar, hydro and tidal resources that can meet our needs without the ridiculous expense of nuclear, let alone the risks.

No new infrastructure is going to be cheap, so better off picking the cheaper ones that have the lowest environmental risks.

Wind turbines and solar panels can be relatively easily relocated, with little lasting effects on the local environment, can't say the same for large thermal plants.  I live in an ex mining town (ok, it's not coal), but even after 150 years since mining was the main industry down here, the land is still scared and polluted.

[-rick-]

1 minute ago, SteamyTea said:

I think by the nature of high energy particles, and the need to contain them safely outside of normal operating conditions, planned replace is almost a new reactor core.

 

My point is that they haven't replaced the cores on the existing fleet that is going to last to 50 years. They have had to do some very expensive repairs, some of which were particularly expensive because the design didn't allow for them. New designs shouldn't make the same mistake and either design out the need for those types of maintenance or plan for them.

 

1 minute ago, SteamyTea said:

I really do not see the need for nuclear in the UK, we have wind, solar, hydro and tidal resources that can meet our needs without the ridiculous expense of nuclear, let alone the risks.

No new infrastructure is going to be cheap, so better off picking the cheaper ones that have the lowest environmental risks.

 

Well quite. That gets to the bottom of my issue. I don't particularly have an issue with nuclear power if it is competitive price wise. Given the ginormous construction costs the only way it can make sense is if the plants last a long time.

[SteamyTea]

38 minutes ago, scottishjohn said:

who in their right mind would sign a contract that says they get paid if they turn them off

I would love to have run a company  where i got paid if I did not produce anything

You sold cars I seem to remember.

There must have been times during the day that you did not close a sale. But you still got paid at the end of the month.

There are many different business models, the energy market is not the same as secondhand car sales.

38 minutes ago, scottishjohn said:

how much pollution is caused making the things and the amount of c02 in the huge concrete bases 

Work it out and come back and tell us all.

 

Hinkley Point C uses 49,000 tonnes per reactor.

The Three Gorges Dam is around 30 million m³. That is close to 100 million tonnes.

Edited 27 minutes ago by SteamyTea

[JohnMo]

34 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

49,000 tonnes per reactor.

So not much then!  Don't they also build things twice, first time as a proof of concept. Then there are all the other parts of the plant all nice thick concrete.