Nuclear and gas blow outs show where the dumb money is

[kristopher]

Nuclear and gas blow outs show where the dumb money is
The smart money is on energy efficiency and renewables yet a government terrified of "backing winners" appears happy to back the nuclear, oil and gas losers

Follow the money: in the billion-dollar world of the energy business that is good advice. So what do the collapse of a quarter of the UK's new nuclear power plans and the gas still billowing dangerously from Total's Elgin rig in the North Sea tell us about keeping the lights on and tackling climate change at a price we can afford?

It tells us first that, despite decades of lavish public subsidy, nuclear power remains uninvestable without heavy state backing. And second it tells us that even "safe" gas and oil fields pose serious risks, making the race to the ends of the Earth and the depths of the oceans for new fields a true fool's errand.

E.on and RWE are huge, blue-chip multinationals, yet see nuclear as too big a gamble and that's despite the substantial subsidy it would enjoy in the UK, alongside other low-carbon energy projects. When the free-marketeers at the Economist damn nuclear power as the "dream that failed", you know you're in trouble.

But that trouble may not just afflict the companies, but all of us who pay for energy. The French state-controlled giant, EDF, looks well-placed for a nuclear monopoly in the UK, and don't forget it already has its own employees working right in the heart of government. As ministers found with the bungled attempt to get carbon capture and storage (CCS) off the ground, having one bidder for a contract leads either to failure or a fleecing.

Energy minister Charles Hendry sought to blame the German government's abandoning of nuclear power, given that ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/mar/30/nuclear-energy-gas-climate

[NickB79]

1. Agreed. Only fools support continued use of natural gas

Right?

[kristopher]

2. Is that what you think the article is saying?

I'm pretty sure the point is that all policy emphasis should be on promoting renewables and energy efficiency, while ceasing to prop up or promote nuclear and all fossil fuels.

I completely agree with that. Do you?

[kristopher]

3. Nuclear, the the fuel of the past, and the waste of the future.

This reply in the comments section is worth attention. UnderminingOrthodoxy is responding to debaser66, who parrots a series of nuclear industry talking points that DUers are all too familiar with; safe, low waste, baseload, no other options to coal, massive storage needed for renewables etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/mar/30/nuclear-energy-gas-climate

As an engineer, I beg to differ with your analysis.

You might want to take a look at the build standards of the flagship EPR's.
A litany of low bid engineering incompetence, serial failures of oversight of contractors, abysmal quality control and flawed safety design. Aside from those minor reservations, I am overjoyed that EDF will be building ours.

Olkiluoto 3 (Areva's first plant)
In May 2006 construction delays of about one year were announced, following quality control problems across the construction. In part the delays were due to the lack of oversight of subcontractors inexperienced in nuclear construction.
...
At the end of June 2007 it was reported that Säteilyturvakeskus, the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, had found a number of safety-related design and manufacturing 'deficiencies'.
...
In June 2010 Areva announced € 400 million of further provisions, taking the cost overrun to € 2.7 billion. The timescale slipped to the end of 2012 from June 2012,[31] with operation set to start in 2013.[32] In December 2011 TVO announced a further delay to August 2014.

Flamanville 3 (EDF's first plant)
In May 2009 Professor Stephen Thomas reported that after 18 months of construction and after a series of quality control problems,
...
In April 2008 the French nuclear safety agency (Autorité de sûreté nucléaire, ASN) reported that a quarter of the welds inspected in the secondary containment steel liner are not in accordance with norms, and that cracks have been found in the concrete base.
...
In August 2010 the regulator, ASN, reported further welding problems on the secondary containment steel liner.

Essentially, the reason that those problems arose is that nuclear is bankrupt. Under severe pressure from maintaining the pretense that it can be done without massive public subsidies, corners are cut systematically. We can't have cheap and safe.
Scrimp this far on the construction, and we do not even get cheap and cheap, due to the necessary rework.
To make it look feasible, the bids are unrealistically low, and the emerging costs rapidly escalate.

Nuclear, the the fuel of the past, and the waste of the future.