navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hitachi's share price and the future of the Wylfa nuclear plant  (Read 1704 times)
dan_b
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3870


WWW
« on: January 11, 2019, 09:56:11 AM »

Hitachi's share price on the Japanese stock market has gone up 9% today so far based on a leaked story that it is expected to pull out of the Wylfa new nuclear build...



« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 02:37:42 PM by dan_b » Logged

3.06kWp SolarEdge system with a split array:
2.18kWp 10x South facing, plus 4x West facing 880W

Mk1 ImmerSUN DHW diverter
4kW PowerVault Battery
dan_b
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3870


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2019, 02:37:13 PM »

Now the story has broken in the mainstream press - Hitachi to cancel Wylfa new nuclear plant.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/11/hitachi-cancel-plans-nuclear-power-station-angelsey-wales

Logged

3.06kWp SolarEdge system with a split array:
2.18kWp 10x South facing, plus 4x West facing 880W

Mk1 ImmerSUN DHW diverter
4kW PowerVault Battery
dimengineer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2271


« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2019, 08:16:04 PM »

I find it sad - But I do recognise there will be many here dont agree with me.

I reckon there were 2 major issues - 1) The costs are so large for a single unit, and so long term, it really has to be government built or financed (in some shape or form) 2) As we dont need many of them, the idea of having 5 or 6 consortia building 3 or 4 different designs is bonkers.
The French, Koreans and Japanese all managed to really make it work. Avoiding both 1) and 2).
Logged

21 tube Kloben Panel/250L Megaflow, 1.68kWp Solar PV - 7 x 240W Sanyo Panels. Morso Squirrel WBS
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5003



« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2019, 07:27:57 AM »

The French, Koreans and Japanese all managed to really make it work. Avoiding both 1) and 2).

Three countries that have decided to turn away from, or ramp down their future nuclear deployments, largely on economic grounds v's RE. Then there's the US with more reactors than any other country, which is closing some existing reactors early, and cancelled 50% of new builds (2 out of 4) already for economic reasons.

"The stone-age didn't end because we ran out of stones."
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
dimengineer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2271


« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2019, 10:46:37 AM »

The French, Koreans and Japanese all managed to really make it work. Avoiding both 1) and 2).

Three countries that have decided to turn away from, or ramp down their future nuclear deployments, largely on economic grounds v's RE. Then there's the US with more reactors than any other country, which is closing some existing reactors early, and cancelled 50% of new builds (2 out of 4) already for economic reasons.

"The stone-age didn't end because we ran out of stones."

I know. Still sad though (for me). A terrific technology slowly slipping away.
Logged

21 tube Kloben Panel/250L Megaflow, 1.68kWp Solar PV - 7 x 240W Sanyo Panels. Morso Squirrel WBS
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5003



« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2019, 08:51:22 AM »

The French, Koreans and Japanese all managed to really make it work. Avoiding both 1) and 2).

Three countries that have decided to turn away from, or ramp down their future nuclear deployments, largely on economic grounds v's RE. Then there's the US with more reactors than any other country, which is closing some existing reactors early, and cancelled 50% of new builds (2 out of 4) already for economic reasons.

"The stone-age didn't end because we ran out of stones."

I know. Still sad though (for me). A terrific technology slowly slipping away.

Yes, the technology would have been very beneficial if it had reduced coal gen from about 30yrs ago.

But, and it's a big BUT, you said that those countries had made it work, and suggested that the solution was for state support and a single design. Well, I'd suggest that your claim is untrue. France has utilised that policy, has the largest amount of nuclear generation (as a %) of any country, and yet they seem to be coming to the exact opposite conclusion of what you suggested:

France Would Save $44.5 Billion by Betting on Renewable Energy, Agency Says

Quote
France will save 39 billion euros ($44.5 billion) if it refrains from building 15 new nuclear plants by 2060, and bets instead on renewable energy sources to replace its all its aging atomic facilities, a government agency said.

France should spend 1.28 trillion euros over the next four decades, mostly on clean power production and storage capacities, networks, and imports, according to a report from the countryís environment ministry. If it does this, France would progressively shut down its 58 atomic plants and renewable energy would comprise 95 percent of its electricity output by 2060, up from 17 percent last year.

I appreciate that you are a big supporter of nuclear generation, but are you sure that your claims and statements still match the facts? Things have changed massively from the start of this decade, more so since the middle as the economics completely shifted in favour of RE and away from nuclear, and have continued to do so at a pace.
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
dimengineer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2271


« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2019, 11:02:24 AM »

Mart, I'm not sure I'm actually claiming anything - Just expressing a personal sadness. When I say that France. Korea, Japan made it work - the accent is on the "Made" - past tense. I dont see any new nuclear being particularly successful right now.

It may well be game over for nuclear. And that will make me sad. Thats all.
Logged

21 tube Kloben Panel/250L Megaflow, 1.68kWp Solar PV - 7 x 240W Sanyo Panels. Morso Squirrel WBS
dan_b
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3870


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2019, 01:05:18 PM »

Seeing Concordeís demise made me very sad too, but in retrospect it probably was a good thing that commercial supersonic passenger flights was never a global success.
As with nuclear - I feel itís a shame if we lose the technology, but then if we can genuinely replace gas with wind and end up with a cleaner grid without nuclear itís probably the right thing
 
Logged

3.06kWp SolarEdge system with a split array:
2.18kWp 10x South facing, plus 4x West facing 880W

Mk1 ImmerSUN DHW diverter
4kW PowerVault Battery
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5003



« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2019, 04:22:22 PM »

Mart, I'm not sure I'm actually claiming anything - Just expressing a personal sadness. When I say that France. Korea, Japan made it work - the accent is on the "Made" - past tense. I dont see any new nuclear being particularly successful right now.

It may well be game over for nuclear. And that will make me sad. Thats all.

I agree that it's sad that the technology never got to work properly at the right time, but that's not my issue.

For as long as I've been a member on here you've tried to argue that nuclear could work. In this thread, whilst saying you are not claiming anything, you did actually claim:

Quote
I reckon there were 2 major issues - 1) The costs are so large for a single unit, and so long term, it really has to be government built or financed (in some shape or form) 2) As we dont need many of them, the idea of having 5 or 6 consortia building 3 or 4 different designs is bonkers.
The French, Koreans and Japanese all managed to really make it work. Avoiding both 1) and 2).

I'm not convinced that claim is true, whether it's read as meaning in the past, or going forward. Old nuclear has been far more costly and 'troublesome' than we might at first realise, be it the incidents of it going small b bang, and the amount of waste that needs to be managed ...... eventually ..... somehow ..... somewhere?

In the UK alone the NDA budget is around £3bn pa for approx the next century.

New nuclear ..... well, I think that's been answered. So have the French managed to "really make it work" as you claimed?

I'm sorry if my pushback on your claim seems harsh, but I believe the facts are against you, including your claim - that you didn't make a claim.
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
dimengineer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2271


« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2019, 08:41:44 PM »

Mart, thats a bit rude, but I'll let it pass.

However, In what way did the French, with 70+ reactors, producing 90% of their electricity, "not make it work"? It seems an absurd claim.

You dont have to answer, as this is a dead end, with 2 totally different viewpoints. I won't reply.
Logged

21 tube Kloben Panel/250L Megaflow, 1.68kWp Solar PV - 7 x 240W Sanyo Panels. Morso Squirrel WBS
RIT
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1940


« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2019, 10:23:34 PM »

However, In what way did the French, with 70+ reactors, producing 90% of their electricity, "not make it work"? It seems an absurd claim.

It's a 2 sided issue, firstly they did make it work as in 2016 nuclear power was 72% of their total generation (not 90%*). The other side is the at what cost issue, as their nuclear power is state owned the level of support is unknown.

France did what it needed to do, it is not like they had the choice 40 years ago to switch part of their power generation to use the large natural gas reserves that they found in their domain, unlike the UK. The key thing is that even they are moving away from nuclear as they currently have in law a target of only 50% of electricity to generated by nuclear by 2035. This is a major change as the original plans behind the deployment of the European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) at Flamanville back in 2005 was to then build about 40 of them in total. So in under 15 years, they have gone from building about 40 new stations to closing many of the current stations by 2035.

     http: //www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx


** The 90% figure may have come from the fact that in France, 90% of EDF electricity generation comes from nuclear.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 12:26:06 AM by RIT » Logged

2.4kW PV system, output can be seen at  - https://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?userid=49083

Why bother? - well, there is no planet B
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5003



« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2019, 07:43:29 AM »

Mart, thats a bit rude, but I'll let it pass.

However, In what way did the French, with 70+ reactors, producing 90% of their electricity, "not make it work"? It seems an absurd claim.

You dont have to answer, as this is a dead end, with 2 totally different viewpoints. I won't reply.

Sorry, not rude at all to respond with facts even if you don't like them. You made a claim and I provided information to suggest it wasn't true. If it was a financially viable solution, then one of the countries you referenced as evidence to support your claim, would not be considering the exact opposite regarding its economical viability.

You then made a claim that you hadn't made a claim, and I quoted your 'claim' to show you had.

You've now claimed that it worked because it generated 90% of their leccy - but did it 'work', that's to say, was it done economically? Is the technology sustainable going forward?

EDF facing bankruptcy as decommissioning time for France's ageing nuclear fleet nears

I appreciate that you don't like me pushing back against your nuclear support, but I don't see why that's not allowed. Is it not allowed? Was it not expected when you posted your claim? One thing I have noticed on other forums is that those that promote/defend nuclear get 'upset' when pushback occurs - but if we don't discuss the matter and consider the facts and figures that are out there, then we won't learn anything and the same old claims about nuclear will be posted ad infinitum and may mislead.
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
stannn
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5035



« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2019, 01:54:32 PM »

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/17/hitachi-set-to-scrap-16bn-nuclear-project-anglesey-wales
Logged

2.45 kWp PV (Navitron supply), 40 evacuated tubes (Navitron supply), Clearview 650 log burner with back-boiler heating cottage and water, 2 off 50W border collies, 1 off 35W cat, 1 off 25W cat.
pdf27
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677


« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2019, 08:01:39 PM »

Mart, thats a bit rude, but I'll let it pass.

However, In what way did the French, with 70+ reactors, producing 90% of their electricity, "not make it work"? It seems an absurd claim.

You dont have to answer, as this is a dead end, with 2 totally different viewpoints. I won't reply.

Sorry, not rude at all to respond with facts even if you don't like them. You made a claim and I provided information to suggest it wasn't true. If it was a financially viable solution, then one of the countries you referenced as evidence to support your claim, would not be considering the exact opposite regarding its economical viability.

You then made a claim that you hadn't made a claim, and I quoted your 'claim' to show you had.

You've now claimed that it worked because it generated 90% of their leccy - but did it 'work', that's to say, was it done economically? Is the technology sustainable going forward?

EDF facing bankruptcy as decommissioning time for France's ageing nuclear fleet nears

I appreciate that you don't like me pushing back against your nuclear support, but I don't see why that's not allowed. Is it not allowed? Was it not expected when you posted your claim? One thing I have noticed on other forums is that those that promote/defend nuclear get 'upset' when pushback occurs - but if we don't discuss the matter and consider the facts and figures that are out there, then we won't learn anything and the same old claims about nuclear will be posted ad infinitum and may mislead.
I think a lot of the problems the French have had with the EPR is simply one of time - only 2 reactors started work between 1984 and 2007 when they started work at Flamanville, and there was a 5 year gap between when the last reactor being built (Civaux 2) entered commercial operation and the start of the new EPR. That's an awfully long time to keep people on gardening leave, and a hell of a lot of perishable skills will have been lost. One of the fundamental economic problems with nuclear is that the high safety standards and construction costs drive you to build very big reactors - of which you don't need very many, so there isn't much opportunity to learn how to do them better and as such you never get to move down the cost curve as you find out how to actually build it. In the 1970s and 80s the French were building a lot of reactors, so learnt how do do them well and they will have been pretty cheap. Once they stopped building lots of new reactors - because they didn't need the power any more - the wheels started to come off the economic model.
Logged
RIT
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1940


« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2019, 08:20:13 PM »

I think a lot of the problems the French have had with the EPR is simply one of time - only 2 reactors started work between 1984 and 2007 when they started work at Flamanville, and there was a 5 year gap between when the last reactor being built (Civaux 2) entered commercial operation and the start of the new EPR. That's an awfully long time to keep people on gardening leave, and a hell of a lot of perishable skills will have been lost. One of the fundamental economic problems with nuclear is that the high safety standards and construction costs drive you to build very big reactors - of which you don't need very many, so there isn't much opportunity to learn how to do them better and as such you never get to move down the cost curve as you find out how to actually build it. In the 1970s and 80s the French were building a lot of reactors, so learnt how do do them well and they will have been pretty cheap. Once they stopped building lots of new reactors - because they didn't need the power any more - the wheels started to come off the economic model.

The French started very much with the same plan as the UK talked about when HPC was first planned. Get one built and then build a lot more. For France, the original plan was 20 sites/40 reactors, but the plans have since changed. The UK government did not seem to be planning, instead, the Conservatives just wanted nuclear and the LibDems just wanted their PR referendum.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 08:29:32 PM by RIT » Logged

2.4kW PV system, output can be seen at  - https://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?userid=49083

Why bother? - well, there is no planet B
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!