UK electricity price four times more than France

[phantom power]

British companies are being forced to pay over four times more for their electricity this winter than competitors in France and in excess of 70 per cent more than in Germany.

The discrepancy will increase concerns that Britain's crumbling power infrastructure is a growing threat to the country's competitiveness and comes as Ofgem today announces its report into competition in the energy market.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article4888149.ece

[JonQ]

1. More:

"The high UK prices are the result of the closure of a number of ageing nuclear and coal-fired plants for repairs, which has reduced generating capacity. Prices are expected to fall towards the end of the year as nuclear plants at Dungeness, Heysham and Hartlepool return to service.

National Grid insisted this week that there was sufficient capacity to meet demand this winter. In France, 78 per cent of electricity is generated from nuclear energy, which has been unaffected by high oil and coal prices, and its generating plants, much more modern than those in the UK, offset the problem of capacity shortfall. "

Hmm, so shutting down old plants and not building more leads to less electricity thus increasing the prices rather than an abundance of electricity driving down prices? Who could have imagined that?

We need to learn from their mistakes, we haven't built a new nuclear power plant in this country for over 20 years. Which means we're having to rely on more and more outdated equipment when we ought to be at the cutting edge of research, and working our way towards energy independence (or at least not such a lopsided dependency).

[phantom power]

2. The UK hung their hat on NG. They chose... poorly.

[JonQ]

3. Yeah

alternative forms of energy are a great supplement, but for a densely population nation with high energy demands they aren't going to completely replace the traditional sources any time soon. I don't think Britain has the rivers to rely heavily on hydro-electric, or vast sun drenched deserts for solar. So they need something a little more substantial. The french figured out that nuclear energy is cheap, safe and clean and they've done well by switching over to that. Hopefully this will be the catalyst Britain needs to make a similar switch.

[phantom power]

4. I cannot predict how people will make these choices.

One gloomy, but very plausible, scenario is that not much energy of any kind will be built. Economic collapse may suck the oxygen out of any major build-outs. It's a multi-trillion dollar problem no matter how you try to slice it, and looking around I don't see trillions of dollars. Mostly I see trillions of dollars evaporating.

The large up-front investment required to build a nuclear plant may induce people to buy wind turbines. If you have a few million dollars, you can buy a wind turbine. You can't buy 1/100 of a nuclear plant. That isn't the best possible deal, but it may be the deal people go for.

And, of course, there is always coal. It's cheap and readily available, at least in certain locations.

[kristopher]

15. You don't see it?

"It's a multi-trillion dollar problem no matter how you try to slice it, and looking around I don't see trillions of dollars."

How much money do you think is currently spent on energy in this country? That "trillions of dollars" you are referring to will be paid for just as current energy is paid for, by the revenue stream of those many trillions of dollars of energy purchases.

That is what public policy is all about - directing those streams of capital where they benefit society most. The dollars now spent support a system of declining energy returns and massive flight of capital overseas. We can't afford NOT to shift our energy infrastructure if we are to have any hope of getting ourselves out of this mess.

[phantom power]

16. I agree that hopefully we'll see a Keynesian economic approach.

I'm not seeing that kind of narrative being used by our fearless leaders. So far, the narrative has been "The govt will have to tighten its belt." Hopefully a Democratic president might change that narrative once in office.

I've advocated a sort of "neo-CCC" approach to rebuilding energy infrastructure for several years, but as with all my opinions and proposals, I try to remember that nobody important cares about the opinions of an anonymous guy on the internet with a username that sounds like a B-list superhero. But I can always dream.

[wtmusic]

17. IMO that's an excellent proposal.

An Obama admin may need something akin to that to pay our way out of the coming Depression. :thumbsup:

[kristopher]

5. Nuclear is "cheap"? You don't know what you're talking about.

[JonQ]

8. Why yes, yes it is

When you include all the factors involved nuclear comes out as the cheaper option. Wind farms are only applicable at certain places and certain times, same for solar with the added bonus of consuming large tracts of land. Coal is going to be the cheapest (and diesel somewhere close) but with a huge enviromental impact. If you take in to account the amount of land that must be given up, the ability to increase production to meet needs, pollution emissions, and our ability to keep it running for the forseeable future nuclear easily comes out ahead.

Sorry, but you can't maintain a modern industrialized civilization on windmills and solar panels, useful as they may be. Now if we were to wipe out a good chunk of our population, or drop down to a much lower standard of living, say something closer to a pre-industrial society then we could do it quite easily. But those aren't really viable options. We need something consistent, that can increase with our demands. Wind, solar and hydro will all hit a limit that cannot be surpassed at some point, coal is too dirty, and gas will run out eventually. So until we figure out how to make fusion economical that leaves us with one realistic alternative.

[bananas]

9. No, wind is cheaper and comes online faster

and by the time new nuclear plants come online, solar will be cheaper than nuclear.
T. Boone Pickens is making lots of money with his wind farms,
Warren Buffett spent $13 million on a new nuclear plant before realizing it was a waste of money.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0128-09.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 28, 2008
4:01 PM
CONTACT: Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)
Michael Mariotte 301-270-6477

NIRS Statement on Cancellation of Idaho Nuclear Reactor


TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND - January 28 - Today, MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company announced that it is cancelling its plans to build a new nuclear reactor in Payette County, Idaho.

The company cited the poor economics of nuclear power for its decision, saying that its “due diligence process has led to the conclusion that it does not make economic sense to pursue the project at this time.”

MidAmerican was planning on Warren Buffett’s Berkshire/Hathaway company to provide major financing for the project. Buffett is a major owner of MidAmerican.

Which leads NIRS to the obvious conclusion: if Warren Buffett cannot figure out how to make money from a new nuclear reactor, who can?

“This cancellation is the first of the new nuclear era,” said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, “but it won’t be the last. Even before any new nuclear construction has begun in the U.S., cost estimates have skyrocketed and are now 300-400% higher than the industry was saying just two or three years ago.”

“The extraordinary costs of nuclear power, coupled with its irresolvable safety and radioactive waste problems, killed the first generation of reactors, and are going to end this second generation as well. But it would be tragedy if the U.S. wasted any money on new reactors, when resources are so desperately needed to implement the safer, cheaper, faster, and sustainable energy sources needed to address the climate crisis,” Mariotte added.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonQ]

14. Wind is cheaper

where it can be applied. A nuclear plant can be put anywhere you have the space. And wind farm can only be put in areas with high sustained wind (otherwise it's not a viable option) and those areas are limited. They also don't provide nearly the power output for a comparable amount of land as a nuke site, while taking up quite a lot of room. And yes you can use the land for grazing animals or farming, but you can't put it anywhere near a residential (as recent NIMBY protests have shown).

[kristopher]

18. Actually you can't

You also need a large supply of water and a population willing to host it. You are actually speaking to the fact that the energy carrier is portable - uranium fuel. So are coal and oil. When discussing energy generation, this allows the unequal distribution of externalities where environmental harm and risks are disproportionately placed on the poor and politically impotent.

There are two different development scenarios - one in a nation/region with a well established grid, and the other in developing nations where there is no grid. In both cases your argument fails, In nations where there is a grid, the energy derived from renewable (be it wind, solar or other) is portable in that it can be moved over the grid. So, while the area where it is specifically collected may be remote (offshore wind in the midAtlantic region is close to load centers) it can cost effectively be harvested and transported via the grid. Does it require some grid expansion? Sure it does, but MOST of the grid infrastructure is already ready in place. When all costs over time are considered using todays numbers for both energy sources, nuclear is already more expensive and is expected to continue to increase in price over time as fuel issues develop. Renewables, on the other hand, are expected to continue to decline in price from where they are now.

In the case of a country without a grid, the idea of nuclear power is simply too preposterous to justify more than a bellylaugh.

[TheWraith]

19. Um, no, that's not really true.

They've been predicting dirt-cheap solar power for decades now. It's never happened because there's only so much energy you can squeeze out of a solar panel.

Wind and nuclear both have about the same production cost, 4 cents per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear has a higher front-end cost to build the plant, but it operates 24 hours a day at maximum capacity, while wind turbines need to be massively over-built in order to supply constant power. They both have their roles, but pretending that a windmill beats a nuclear plant just isn't accurate.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[excess_3]

6. the UK is winning the race

to be first to destroy their economy

[phantom power]

7. I think we're giving them a run for their money, don't you?