Speculation on government motivations for nuclear can easily get into tin-foil hat territory but two points I've seen raised:

a) Perhaps part of the enthusiasm for the Chinese bit of the deal is a chance to get George's mates in the city some access to the Chinese financial markets. They're not bothered if electricity prices go up as a consequence.

b) As DJH hints there may well be a military aspect: probably not anything directly on site (“play inside sealed domes”) but more a matter of a having a trained industry to recruit from, a market for nuclear related equipment and instrumentation to buy from and so on.

Posted By: an02ew
well at least the infrastructure has kindly been put in by EDF ready for something better than nuclear

They could always revive the rejected wind farm proposals - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4379346.stm

Really is a slow death by a thousand cuts.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bec7189e-f64e-11e5-96db-fc683b5e52db.html

Posted By: SteamyTeaReally is a slow death by a thousand cuts.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bec7189e-f64e-11e5-96db-fc683b5e52db.html

Paywalled

.... So what's new....?

As far as i can tell the problem for EDF stems from the fact that they are faced with having to overhaul Frances existing nuclear facilities which date from the 70s and are in need of replacement. The capital expenditure that will be required is absolutely huge. Costs of decommissioning and building several new reactors, without even getting into the issue of what to do with years of waste. Up until recently nuclear waste was dumped into the sea off of Brittany.

EDF is already in debt to the tune of billions. The reactor that they developed and hoped to market around the world has technical problems that havnt been ironed out yet requiring aditional research and development costs. All this makes for very uncertain times cash flow wise.



At the same time EDF is keen to develop overseas buisness to generate revenue. But the capital expenditures and risks are massive. Hence the involvement of the cash rich Chinese.

The latest protest was made by a boardroom representative of the nuclear workers union who are concerned that EDF is taking on too much with the risk that EDF could find itself in serious financial difficulties and that jobs will be lost.

Wont happen. French unions still hold a lot of power in France and wouldnt allow it, at least on French soil.

This is part of the problem for EDF, they cant just out source work to reduce costs in the same way a private company could.

Looking at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/ by my calculations nuclear without fast breeders or sea-water extraction but allowing the other multipliers they mention would supply the world's population with European levels of power (about 5 kW per person) for 8.3 years.

Been wondering about this for a while but this is a first attempt to look into the matter so there's probably more to it all. SA is a pretty reasonable source to start with, though, I think.

That's why it's interesting that China is investing heavily in both breeder reactor and alternative fuel research.

But again, its about cash flow finanace. Those wind farm projects are being bank rolled by some of the largest corporations on the planet that have more money than most countries have revenue.

Posted By: wookey

Given how many years behind and how many billions over budget Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 are, the government must be out of their tiny minds if they really think Hinkley C is a good idea.

That's rather ignoring the later-started Taisan 1 & 2 builds which passed cold tests a few months ago and are expected to be running next year. i.e there is reason to believe that you can build EPRs in a sensible period of time, albeit it is an expensive design, but the only one currently licensed for the UK.

Perhaps, but reactors being built in the EU rather than China seem as though they might be better analogues of Hinkley Point.

Ed

Posted By: wookeyOn the one hand it might illustrate the effects of experience. The 3rd and 4th builds took advantage of the experience from builds 1 and 2. In which case build 5 might go reasonably well too.

On the other it might just be that the Finns/French inspectors are careful/unreasonable whilst the Chinese inspectors are sloppy/fair (choose your adjectives by paranoia level). In that case the EU examples could indeed be a better guide, although the learning from builds 1 & 2 should still apply.

Certainly not looking good for safe nuclear in China.

Seems there is another problem now:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc1c57ce-08bc-11e6-a623-b84d06a39ec2.html

Posted By: wookeyDeaths per TWh:

Coal (china): 278
Coal (worldwide): 161
Nuclear: 0.04

Would look very different, for better or worse, if future deaths resulting from present TWhs were to be calculated over e.g the time it takes for nuclear waste to become 'safe'.

Posted By: SteamyTeaOn that argument you should take past deaths into account too.

Not necessarily if you're planning the best path for the future. Historical accident rates were higher, so would need discounting to make sensible predictions for the future.