Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jan 18, 2018 2:57 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mar 11, 2015 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5057
Britain Considers "Golden Share" For Hinkley Point C

Quote:
The pressure for and against the project is building internationally. While German law firm Beck Butner Held (BBH) is heading a challenge against the project, which also counts Austria and Luxembourg as opponents, Romania's Energy Minister Andrei Gerea has informed the European Commission, which is under new leadership, that various countries are seeking an on-going framework that would support “safe and sustainable new nuclear” power plant projects.

In the letter sent to EC Vice President Maros Sefcovic, Gerea says that his letter also represents the views of Britain, the Czech Republic, France, Poland, Lithuania and Slovenia.

Essentially, these countries are waiting to see how the decisions fall concerning Hinkley Point C before they move forward with their own nuclear power ambitions.


The challenges to the Hinkley Point C project are largely about financing. Austria contends that the price guarantee for electricity once the project is complete amounts to an illegal subsidy. German opposition centers on the use of public funds. “There are countries in the European Union that want to support nuclear power with tax money. We think that is absolutely out of the question,” said German Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel.


I'm at a loss here.

1. What is the legal basis of some other country opposing a nuclear build in a country far away?? This seems untenable. Just because German energy policy is madness, doesn't give them jurisdiction over other countries' energy policy.
2. German Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel appears concerned about UK public funds spending. This is out of their jurisdiction, and moreover ludicrous concerning the massive public funding spending in all kinds of absurd schemes of renewables stimulation in Germany. Just the spending on the goverment bureaucrats that register and "research" all the silly solar panel installations amounts to enormous sums.
3. Perhaps German Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel is concerned about competition. Clearly that can't be the case since his own energy policy is to mindlessly increase electricity prices by providing carte blanche buyup of solar kWhs at 500-900% market rates. Even when there is no power demand!
4. Perhaps German Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel is concerned about equality. Spending someone else's tax money on a power project may indeed seem unfair. I suppose it is more fair to take money from the poor (ratepayers that can't afford solar panels) and give it to the rich (ratepayers that have big villa's with enormous roofs and money to buy solar panels and rake in 500-1000% market rates for solar kWhs). Clearly the German Energy Minister can't be concerned about equality. Taking money from rich people (rich people pay more taxes) and spending it in a reliable power source that will serve the country for 60 years is surely more fair than taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich with only unreliable fickle power to show up for it.

Why are all these things happening? Why aren't the Germans being punished for this unconstitutional and unjurisdictional nonsense interference?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 11, 2015 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 28, 2011 10:10 am
Posts: 348
It is about EU rules on state-aid and competition. It is not that nuclear power is being forbidden by the EU, but some countries which are very anti-nuclear, such as Austria, are trying block subsidies for nuclear power through the EU courts, using competition rules, on which the EU has jurisdiction.

It is, of course, about interfering in the energy affairs of another country. Maybe Britain, as a quid pro quo, should do the same and try to block the extremely generous subsidies for renewables in Austria and Germany, which are distorting the market for electricity in many parts of Europe. Who says that renewables are any better than nuclear power as carbon-free energy source ?

See also this discussion: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4525


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 11, 2015 3:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5057
Yes I understand this political situation, I just can't believe the Germans are getting away with even making these claims. This isn't GreenWar, Foes of the Earth or the Silly Club, its the minister of energy of one of the most industrialized nations in the world, that is making these hilarious claims. Not acceptable to use tax money to lower CO2 emissions with reliable nuclear builds! But it is acceptable for Germany to tax nuclear plants just cause they're nuclear. Market distortions from investing a 10 billion in tax money in a nuclear plant that actually displaces a coal plant is not acceptable but spending 100 billion in market distorting favoritism feed in tariffs with a must-buy guarantee and a guarantee to not close a single coal plant, is supposed to be ok?

The massive double standard is hard to believe, yet Germany has the audacity, the bold faced cheek, to criticise the UK's plans.

If Sigmar Gabriel just hates anything nuclear then he should just say so and not make up silly arguments and massive double standards. Honesty is apparently not a requirement for the German Minister of Energy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 12, 2015 5:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 507
Up till now, the German Government has behaved. Sigmar Gabriel is SPD (Left of centre), but Merkel (CDU - right of centre) is unlikely to allow Germany to interfere in this. The German legal case is a private challenge - from Greenpeace Energy - a Greenpeace energy company (which, by spending money on a foreign lawsuit is probably failing in its statutory obligations not to waste customers' money).

Austria as far as I'm aware hasn't much of an environmental program. They're happy to import fuel from Russia, but are blessed with lots of hydro - so can sit on their high horse saying they're 80/90% renewable. Personally I think the British Government should tell them to come back when they get 5% of their electricity from wave power generation :)

Anyway, Her Majesty (or her Government) is not amused:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... urt-action

The Hinckley Point project involves big subsidies from consumers to producer - with a guaranteed price of £90/hour. This sort of subsidy is allowed - mostly. So no one is challenging the £90/hour paid for onshore wind or the £150/hour for offshore wind. The Austrian challenge appears to be a challenge to the whole Contracts for Difference scheme - without which, it's gas, gas, gas for electricity.

A more plausible challenge would be over the 1:1 negotiation nature of nuclear agreements. I've heard that other nuclear providers are negotiating around £80/MWh. Wind turbine operators on the other hand have to bid for funds in an auction, where the figures mentioned are the upper, or starting price (and are planned to fall, as time goes on). The EU commission has already judged that there are not enough approved designs (there is 1, the EPR) to allow such an auction. But if New Horizons are offered £90, will they go to court saying "unfair, EDF got £90)?

From a Government perspective, it would be great to have several nuclear firms (better still, several firms offering MSRs) to bid against each other. But a true market in nuclear is not possible at present.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 13, 2015 2:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5057
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-p ... ys-economy

The Danes are using tax money to fund their wind program. Why is Germany not taking Denmark to court over this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 14, 2015 2:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5057
For perspective, consider the following.

The Hinkley Point C project is for two EPRs totalling 3.2 GWe net. About 3 GWe average lifetime power flow, assume technical lifetime of 80 years.

The biggest solar panels you can get are about 300 Wp DC, which would make about 30 W AC over its lifetime in the UK. Assume average technical panel lifetime of 40 years (ie some may last longer and some shorter).

To match the Hinkley Point output with solar panels would therefore require 200,000,000 solar panels. 200 million. Probably some 50-70 billion pounds.

This is easily twice the cost of the nuclear reactors (25 billion pounds inc. interest).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 18, 2015 3:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2230
The solution is to cancel the EPR and get the Chinese or Russian reactors at a fraction of the price. For that, they have to get the sites back from the EdF as they will not do the job at Chinese/Russian rates.
What happens if they ignore the neighbor's objections and carry on regardless?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 18, 2015 3:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 507
jagdish wrote:
The solution is to cancel the EPR and get the Chinese or Russian reactors at a fraction of the price. For that, they have to get the sites back from the EdF as they will not do the job at Chinese/Russian rates.


The Chinese reactors are not certified and it would be unacceptable to get Russian reactors - and they're also not certified.

The Hitachi ABWR is on course for certification in 2017.

There are plans for a pair of C-AP1400 at Bradwell. Design Approval is meant to start once the ABWR is approved. (The ONR has capacity for about 1.5 GDA processes at a time - best book soon!)

Most of the nuclear sites have space for further reactors - especially for a small MSR - though ownership issues may be a problem. (Of course, there's no reason EDF can't own a C-AP1400, or a MSR).

Quote:
What happens if they ignore the neighbor's objections and carry on regardless?


Austria is not even Britain's neighbour. Not sure what happens if Britain ignores a court order - the French normally get away with this sort of thing.

This could also play into the politics of anti-EU sentiment. Though UKIP is in a quandary because they're against Hinckley C (as they don't believe in Global Warming), but they're also against EU meddling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 22, 2015 8:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 20, 2010 12:52 pm
Posts: 188
Cyril R wrote:
Yes I understand this political situation, I just can't believe the Germans are getting away with even making these claims. ....

The massive double standard is hard to believe, yet Germany has the audacity, the bold faced cheek, to criticise the UK's plans.


The whole Eurozone crisis originates in Germany. It's a larger version of what you are complaining about here. It's not that they are evil, they just believe others should think and act as they do (well, you can decide if that is evil or not).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 22, 2015 9:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5057
SteveK9 wrote:
Cyril R wrote:
Yes I understand this political situation, I just can't believe the Germans are getting away with even making these claims. ....

The massive double standard is hard to believe, yet Germany has the audacity, the bold faced cheek, to criticise the UK's plans.


The whole Eurozone crisis originates in Germany. It's a larger version of what you are complaining about here. It's not that they are evil, they just believe others should think and act as they do (well, you can decide if that is evil or not).


This is an attitude that easily results in evil because it can escalate. An extreme example of this is of course Adolf Hitler, who believed very similar things and then took it to the utmost extremes.

It wouldn't be so bad if the think-and-act would be based on science. But it so isn't. The German energy policy is based on wishful thinking, stigma, and energy tribalism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 22, 2015 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 07, 2010 1:44 pm
Posts: 62
SteveK9 wrote:
Cyril R wrote:
Yes I understand this political situation, I just can't believe the Germans are getting away with even making these claims. ....

The massive double standard is hard to believe, yet Germany has the audacity, the bold faced cheek, to criticise the UK's plans.


The whole Eurozone crisis originates in Germany. It's a larger version of what you are complaining about here. It's not that they are evil, they just believe others should think and act as they do (well, you can decide if that is evil or not).


What are you smoking? Germany is the reason for the Greece debt?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 22, 2015 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
Cyril R wrote:
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/338781/high-renewable-energy-costs-damage-germanys-economy

The Danes are using tax money to fund their wind program. Why is Germany not taking Denmark to court over this?

I think the English, Czechs, etc. should whisper to the Danes that perhaps Denmark should speak out against the German objection lest it set a precedent for other countries to object to the wind subsidies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 22, 2015 9:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1492
Marcus wrote:
SteveK9 wrote:
Cyril R wrote:
Yes I understand this political situation, I just can't believe the Germans are getting away with even making these claims. ....

The massive double standard is hard to believe, yet Germany has the audacity, the bold faced cheek, to criticise the UK's plans.


The whole Eurozone crisis originates in Germany. It's a larger version of what you are complaining about here. It's not that they are evil, they just believe others should think and act as they do (well, you can decide if that is evil or not).


What are you smoking? Germany is the reason for the Greece debt?


Greek Debt only exists in this instance because Germany demanded that the eurozone be set up and function such that it benefits itself at the expense of the rest of europe.
That is why interest rates are basically set to German requirements.
This also prevents Greece from inflating its way out of its crippling committments - as any non eurozone economy would have done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 26, 2015 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 07, 2010 1:44 pm
Posts: 62
E Ireland wrote:
Marcus wrote:

What are you smoking? Germany is the reason for the Greece debt?


Greek Debt only exists in this instance because Germany demanded that the eurozone be set up and function such that it benefits itself at the expense of the rest of europe.
That is why interest rates are basically set to German requirements.
This also prevents Greece from inflating its way out of its crippling committments - as any non eurozone economy would have done.


I don´t start a political discussion but when Greece joined the Euro the interest rates they had pay for the bonds they issued were lower then before and they are not even high now. And you can not inflating your way out of your debt only once the next time you want to issue bonds or take a credit on the international market you have to do it in Dollar or another foreign currency like Argentinia.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 26, 2015 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1492
Marcus wrote:
And you can not inflating your way out of your debt only once the next time you want to issue bonds or take a credit on the international market you have to do it in Dollar or another foreign currency like Argentinia.

If Greece had no debt commitments it would have a budget surplus.
It would have no need to go to the money markets.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group