Slarti wrote:scotia wrote:I welcome the attempt to generate tidal power, but I suspect it has a long way to go before it can be an economic solution.
You think that nuke is an economic solution?
Remind me, what are they promising the Chinese per KWH for Hinkley Point II?
And how much is offshore wind or solar per KWH, today?
Slarti
That is an excellent point. At one time we held a considerable lead in the construction of nuclear power stations. It is true that their were some costly learning curves - e.g. Dungeness, however the early Magnox and the majority of the later AGR reactors of British design and construction have provided safe, reliable and cost effective electricity power generation. However for various socio-political reasons, we ceased their construction, and all British expertise in this field was dissipated. Now we realise that such generation is a necessity, and we are having to pay the price to foreign countries who have developed their own expertise.
I'm acutely aware of how high this cost is. Part of it is due to the decision to require the foreign consortia to raise their own loans at commercial rates, rather than to use government borrowing which can be achieved at much lower rates. I believe that part of the rationale behind this appears to be that the government want to distance themselves from possible cost over-runs.
If we had retained our own design teams, and had continued to build (government-funded) incremental improvements on our own working designs then we would not be paying such extortionate sums.
So why do we believe it is necessary to go ahead with expensive Nuclear Generation as part of a Sustainable Energy mix? I think the best published study of this area is "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" by the late David JC Mackay (professor of Physics, Cambridge) (http://www.withouthotair.com)