Hinkley Point poll

[kevinchess1]

As HP gets delayed again what's your thoughts?

[blythburgh]

Against, the cost of electricity for us all due to the building of it. The involvement of the Chinese in such a vital resource to the country. What do we do with the waste it produces. What about the cost of dismantling it that we are leaving to the following generations.

But we do need to get some more energy capacity into our system.

On the other hand we could use less electricity,.

More houses being built that are truly environmentally friendly would help. People turning off unused electricity would help, you do not need your TV on stand by, you do not need to leave your recharge plugs (phones etc) plugged in when you are not actually recharging. Replacing your lights with environmentally friendly ones like LED. Councils replacing street lights with LED ones, less cost her hour to run and more light with less light pollution. (Part of our road has had then replaced and the difference in lighting is amazing). All of these things would mean using less electricity and saving money.

It never ceases to amaze me the way people waste money on electricity. A neighbour told me her son in law told his wife she must stop using the washing machine so much the last time power prices rose. if any member of the household takes off an item of clothing it has to be washed that day. The fact she only wore the outfit to work for a couple of hours meant it had to be washed. No waiting for a full load but washed immediately. Why boil a kettle full of water for a cuppa? I measure out the water into our mugs and boil that. But a lot of people just put water in the kettle which is boiled and not used.

[Sarah]

Yes to more power stations (lecturing the population on saving energy isn't going to stop the lights going off).
Yes to nuclear power (can't really beat/avoid it).

Don't know about Hinkley Point specifically, it sounds expensive and risky, yet once again there seems to be no Plan B? So the only options might to be agreeing to it, attempting to renegotiate on price and/or the govt replacing the Chinese stake (that's around £7 billion IIRC, a huge investment, although we live in times where almost any amount is dwarfed by the size of the UK's spend on welfare, so it can be increasingly difficult to maintain proper perspective rather than treat public spending as a bottomless pit).

[blythburgh]

Yes to more power stations (lecturing the population on saving energy isn't going to stop the lights going off).
Yes to nuclear power (can't really beat/avoid it).

Don't know about Hinkley Point specifically, it sounds expensive and risky, yet once again there seems to be no Plan B? So the only options might to be agreeing to it, attempting to renegotiate on price and/or the govt replacing the Chinese stake (that's around £7 billion IIRC, a huge investment, although we live in times where almost any amount is dwarfed by the size of the UK's spend on welfare, so it can be increasingly difficult to maintain proper perspective rather than treat public spending as a bottomless pit).

And do not forget Welfare includes pension, working tax credits and child benefit not just payments to the unemployed, disabled etc.

If I could work out how to do it without it costing almost or even more than the savings I would say no free TV licence (for the over 75), heating allowance, free bus etc to those who pay the higher rate tax at the very least. But sadly mean testing these things would be so expensive and the fury of the rich pensioners means no Govt. would dare do it.

Oh forgot, the Govt. moved the cost of free TV licences to the BBC licence which means that if the cost of the world service was not enough the Beeb must save even more money. And he result is surely less decent but expensive programmes and more el cheapo ones and more repeats.

I agree lecturing people about the cost of not turning things off is pretty useless. Why people are prepared to pay for electricity they are not benefiting from beats me but then we cannot afford to chuck money away. I doubt if many who have an unnecessarily high power bill can afford to waste money either but they still do. I will never understand people. Not whiter than white in all areas myself of course.

[expressman33]

why not go for the cheaper and more environmentally friendly option of the smaller nuclear reactors that reuse the waste from the larger reactors or even "mini-nuclear reactors" https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nge-crisis

[Chadwick]

I'm not against nuclear power in principle. I think it's a cleaner, more efficient, and more sustainable means of electricity production than burning fossil fuels and with more capacity, control and reliability than most of the 'green' alternatives.

However, it carries the most risk if something does go wrong, and therefore the infrastructure and ongoing maintenance and operation costs will be high. Done right, it's fine. Done wrong, it's Chernobyl.

I've not read everything about Hinkley, but there seem to be some question marks over the waste disposal and funding. For that reason I am currently in the "No" camp, until these are resolved.

[macliam]

I'm conflicted.

Nuclear power is definitely in the "A dog's not just for Christmas" camp.... on the one hand it's relatively "clean" at the point of generation, but the costs of construction and long-term maintenance make the equation less palatable and with the added security risks, moreso. However, one of the beneifits of Nuclear was the supposed "too cheap to meter" cost per unit - and these latest reactors have an agreed cost point way in excess of even green energy production. So it seems to be a bad deal in that way.

I'm also no huge advocate of green power at present, because of cost and visual impact - but there is no doubt that it can work and will get more efficient. In May, Portugal ran for 4 consecutive days exclusivrly on green power ...... and most of that was hydro and wind, rather than solar - so the sunshine had less to do with it than you might assume. Of course, it's a much smaller country with less usage - plus the fact that the need to import electricity gave it a huge spur - but it's still some achievement.

My concern is that, once a nuclear deal is signed, the UK government would sit back and ignore other options - so a long-term energy plan is vital. Once that's in place, decisions would be less one-off.

[Chadwick]

one of the beneifits of Nuclear was the supposed "too cheap to meter" cost per unit - and these latest reactors have an agreed cost point way in excess of even green energy production. So it seems to be a bad deal in that way.

Yes, I knew there was another point bothering me! It seems Hinkley C will be used to generate expensive electricity. Granted, fossil fuels are expensive in other ways (arguably more expensive), but this is still another negative aspect of the Hinkley C question.

I expect the reality is far more complex than that, but that's my opinion based on what I know. I hope to be corrected.

[1960mackem]

If it was proven technology then I'd go for it - EDF haven't got this new system working yet - could be a very expensive guinea pig, not sure the french would like it if it was the other way round.