Nuclear fusion....

[watercooled]

You love making that ad hominem attack that I'm 'bad at maths' every time I call out one of your nonsense claims don't you?

You claimed the money was from taxpayers; it's not, which was my point.

Lets take a look at the claims you made:

the Government is locked into 60 year contracts with energy companies.

False.

Each power station costing the tax payer anywhere between £24 to £34bn,

False.

And your 'source' for these claims says nothing of the sort. As a rule of thumb, you should at least attempt to link to articles that support your point rather than directly disproving them.

[g8ina]

OK guys knock it off with the personal attacks !

Sheesh

[Top_gun]

OK guys knock it off with the personal attacks !

Sheesh

I didn't think I was doing personal attacks - just pointing out where Watercooled had gone wrong. Anyway, I shall move on as there is no doubt the consumer / taxpayer have got a raw deal on the nuclear power station deal. It's not as if EDF is doing this for charity.

Moving on and on topic, nuclear fusion could mean lower electricity charges for the consumers since the generators could be mass produced and shipped over.

[peterb]

It seems you're bad at maths, Watercooled, and the figures came from the EU.

Hardly scaremongering, concerns and figures came from Nick Butler, a former No 10 energy adviser; Austrian chancellor, Werner Faymann; Guy Newey of independent energy supplier, OVO Energy; Mark Todd, director of independent price comparison site energyhelpline.

Sounds as though you didn't read the article properly.

Sounds as if you are too willing to accept a political paper without question, which might lead someone to think you are gullible, or at least not a scientifically trained mind which allows a perception and consideration of an opposing point of view.

But then if I did that, I might be accused of bringing in personalities, and I'd have to give myself a suspension.

So I won't, but I expect watercooled will graciously accept you apology.

[watercooled]

TBH I wasn't even arguing the part about their being general concerns over the cost consumers will see; I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the facts when it comes to this, and when compared to other energy sources available around the same time considering the closure of conventional coal plants etc, and the strike price for the first set of EPRs did surprise me when first announced.

My point was that the figures given were simply incorrect - we don't get anywhere by mangling facts.

I think a discussion over the financial implications of the new build would be interesting, and I'd like to find out more about it myself. However even given the high strike price, it's important to remember some of the following points:
This is compared to past builds which were government funded and hence we don't see this reflected in the market price.
EDF are funding the build themselves, with a loan from IIRC the UK which will be repaid at market rates.
The subsidies for renewables, which are often claimed to be cheap, are exceptionally high. And of course variability and storage *must* be taken into account, especially at higher grid percentages.
The costs are fuel management, transport, storage, disposal, etc are considered upfront and are included in the stated price.

The potential for cost and time overruns are also a concern given EDF's track record of late, however recent new builds in China have been largely on-time and to budget. The Chinese are said to be investing in the build and hence their recent experience with builds could prove valuable.

Another potential concern is the message the strike price, if it is indeed high all things considered, sets for future builds; would negotiating lower prices prove more difficult for other builds? Or as the gov't seem to be claiming, is the high price for the first plant considered acceptable because of the relatively high financial risk of a first build?

[Top_gun]

Sounds as if you are too willing to accept a political paper without question, which might lead someone to think you are gullible, or at least not a scientifically trained mind which allows a perception and consideration of an opposing point of view.

But then if I did that, I might be accused of bringing in personalities, and I'd have to give myself a suspension.

So I won't, but I expect watercooled will graciously accept you apology.

What you are actually saying that all of us are idiots and the only people who are sensible enough to make a comment are people like yourself, Watercooled and DanceswithUnix. Quite an arrogant statement if you ask me.

Here's a link to an opposing political paper such as the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...n-EU-says.html

Basically, they're saying the same thing as the Guardian but with adding the £10bn contingency figure to the lower £24bn estimated cost of building a power station thus bringing the upper range of the building cost to £34bn. Hopefully this will it easier for Watercooled to understand where I got the £34bn figure from without having to get the calculator out.

[watercooled]

Hopefully this will it easier for Watercooled to understand where I got the £34bn figure from without having to get the calculator out.

You're 'arguing' with something I never said. Anyone can see that. I even bolded it to remove any ambiguity, deliberate or otherwise.

Grow up.

[Top_gun]

You're 'arguing' with something I never said. Anyone can see that. I even bolded it to remove any ambiguity, deliberate or otherwise.

Grow up.

Charming, you accused me of making up figures and clearly I have not.

I shall move with some great quotes from the Telegraph article:

But on Wednesday Mr Almunia said it has concluded the aid was necessary because “no investor will carry out this project without public support”.

Paul Massara, head of rival energy supplier RWE npower, warned the state aid decision "could force the next three generations of British consumers to pay unnecessarily high energy bills".

[DanceswithUnix]

What you are actually saying that all of us are idiots and the only people who are sensible enough to make a comment are people like yourself, Watercooled and DanceswithUnix. Quite an arrogant statement if you ask me.

Oy, leave me out of it. I was busy building Ikea furniture when all this kicked off. That's bad enough without getting dragged into an argument I had nothing to do with.

I don't even understand the argument, as I have no idea how much any sort of large scale power plant costs to build. I mean, average house price in this country is now quarter of a million, and houses are pretty easy and risk free to build. Any kind of power plant is going to cost bonkers money isn't it? But compared to the cost of rolling blackouts, I just wish they would get on and build something. Giant hamster wheel, don't care, just something that generates power. If they just muck about, the cost will go up.

[peterb]

What you are actually saying that all of us are idiots

If thats how yiou choose to interpret it, and the cap fits - carry on.

Quite an arrogant statement if you ask me.

I wasn't and I'm not.

[Top_gun]

I don't even understand the argument, as I have no idea how much any sort of large scale power plant costs to build. I mean, average house price in this country is now quarter of a million, and houses are pretty easy and risk free to build. Any kind of power plant is going to cost bonkers money isn't it? But compared to the cost of rolling blackouts, I just wish they would get on and build something. Giant hamster wheel, don't care, just something that generates power. If they just muck about, the cost will go up.

The price of a house has little to do with building costs. Location and supply & demand are the two main drivers for house prices. I very much doubt land used for nuclear usage is attractive enough to build houses on so in effect the land is pretty cheap. I suspect a lot of the nuclear building costs would be siphoned off to bankers, consultancies, marketing and investors.

[RobbieRoy]

The price of a house has little to do with building costs. Location and supply & demand are the two main drivers for house prices. I very much doubt land used for nuclear usage is attractive enough to build houses on so in effect the land is pretty cheap. I suspect a lot of the nuclear building costs would be siphoned off to bankers, consultancies, marketing and investors.

I must say that the debate has travelled really quite a long way from the story highlighted by the original poster. That is most interesting in itself, notwithstanding the socio-economic and geo-political implications of the potential rise of cheap fusion.

[scaryjim]

Lockheed Martin claim to have made a breakthrough in nuclear fusion which should see the 1st reactors ready inside 10 years.

Could help but think:

[Top_gun]

I must say that the debate has travelled really quite a long way from the story highlighted by the original poster. That is most interesting in itself, notwithstanding the socio-economic and geo-political implications of the potential rise of cheap fusion.

The potential rise of cheap fusion would mean very little to the poor suffering UK consumer. We would still be paying for expensive nuclear produced electricity for the next 60 years. Gas is still cheaper to heat your home than electricity. Even if we received all of our electricity through fusion our bills will only be about 45 per cent cheapest at best. The most effective way to reduce your electricity bill is choosing energy efficient appliances.

In terms of the geo-political implications, well there's the global warming issue, preserving fossil fuel resources, and at least Putin has a less potent weapon in holding Europe to ransom over gas reserves.

[peterb]

The most effective way to reduce your electricity bill is choosing energy efficient appliances.

No, the best way to reduce your overall energy consumption is to insulate your house. All the energy that enters your house ends up as heat, so by reducing heat loss, your reliance on burning gas purely for heating is reduced.

In terms of saving cost, it makes sense to rely on appliances that use less energy transported by electrical means, but as yet, I have not seen any directly operated gas power supplies for computers,

But the other aspect of locally produced power from fusion (local as distinct from solar, which is our primary energy source) is that it reduces consumption of hydrocarbon based fuels and the associated release of carbon dioxide.

[TooNice]

Hmm, technically he did say reduce electricity bill and nothing about else, and you are assuming that everyone wants to keep the heat in, which is most certainly not true for about half the year. Here in Japan I have aircon in my room, and a big chunk of my electricity bill goes toward cooling things down.

I would however argue that the best way to reduce your electricity bill would be to do with fewer, or better yet, no electric appliances. Failing that, then it's either cutting down on use, getting more efficiency appliances or both. And if the concern is money, then as already mentioned in the other thread, you need to work out if any cost premium for energy efficiency products is likely going to pay itself off during the life of the product.

Back to the original topic, I will believe it when it is here, but this would be a huge step forward. And if it does happen within 10 years, the people involved would have beaten Sim City 2000 prediction (2050).. though it seems that I have skipped/missed the "Microwave" source of power from the game