Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Technology => Topic started by: Mariana on 05/02/2019 08:41:47
-
John wants to know:
Why is nuclear power so much more expensive in the UK than France?
The cost of building and decommissioning nuclear power stations in the UK is enormous and we're told that that's a reason why electricity produced by this method is expensive (and government subsidised). Why, then, does France, which produces 75% of its power from nuclear, have one of the cheapest electricity prices in Europe? And, given that there are undersea electricity cables between France and the UK, why don't we just buy loads more electricity from France?
Can you help?
-
Government subsidies are complex and subtle. That makes them difficult to compare.
France made a policy decision to focus on nuclear power.
When I lived in Belgium, I was talking to some of the locals. They commented that France had built one of their nuclear reactors in a bend of a river, so that the French nuclear reactor was surrounded on 3 sides by Belgium; if anything went wrong, it would probably be Belgium that suffered...
-
British government incompetence is legendary. We pay a premium on nuclear and fossil energy in order to subsidise windmills. Thus the nuke/gas system is uneconomic when the wind blows, and when we don't need wind power, we pay the windmill operators a subsidy for not generating electricity.
Whilst decommissioning costs are included in nuclear calculations, old windmills are just left to rot.
There is enough coal under the UK to run the quick-reaction plant needed to supplement nuclear, for another 200 years, but the Thatcher government and subsequent idiocies have rendered it inaccessible for ever. We rely, instead, on the goodwill of Russian gas suppliers.
EDF is publicly owned and makes contracts in the public interest, pursuing a consistent policy. The UK electricity supply industry is fragmented and makes contracts in the shareholders' interests only.
-
Immediately after 1066 we were governed by the French would we be better off if we still were ?
-
We still are, until the end of March.
On the whole, I find British government incompetence marginally preferable to French efficiency, which seems to produce an awful lot of rioting. Take, for instance, our attitudes to royalty. Cromwell & Co beheaded the king, so we tried a republic for a few years and decided to restore a hereditary monarchy with a strict warning to behave themselves, whereas nos amis butchered the entire aristocracy, said "plus jamais", and ended up with a bunch of corrupt and inept presidents instead, just like the Russians. As a result, the French burn sheep in the streets to protest about just about everything, and we have jolly hog roasts to celebrate royal jubilees and stuff. If in doubt, say "President Blair" and see how that makes you feel.
-
There was a French research project on fast breeder reactors, which should (in theory) produce more fissionable fuel than they consume.
But dealing with liquid sodium as a coolant was always troublesome...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix
-
The first FBR was, I believe, at Dounreay where it did indeed explore the problems of liquid sodium coolant (been used in aircraft exhaust valves for years, but more problematic in large systems, I gather) and ended up with a somewhat cavalier reputation for dumping waste plutonium in the public arena.
A bit like the Mini and Beetle, the first graphite-cored power reactors outlived their design life specification by a factor of 3, but weren't commercially profitable to build - the energy payback period was more than 5 years. Westinghouse PWRs were delightfully safe and simple until the gutter press caused public hysteria around Three Mile Island. Chernobyl showed what happens if you deliberately ignore the instruction manual and hope that Party policy overrides the laws of physics. Fukushima showed what happens if the world's media ignore the 20,000 lives lost in a tsunami and make a fuss about a reactor shutdown. Somehow the French seem to have suppressed any such hysteria and pressed on with the greenest electricity since hydro. Some years ago we discovered that the workers at Cadarache received a larger radiation dose from their annual chest x-ray than from their employment - fortunately they got a new x-ray unit.
It's a funny business, and becoming less rational by the day.
-
Three mile island was the worst nuclear disaster of all time enabling the coal lobby to continue to emit poisonous and radioactive waste for at least 30 years more.
The safety of Hydro is much overrated countless numbers are killed by dam bursts ,disruption of agriculture and waterborne disease
-
When William the bastard ruled us he dealt with the troublesome northerners in a way that Sadam Hussein or Pol Pot would have been proud of and dealt with tax dodging.
-
John wants to know:
Why is nuclear power so much more expensive in the UK than France?
The cost of building and decommissioning nuclear power stations in the UK is enormous and we're told that that's a reason why electricity produced by this method is expensive (and government subsidised). Why, then, does France, which produces 75% of its power from nuclear, have one of the cheapest electricity prices in Europe? And, given that there are undersea electricity cables between France and the UK, why don't we just buy loads more electricity from France?
Can you help?
Because firstly they have a far larger ammount of nuclear ie economies of scale, secondly they do not add in the values of deconstruction to the level we do. France has huge storage plants on the surface full of nuclear material that they are hoping to do something with in future. Our nuclear was the same, at sellafield there where nuclear dumps for material just stored, powerstations buried in concrete and soil. The new nuclear is a wholly more compete picture of total deconstruction and disposal costs after use, its a more rounded picture.
I have to say old windmills would not be left to rot, many salvage companies would pay to r3move them probably.