Hinkley Point C - Oh Deary Me | Fully Charged

[@TodayIFoundOut]

The Three Mile Island incident was wildly sensationalized. It led to no deaths and no injuries to plant workers or the nearby community. It was still rated a level 5 on the INES, even though it really should have just been rated a level 2. If you camped out at the plant at Three Mile Island during the accident that happened there in 1979, you’d have received only an additional 80 millirems of exposure during the duration of the accident. For reference, if you’ve ever had your spine x-rayed, you’d have received about double that just during the few seconds of the x-ray. If you were around ten miles away from the reactor during the accident, you’d have received about 8 millirems or about the equivalent ionizing radiation of eating 800 bananas, which are naturally radioactive. There are no known deaths/cancers/etc. that resulted from the Three Mile Island accident. Public reaction to Three Mile Island went extremely overboard from what the actual event warranted. This was largely due to misinformation in the press; misunderstanding of ionizing radiation among the general public; and the fact that, not 12 days before it happened, the movie The China Syndrome was released. The plot of the movie was how unsafe nuclear reactors were and just about everyone in the movie but one of the main characters was trying to cover it up. The China Syndrome movie title’s concept comes from the premise that if an American nuclear reactor core were to melt down, it would melt through the center of the Earth to China. Getting around the fact that it is actually the Indian Ocean that is on the opposite side of the Earth from the U.S., not China, and the obvious problems with the “melt through the Earth” premise, it couldn’t have been a better timed movie as far as free advertisement through the press due to the Three Mile Island incident. The movie was nominated for several academy awards, including best actress by Jane Fonda.

[@psikogeek]

Indeed, the blundering speaker thinks ( 0:56 ) that Three Mile Island was "utterly catastrophic" and "horrendous the damage they caused to the environment" after botching the location of Chernobyl. I stop listening at that point. If the planners of Hincley Point only pay that little attention to facts, then England might be in danger.

[@jfbeam]

The plot of the movie was that _THAT_ reactor was unsafe due any number of cost and time saving shortcuts that were taken in it's construction. (which could, and perhaps _has_, happened in reality.) TMI was a catastrophe; we're lucky it didn't reach the proportions of Chernobyl or Fukushima. And they explained the title during the movie. At the time, that _was_ what the industry called it. "Of course, as soon as it hits ground water, it'll flash boil into the atmosphere."

[@psikogeek]

The "Chunnel" project was "utterly catastrophic" and caused humanity to lose the use of writing and the wheel.

Just shut up you pathetic uneducated filth.

[@fmc6338]

alright then how about you host some nuclear waste in your back yard.

[@jongun65]

Oh Deary Me this hasn't aged well. Strike price of 92.50 is now dirt cheap. Wind power running at 40% duty cycle is EUR 3/W, i.e. your GBP 18B gets ~6GW nameplate, = 2.5GW continuous then you have storage, storage losses, extra transmission etc with higher capital cost than the wind. And the nuclear disasters killed almost no one compared to the massive loss of life every year due to coal.

[@jonb5493]

Ha LOL many years later - none of us have aged well, and especially your comment hasn't!?! Large nuclear reactors Hinckley etc. continue to expand their budgets and completion deadlines indefinitely. This tec has hit its dead-end.

[@Marks-Garage]

Funny how things change, when this video was made the price per KWH looked excessive. Now it looks like a bargain

[@Pato203X]

Yep, the video did not age well.

[@TheSaltyAdmiral]

I agree that nuclear is much safer that the unfair criticism it gets, and it is definitely better than all other polluting sources. However, 6 thing that is often conveniently overlooked when talking about the pros of nuclear: 1. *The close calls.* Actual catastrophes are few yes, but you really have to also consider about how many near accidents there have been. Some of them came down to pure luck. And when it goes bad with nuclear, it's usually catastrophically bad. How many Chernobyls are too many? 2. *Scale.* Nuclear only provide around 10% of our global energy generation. If this were to be a serious solution to our problem, then we would need to massively scale up production, and with that, we also have to count in proportionally more accidents, of the catastrophic kind. And it would also make #3(waste) much worse. 3. *Waste*, yes we have safe storage spaces for now...but is it generally a good long term solution to start accumulating massive amounts of toxic waste we don't know what to do with? 4. *Cost effectiveness*. It is my understanding that a nuclear power plant is actually not very cost effective at all, when you take into account its entire cycle. It's very cost effective at peak production true, but it takes forever to get rid of them, and they remain a huge expense long after their lifetime. 5. *World stability*. If this is to truly be a solution, it needs to be adopted in far more dodgy corners of the world too. It's easy to say that nuclear is safe in a rich, stable, western nation. But how safe would it be in a nation that is struggling financially or have massive corruption? Not to mention violent conflicts. If you have to abandon a solar farm...not much will happen, nothing actually... but if you have to abandon a nuclear power plant? How long does it stay safe? The point is, do you really want to build a nuclear power plant in a nation you can't predict the future for at least a generation to come? 6. *Better solution is ready*. Why are we discussing how to solve a problem with the 2nd best solution, when we have the best solution ready to deploy? The last point is really what drives me crazy with the nuclear debate. Yes it works, yes it's relatively safe and bla bla we know! It's just that you are 2 decades too late, we are already solving it in a record pace today, without nuclear at all. And there are absolutely no huge risks with renewable energies, ok fine hydroelectric dams does have some environmental issues...but that's about it. I guess this discussion give me the same burning question as the FCEV vs BEV debate, no they are not bad...but: *_WHY!?_*? :)

[@ImprovedTruth]

I'm so glad to hear you're not opposed to Nuclear power on principle, but rather legitimate complaints on cost. It's a shame the Green party are anti-nuclear without basis, when there are many reasons that renewables are preferable.

[@Jemalacane0]

Renewable energy is not preferable to nuclear power. Intermittent energy will always be more expensive than reliable energy.

[@1862henry]

Same thing with the far left democrats in the US like Bernie, AOC and Warren

[@mattg5878]

Nuclear is classed as renewable

[@davidwilkie9551]

Opposition to Nuclear Power is approval to Nuclear Weapons and accompanying fossil fuel dependence on military intervention in unprotectable countries.

[@pootube4538]

"I'm so glad to hear you're not opposed to Nuclear power on principle, but rather legitimate complaints on cost." He's not. It's just His way of spinning the situation. Knowing full well that Nuclear is only expensive because uninformed anti-Nuclear freakout merchants made it that way. He also flatly claims that Wind Turbines don't produce waste. Which is a straight up lie.

[@DavidBeaumont]

Three Mile Island really wasn't a bad accident in terms of the amount of radiation that was released.

[@lagging_around]

Especially when comparing TMI with the Chernobyl desaster and the Fukushima accident. Both of those are a lot more severe than TMI. In fact, TMI's other cores continued operating after the meltdown.

[@jonathancobb]

Hi, 3GW of wind with storage wouldn't generate same amount of electricity as 3GW of nuclear, as 3GW is peak output. You would need about 9GW to generate same number of kWh. By your costs that's £15bn for wind turbines, and then add cost for storage, it is going to be more. The £92.5/kWh isn't the most expensive electricity. Higher prices have been agreed for offshore wind and solar through the CfDs (Contracts for difference) that are guaranteeing the price. Plus those strike prices fix what we the customer will pay, whatever the cost of the plant. I support all the above, nuclear, wind and other renewables, plus storage, which will help us phase out fossil sooner.

[@davidpowell8249]

+Jonathan Cobb Agreed, it shouldn't be an argument of either/or between non-carbon renewables (wind/solar/tidal/hydro) and nuclear, with load following nuclear reactors they can be complimentary - which is great because they are both ultra-low lifecycle CO2eq emitters.

[@fullychargedshow]

+Jonathan Cobb Here's the problem with the graphics. My fail. I suggest we spend £5 billion on wind turbines which would produce 5GW peak, (these numbers are all rough estimates by the way, although I spoke with numerous engineers in the business) The 3GW was the suggested reliable feed, you say 9GW, I'm not going to claim to be that certain of either figure. Widely distributed community and domestic storage would cost nowhere near the remaining £13 billion and here's the most important point. If Hinkley goes ahead, no way will it cost £18 billion, more like £28 billion by many estimates coming out of EDF. Now, the strike price is, I will readily admit, a nightmare to understand, let along explain to mere mortals. I do know that some off shore wind farms have a higher strike price, but according to all the figures I could find, the actual cost is enormously lower, and continuing to fall. Onshore wind is now globally accepted as being the cheapest way to generate electricity, rapidly followed by solar. The cost of nuclear, particularly of the type and design being hashed together at Hinkley is patently economically absurd.

[@jonathancobb]

+fullychargedshow Many thanks for reply! Quoting sources - Renewables UK (hopefully fair on renewables) give capacity factors for on-shore wind of 25.74% and offshore of 34.88 GW. www.renewableuk.com/en/renewable-energy/wind-energy/uk-wind-energy-database/figures-explained.cfm Modern nuclear would aim for 90% (they may be "24/7" but they need to stop for refuelling and maintenance). So a 3 GW nuclear plant would produce 23.6 TWh (billion kWh) in a year. 5 GW of onshore wind would produce 11.3 TWh 5 GW of offshore wind would produce 15.3 TWh To produce same electricity in a year as 3 GW nuclear you 10.1 GW onshore wind or 7.6 GW offshore. My 9GW was a rough average between the two. Not sure which figure the £5 billion is - on or offshore, but if offshore (the more expensive) then £5bn for 5 GW means you actually need £10 bn for the 10 GW of wind turbines to get the same amount of electricity as Hinkley - and then add in costs for storage. One more point on costs - modern nuclear plants are expected to have an operating life of at least 60 years. Wind turbines tend to be certified for 20-25 years, but 30 years is probable. So that £10 bn of wind would generate for around half the lifetime of Hinkley. Should one argue that those 30 years of Hinkley represent half its cost - £9bn (or £14Bn if you take your higher estimate) - okay, that might be pushing things a bit... but comparing costs of Hinkley to those of wind need to take into account not only storage, but whatever will need to be built in the likelihood that the wind turbines will be closing down before Hinkley. Hinkley is a massive amount of money for a massive amount of reliable power. No doubt nuclear needs to get cheaper if it is going to get to the 30% share of the mix projected for the UK, rather than the 7% Hinkley will supply. But Hinkley's not quite as bonkers as the video makes out.

[@xxwookey]

+Jonathan Cobb Thank you for providing some sensible numbers. People are determined to believe that wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear when it's not yet true even for Hinkley, a very expensive plant. And nearly everyone underestimates the cost of storage too, which is currently absolutely huge. Obviously it will come down, but we need factor-of-10 reductions to make renewable-only systems cheaper than nuclear+renewables. It's fine if people choose renewables-only _even though it'll cost more_. But if they choose it after being misled about the relative costs and reliability then we will have a problem eventually.

[@mikeseymour4608]

You can't put a price on the planet. We need to learn from mistakes not repeat them for profit

[@IamTheSherm]

The only real issue I take with this is the so-called nuclear "disasters" you mentioned at the start. Chernobyl was a poorly run, poorly built soviet station that would never happen anywhere in the western world. Fukashima was an outdated reactor that was damaged by an earthquake and tsunami. Three-Mile Island was hardly a disaster. The plant is still in use today. The President of the United States was on site the following day, nobody died, and 35 years after the fact, people are still studying to see if there were even any serious health issues. Very good video otherwise!

[@neddyladdy]

+IamTheSherm I can't recall the Fukashima reactor being damaged by the quake, but I certainly do recall the tsunami giving the power station a right going over. the tsunami wreaked havoc because some someone in their supreme wisdom decided that the recommended height of the sea walls was ridiculous.

[@fdk7014]

+IamTheSherm Fukushima in any case is a red herring. Nobody died from radiation exposure from the nuclear accident while over 15k people died from the Tsunami, yet Fukushima is what everyone is up in arms about! Sure, the cleanup turns out to be a little costly but still, Nuclear power has a far better track record than people realize.

[@neddyladdy]

FDK yet. Nobody died, yet.

[@fdk7014]

***** Well I'm sure everyone of them will die eventually

[@cjmillsnun]

Chernobyl was in use until recently (the last unit shut down in 2000). Just like at TMI one unit was damaged beyond repair. Although I agree there was a difference in that the design of the reactor was superior and that the containment by and large worked. However almost ALL nuclear power stations are outdated.

[@riggald9864]

The British AGR 2 designs are proven, relatively cheap to build, and produce electricity about ten times cheaper than Hinkley Point C (Torness currently produces at £9.90/MWh)

[@hirofox85]

I'm glad these videos are coming in again.

[@mattg5878]

“Rapidly emerging storage solutions” 4 years on from this statement, and still nothing. All the talk of how good it is might be rapid, but the science is nowhere near working.

[@anydaynow01]

Yep, and they say no waste, the toxic waste stream from renewables is a topic these folks glance over. Last time I checked solar panels, batteries and wind turbines don't grow on trees and they definitely have a much shorter life span than a fission power station. Then there is the problem of what to do with them at the end of their life, literally square kms worth of waste for an industrial scale renewable power station with it's battery backup. Recycling? Nope, we can't even recycle simple paper and plastic in meaningful quantities or economically.

[@mattg5878]

@@anydaynow01 batteries are "recycled" by incineration. Typical spin

[@jonb5493]

@@anydaynow01 Nope, renewables "toxic waste stream" is not a problem, but is rather a series of many red-herrings. Let's look at the most popular: "wind-turbine blades cannot be disposed of". In fact, all wind-turbine blades can be used for creating energy islands in the North Sea. Pity we don't have enough of them! Next, lithium batteries. There's a proven path to recycle all of the precious metals etc.. I could go on and on. So, no-one is "glancing over" anything.

[@davidpowell8249]

Not technically the highest strike prices, as wind power has seen higher deals, though admittedly only fixed for 15 years (CPI linked), vs. Hinkley Point C's 35 years (CPI linked) - but then again wind turbines have ~25 year lifespan, vs nuclear's 60 year+ lifespan. I think a better indicator of cost than strike price is the levellised cost, which you can read for yourself in DECC's 2013 report. I'm not saying that Hinkley Point C makes financial sense, but the figures for these kind of things are never as straight forward as you'd want or you'd like! One thing to note about Hinkley Point C's reactor design (EPR) is that it is a fast rampable design (between 60 and 100%, at 5% per minute), meaning that far from traditional nuclear power it is capable of load following, making it a very handy partner for wind/solar/tidal. Of course, we would have been better off spending money on developing molten salt reactors, which produce a fraction of the waste of solid fuelled reactors, can use old "waste" as fuel and are walk-away safe, but that's another story for another day.

[@iareid8255]

David, another factor in the strike price for wind is that wind requires substantial support for load balancing and back up that adds to the real cost of wind. Nuclear requires no such extra cost so strike price is a poor comparison as you say. The media though do not seem to be aware of this? The strike price for wind is also very weak as there is no real requirement for the operator to stick to them. Hornsea two and three I believe, although operating have not taken up their contract? Indeed from Professor Gordon Hughs's research as to wind farm operating costs are well above the strike prices, how can it work? Nuclear is the only non CO2 emitting source of electrcity that can work, as we have little scope for hydro power. Renewables will never work by themselves and always need additional power from other sources. It's interesting that you say Hinkley C can load follow because if used in that manner adds to it's operating cost as it's availability drops. I expect though that it will need to run at full capacity as we will need the power.

[@davidpowell8249]

@@iareid8255 it adds operating cost, but running at lower power also reduces fuel usage and reactor wear and tear. But it would be better to re-task to hydrogen production/desalinisation rather than ramp down. Some transportation, such as aviation, isn't a good fit for battery based electrification, but green hydrogen is. Interestingly, UNECE's 2021 report on life-cycle CO2 eq emissions put nuclear power's emissions lower than solar and on shore and off shore wind, and that's before you factor in storage/backup generation and grid re-engineering.

[@iangreenstreet1407]

Just as well it is being built. With most of the other Nuclear power stations being decommissioned we would be In even more trouble without it.

[@apkungen89]

3GW won't produce as much energy s 3GW of Nuclear power because the wind isn't always blowing. The capacity factor for windpower is around 30% and for nuclear power it's around 70% meaning: In order to produce the same amount from wind as from 3GW Nuclear you would need 7GW of Wind power. But I agree with you. Wind is far better than nuclear power.

[@AdrianColes]

The we put in 6GW of wind. Still cheaper. In reality we need a good mix of renewables that provide "free" fuel on our doorstep.

[@nickwilton6822]

£92.50 per MW is Just over 9.2 pence per kw. Sounds cheap compared to household consumer prices.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

And NOW (September 2017) we're told by the GOVERNMENT that wind power is THE cheapest power generation in the UK without question. Can be installed far faster, produced far more cheaply, stored as required and produces no waste. BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE for the government!!.... ONLY A YEAR LATE! DUH!!

[@robsmith1a]

Depressed and amused at the same time. Could we buy some decent politicians for 18 billion pounds? I have a suspicion somebody already did.

[@ToniNiemi92]

Great videos that are clear, informative and humorous, keep up the good work!

[@pootube4538]

I hate to inform you that the man is deranged.

[@americanhindi]

I just posted the following message in the channel's discussion too, but I thought other viewers might be interested. There is a young nuclear physicist called Taylor Wilson who has designed small and very safe neighborhood nuclear power plant that use Nuclear Waste to generate electricity. This uses up the stockpiles of nuclear waste around the world and solves the problem of storing nuclear waste. You can also watch his other videos such as his TED talk. Taylor Wilson was featured in a recent HBO Vice episode called "The Future of Energy" (Season 4, Episode 9). Thank you for your great videos.

[@John514s]

Speaking of new designs of Nuclear power, how's ITER going?

[@davidpowell8249]

€15 billion, and only 500 MW, 1/6 th of Hinckley Point C's expected output - it won't even be capable of generating power for the grid either! If only a small amount of funds that have been pumped into fusion over the years had been pumped into molten salt reactors, we'd have safe, much cleaner and much cheaper nuclear power.

[@John514s]

Hmmm. Maybe if ITER is successful we will focus more at fusion.

[@davidpowell8249]

+John514 maybe, there's lots of very exciting fusion research at the moment, and not all of it tokamak based. However, fusion is less well understood, and many unknowns and challenges remain. We are a long way from a practical fusion power station. Fission, on the other hand is the best way forward for dealing with our legacy of nuclear waste, but it does have to be the right kind of fission reactor.

[@jondonnelly3]

+David Powell India and China are both investing in molten salt. Fusion might never actually work :(

[@davidpowell8249]

***** I wouldn't go as far as never, but short of a game changing breakthrough, I don't think it is just around the corner either.

[@brucewayne5488]

Brilliant Video! Couldn't agree more

[@Friek555]

I think you skimped over one important point about nuclear waste: It's not only very costly to store it, we also don't actually have _any_ final solution! We're just producing more and more of the stuff, hoping that we will eventually find a place that can contain it safely for the next *10,000* years.

[@davidpowell8249]

There are some pretty good solutions being designed that can run on our existing nuclear waste. Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR), the clue's in the name, being one, others include PRISM and LFTR. So, somewhat ironically, the solution to nuclear fission waste, might just be nuclear fission.

[@zapfanzapfan]

How the h**l does it cost 18 billion to build two reactors? Is the reactor vessel built out of platinum? Is the cooling water flown in from Fiji? You can spend a fraction of that money on a HVDC-cable to Norway, they will be happy to sell you hydro-electricity to balance your wind power.

[@catprog]

+zapfanzapfan And they will probably be happy to buy wind power as well when it is really blowing.

[@zapfanzapfan]

+catprog Yes, just like they do from Denmark and the Netherlands today, windy day -> import, calm day -> open the taps end export. Or more generally, import electricity at night when it is cheap and export electricity during the day when it is more expensive.

[@DobromirBatinkov]

Hello from Bulgaria! I watch your videos with great interest and you have my full support for sharing them among my friends! Please keep on with your work (and wit) :)

[@The_Dark_Lord-69]

4:50 3GW name plate capacity is not 24/7. People think that batteries eliminate capacity factor problems of wind. It does not. For you to deliver 3GW 24/7, you have to build 3x wind capacity and levelize it with batteries. This is because Nuclear capacity factor is 3x that of wind. For for 24/7 3GW power from wind, you need 9GW of Wind farms and associated 6GW batteries that will be able able to store 6GW during happy hours and supply during the 0 speed wind times. We haven't even discussed the land issue. The land of storing 6GW power with batteries alone is bigger than the 3.3GW EPR being built. I can't even imagine the vast land for 9GW wind. The UK's off shore capacity of wind is barely more than 9GW (it's actually 11.3GW). Also, you will be lucky if wind and batteries last more than 20 years. 3.3GW EPR plant last 3 times. So that multiply that £5billion by 3 for 24/7 coverage and then by another 3 for 60 years. The equivalent cost excluding land would be £45billion. This would cost the Brits almost 2.5 times more if they went with nuclear. Considering that batteries and the whole farm would have to be replaced every 20 years, I haven't factored inflation. The reason why people say French are only benefitting in nuclear programme is because the built their infrastructure early. Building big now will make Britain enjoy the benefits in the future too. Look how Russia is showing Europe some flames right now. Aren't you happy that you've already started with EPR?

[@philthomas3437]

your wind power calculation doesn't account for capacity factor. 3 GW of installed wind capacity is likely to produce an average of 1 GW.

[@TheToelle]

The problem is the Base Load, you can run any country from renewable energy right now if you figure out how to provide it more stable ! The cleanest way of doing so is a Massive Battery park to stable the Grid and an also massive Gas Turbine which can quickly change its power output so the core output can be provided by renewable energy

[@simonelof2129]

Manufacturing millions of high capacity batteries is so green... so progressive. *brb, off to buy lithium on the commodity market.

[@BooBaddyBig]

You mentioned, 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, also the Windscale Fire was 59 years ago, and it dumped fallout right across large swathes of the UK.

[@zapfanzapfan]

+BooBaddyBig But that was only used for making materials for bombs, wasn´t it? It wasn´t for producing electricity like the three others.

[@nedward.7442]

@@zapfanzapfan The problem is that the reactor in Windscale is complete crap. You need to be a very smart person to blow the reactor with ordinary air from the street and drive it through the pipe into the street. The USA and USSR used normal uranium-graphite reactors in which water was used as a coolant.

[@TomWorley]

Great breakdown of prices and the insanity of cost of both building Hinkley Point C and the price of the electricity. "But lets face it, coal is pretty sh!t", gave me a laugh =)

[@barryh13]

Inspired video, love it, gets the point across in such an effective way. Congrats, this will make a difference!! By the way, love your show. Thanks for doing it!!

[@bryanelliott2107]

3 GW of wind capacity makes 1 GW of electricity, on average. You'd want 9GW wind @ £ 13.5B, and £4.5B for storage, if you're going that route. "No waste to manage" That depends on the storage solution, really.

[@hvwees]

Storage of electricity is still not that easy.... Batteries are also very pollutant to produce and if no longer usable ... Don't get me wrong I'm very into green energy sources like wind and solar.... But we still have to beat the storage issue.... Batteries need to get better and how to recycle properly / environment friendly....

[@jondonnelly3]

+hvwees Storage dosn't necessarily mean batteries. Pumping water to high resovoirs for hydro, cracking water for hydrogen production, desalination, municiple city heating and locating high energy use industry near wind turbines.

[@hvwees]

+Jon Donnelly I Totally agree, but storing the engery in resovoirs is not everywhere possible. You need the space. I think this is a good solution for a bigger scale. For a local storage this isn't the way to go, i.m.h.o.

[@lukeadv]

+Jon Donnelly I really like the concept of doing something useful (desalination) as a proxy for storage. Very nice.

[@xxwookey]

+hvwees The Dutch propose a flatland pumped-hydro scheme: energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/sub-surface-pumped-hydroelectric-storage So just a lake on the surface with a cavern maybe 1km below. Can be built anywhere with a suitable rock bed for the cavern. Expensive, but good for flat countries/areas.

[@megamef]

Excellent analysis. I disagree on one point though: the damage caused is immeasurable. I think you can measure it. Just count how many people have died with nuclear power (either directly or though cancer later). I think most people would be surprised to find that nuclear power isn't just safe compared to coal but is actually the safest form of energy there is. www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/

[@mrjdainsworth]

What about all those you can't count who have cancer but haven't been accepted as a victim?

[@subumohapatra]

thanks a lot for this review of the state of Nuclear power in UK. I wonder how long the battery storage for the 3GW solar/wind will last? 10 years/ 15 years/ 20 years

[@ingentingbra]

6 years later: UK prices for electricity: £279 per Mwh, compared to £92.5 fixed price. Olkiluoto 3: completed, ROI around 4 years Sweden and Finland: complete plans for disposal of nuclear waste approved and under construction. Storage in batteries: no progress to talk about. Windpower: shorter lifespan than expected So basically: almost all things in video was wrong.

[@JSM-bb80u]

Battery prices have plummeted by 90% in the last 10 years. Solar prices have plummeted.

[@CmdrTobs]

@@JSM-bb80u still too expensive, almost as a matter of fact when you do the calculations

[@JSM-bb80u]

@@CmdrTobs No. It's not. 4 hours of battery storage is cost effective now.

[@CmdrTobs]

@@JSM-bb80u a weeks storage for Britian alone over a dark & windless week like the many we have had so far is more than all the Li battieries on earth. Not feasible even if the price were 0.

[@JSM-bb80u]

@@CmdrTobs who in the world use batteries against a dunkenflaute which happen only 150 hours per year. Ideally pumped hydro storage should be used. And standby gas powerplants can be used too.

[@jkchravel]

"Cardiff Tidal Lagoon is now being developed as the first full-scale lagoon in our programme. With a potential installed capacity of around 3GW, this project could provide enough green, clean home-grown power for every home in Wales." Mark Shorrock, Chief Executive, Tidal Lagoon Power

[@fix-and-drive-diy-repairs]

hahahaaa, executive limousines that burns lots of petrol. This part really blew me out.

[@rob66181]

3 things. 1 - Cost of decomissioning is taking into account during the pricing. 2 - Sellafield's waste is mostly left-over from the nuclear weapons era. So not relevant to power. 3 - Waste storage is a solved engineering issue.

[@ewangimson]

Fantastic stuff, so happy to donate towards this show!

[@pol1250]

Thanks a lot for making my day a bit shittier !!! What a great way to start my day !!

[@quantum12b]

Brilliant ;0) The Comedy, the maths, the facts ;0) Thanks for making and posting Robert ;0)

[@michaeleidland9961]

Now I'm a Patreon :) You are doing so much good on a humoristic and smart way. Been looking at your episodes for a long time now, so it feels good to have a way to support you and to say "thanks!". Keep it up!

[@elektrotehnik94]

I think the price argument is the most important thing, this way everybody is on the same page: everybody wants cheap electricity. Nobody can say, "no, that doesn't concern me". And great for acknowledging advice from patreon member and making it a weekly show, it certainly gives you an advantage to have a steady flow of content coming :)

[@nabilskhirigabbouj7083]

Chernobyl occured in Pripyat in Ukraine not Russia

[@heavylt3333]

Really love the video and how it was done! Please more videos like this one ,because these kinds of questions and problems are really importat! Greetings from Lithuania!

[@kael13]

Glad you're not one to spout anti-nuclear rhetoric. Definitely concur that our government isn't handling it in the best of ways. Not sure what's happening to high-tech engineering in this country - we seem like a right bunch of muppets. Honestly, I don't know why we didn't work with the Americans. Are their designs old or a bit shit? I can't imagine it. Good video!

[@qinby1182]

@Kael The Americans scrapped their "half built" reactors and Westinghouse went bankrupt. In short they can't even help themselves.

[@ChrisbyFlanker]

This was awesome, amusing and very informative. Thankyoou for making this video!

[@kentyee5333]

Have you heard of Orison. They are a home plug and play battery. You just have to plug it in your wall socket and it knows when to charge and discharge its electric power.

[@blue280485]

Good informative video! But I beg to differ Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Plant at a price tag of £18 billion or $23 billion is no where close to having the crown for the world's costliest power plant, that title is held by China's Three Gorges Dam at wopping $75 billion or £60 billion 😲

[@kokopelli314]

it is NOT the public's responsibility to pay the costs of dealing with Atomic Fission waste products. We need to kick the Nuclear Industry off the dole and make them reveal the true cost of their insanely expensive electricity.

[@kokopelli314]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants#/media/File%3ANuke%2C_coal%2C_gas_generating_costs.png

[@iucidium1982]

+SuperCorrector1 but what of the waste storage costs?? *crickets*

[@kokopelli314]

Denial of the existence nuclear waste disqualifies any further opinions from you sir.

[@davidpowell8249]

Hinckley Point C might never be built, EDF are making their decision in September this year (2016), and that decision could well be "Non!" IMO we should tell EDF to sling their hook and build two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors instead (and a GE Hitachi PRISM reactor at Sellafield) and save ourselves a packet.

[@davidpowell8249]

Further information about the decision date: www.power-technology.com/news/newsedf-finalise-decision-britains-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-project-4873434

[@mrh112]

That would mean making a sane decision... something politicians are not capable of.

[@iucidium1982]

I have bad news for you.

[@davidpowell8249]

SuperCorrector1 I guess you are referring to radiation hormesis, which is quite conversational and the last I heard was that it lacks evidence supporting it in humans/outside of the lab.

[@TREDxMUSIC]

I think VVER 1200 or VVER TOI would be better than AP1000

[@mercyreaper5865]

I live near a closed nuclear power plant in Scotland and it was total safe, if Hinckley point c can power 5 million homes then us in Scotland would just need one huge nuclear power plant like Hinckley point to power all of Scotland and with our wind turbines combined would power Scotland for years and years, let's get rid of Coal power like we are doing in Scotland and build one huge nuclear power plant for our future.

[@1over137]

Only one small observation. To match 3 GW nuclear with 3 GW Wind + storage, you actually need about 15GW wind and storage or 30GW of solar with storage. This is due to the inherent intermittent of those sources. You also need a LOT of storage to give a solid 3GW 24/7 power from such an array. 15GW from wind would require 30,000 500kW wind turbines. Let that sink in, 30,000. To store 3GW * 24 hours is a battery capable of storing 72 GWh. They don't exist.

[@orange_tree]

"But let's face it... coal is pretty shit" lmao the delivery is spot on

[@Certifiable]

"Let's face it: coal's pretty shit." if this and Red Dwarf goes tits up, can we vote you in as Aussie PM? Don't worry about nationality, Tony Abbott never did! (UK born)

[@Wizarth]

+tallaussiebloke I'd vote for him.

[@blackrainb0w]

Love the show and valuable information that your channel provides, all greatly presented. Missing the scrapheap challenge programs on channel 4.

[@davidpowell8249]

If you have Freeview, there are reruns of Scrapheap Challenge showing on Quest.

[@TeslaNick2]

Hinkley Point makes no sense whatsoever. It really is shocking how illogical our government's decisions are.

[@tyronedlisle4412]

UK Government is a monetary sovereign. It can't run out of UK Pounds. Using those pounds to build up the productive capacity of the UK by investing in public infrastructure and services is a great way to ensure the long term stability and prosperity of the UK. Nuclear given how safe and clean it is, even when factoring in storage, is a solid investment for the future. You're argument that essentially we shouldn't build nuclear because it's expensive and long term is flawed due to a lack of understanding about public finance and economic growth.

[@zspacecaptain8228]

Note that 3gw of wind turbines + appropriate storage will be equivalent to about only 1gw of nuclear power, since the capacity factor is 30% for wind vs 90% for nuclear.

[@Razyre]

100% agree with you. Thought you were going to crap on Nuclear power but glad you made it clear at the beginning of the video :) Coal needs to stop now, along with diesel. I'm okay with us using gas gradually phased out but coal is an awful, awful, awful resource and there is little to no reason for diesel cars, buses etc. to exist. Yes they provide slightly better economy but they're mainly a benefit to the oil industry who don't need to refine their fuel as much as a result of them.

[@bobbiecurran3380]

The nuclear industry funds the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, not the taxpayer

[@ClaudiovonPlanta_Documentaries]

Brilliant. Thanks for this super concise pep talk. Scary stuff!

[@JimB802]

Simply awesome. As a worker bee in a bio-mass 50 MW station hooked up to ISO-New England I saw MW rate range from negative numbers up to $120 with an average of $18 MW during this past (mild) winter. The cost of $193 MW is astronomical and totally insane.

[@colombandanguydesdeserts5939]

And now?

[@gracetalbot]

seven years on, a nearly doubled budget, and Hinckley B shut down and costing half a million a day to run, a death on site and completion date now 2026... might be time for an update video on this

[@Torbjoern76]

Thanks for this episode. Very good.

[@audience2]

Three mile Island was not catastrophic. The containment vessel did it's job. Chernobyl didn't have one. The Windscale fire in 1957 was much more serious than three mile Island but you didn't mention it.

[@peterbuchan628]

Thank you Robert. I like the Patreon polish. I think your point about having to guard nuclear waste for ever is a weak one. You could say the same about the Crown Jewels, or big data, for instance. A tradesman friend of mine was recently working in Canary Wharf Tower, he said there was a security guard every 50ft.

[@WHGM74]

Just read in the Economist: "The British government announced a surprise review of the planned Hinkley Point nuclear power station. The decision came shortly after the board of EDF, a French power company, voted to go ahead with the much-delayed and financially precarious project-the first to be built for a generation. A final decision will-supposedly-be made in the autumn."

[@jimwilliams1536]

Hitting the nail directly on the head. sound bit of info, thanks.

[@paulgracey4697]

Very good comparison to wind power. One commenter complained that wind turbines supposedly only have a 25 year lifespan. Nuclear Stations also started out with much shorter lifespans, extended as technology improved, but still massive drains on resources better used elsewhere. Two full sets of wind turbines equal to the Nuclear Plant could out do it with money left over.

[@paulwesterberg]

+Paul Gracey And the Wind Turbines we can build in 25 years will probably be cheaper and more efficient than the designs of today.

[@lukeadv]

+paulwesterberg Plus we don't have to stump up the money for another 25 years.

[@philrabe910]

Ironic you didn't mention the accident at Sellafield. Though no one died directly from it, no clean up was attempted either after a Large release. Still, he is only really listing the bigger accidents. I have heard that it is difficult to get epidemiological data for the populations around both Sellafield and 3 mile. Health privacy concerns are cited in the UK.

[@cuddles6938]

A college was making bacteria that can eat nuclear waste but they don't seem to be in a hurry to implement the procedures.

[@waynewilliamson4212]

Another excellent video....Thanks.....

[@craigduncan4826]

We should have built 3 of them and they should all be British made with the whole thing being a British endeavour. That way we would meet 50% of our energy needs 24/7/365 and it can be perfectly safe. The other 50% could be renewables and a small amount of gas backup plants. Nuclear waste is actually minimal - when you consider we already have selafield

[@TeamYankee2]

Where are the thorium power stations, that's what I want to know? Nuclear power was designed to produce waste that could be reprocessed in to weapons grade material. With a thorium power plant you can't do that.. so I guess they won't get much traction.

[@videogalore]

The question is that now the renewable incentives have been cut, will individuals and businesses be able to install on-site generation before Hinkley Point C can get off the ground and therefore make it less and less viable as fewer and fewer will need the electric produced?! Lots of love, a solar owner! :)

[@edwardbyard6540]

We should be spending money on energy storage, i.e. pumped storage, and renewable generation. If we can store energy, we can get baseload from renewables. Maybe a couple of 2GW lines from Iceland too.

[@JacobthePoshPotato]

I now understand what the deal with HPC. This usually what happens with government funding. It magically disappears.

[@rock3tcatU233]

I actually worked on some engineering projects for EDF Nuclear in the UK, and I have to say that the delays have nothing to do with nuclear technology. The same EPR design has been built on time and within schedule a number of times in China, this is more the incompetence and inability of the UK and French governments in trying to work together on large engineering projects.

[@xxwookey]

+rock3tcat (ⵙⴰⵔⵓⵅ) The two Chinese reactors (on one site) ended up being about 1 year late, so not quite on schedule. And they are not actually running yet. The first one is being tested right now, to start up next year.

[@MrHabushi]

The Civil Nuclear Constabulary who protect nuclear power stations etc are funded by the energy companies who run the plants, not by the taxpayer (at least, directly). They're a resource that can, if required, be utilised away from their normal operating areas so effectively the taxpayer gains some benefit from it for free.

[@databeestje]

Ok, to add more fuel onto the minimum selling price consider the following situation: Last sunday (8-5-2016) Germany produced so much renewable energy that the selling price was negative. They were actively paying large consumers money to use the electricity. The flip side was that coal and nuclear power plants needed to *pay* money to feed their power into the grid. Consider that into the minimum guaranteed selling price for Hinkley Point C and instead of closing a gap of 3 (selling) + 8 (subsidy) cents to get to 11 cents/kWh, you would now 3 (paying) + 11(subsidy) = 14 cents per kWh. The english people will love their government for this :)

[@thomasmyers2288]

I love your show but I need to point out a few things: (1) EDF have a funded decommissioning plan (they are paying for all the decommissioning and management of waste). (2) As far as I am aware our current grid still needs a reliable base load of this magnitude and I don't think your wind and batteries model has been proven to be commercially viable yet (although I like it and very much wish it was). (3) I for one don't mind paying extra as long as its low carbon energy!!

[@thomasmyers2288]

+fullycharged

[@thomasmyers2288]

+fullychargedshow

[@knoxieman]

first class as usual!! solar/wind/tidal/battery storage has to be the future, micro generation also has a shout as well, why buy expensive energy from people like this when you can supply and store your own renewable energy.

[@jamstaa69]

The scene from Ghostbusters, when they are standing in the lift and they first turn on the proton pack comes to mind, when I think of the day they actually “start up” one of these reactors. I think I’d prefer the rolling financial costs of renewables than the on going none financial danger to life of a nuclear station, from not only its running life span but the waste it produces, and also land it is on for hundreds of years.

[@ToumalRakesh]

No solition to the waste storage problem -> the true cost is just deferred and we tge taxpayers have to saddle it.

[@TheEmperorPigeon]

The waste is one of the key reasons why I wouldn't have one "in my back garden" in both the real and metaphorical sense. The second key reason is that every power station of any type needs to be maintained and/or at least checked regularly, plus if you think about this further? You end up considering how much water (or if a domestic-sized nuclear power station was possible, air or sealed tube liquid cooling) would be used and onwards. It's quite the rabbit hole and one that quickly makes any sane person wholeheartedly conclude no. Worse when one considers how there are overgrown or otherwise untidy gardens, so if a person couldn't or wouldn't maintain their garden (for whatever reason) how could we trust them to look after a small nuclear power plant? It only takes one person to be lax... Anyway, that's just my take on it and my overall reticence. Keep up the good work! :)

[@rabmc]

I work for EDF on a nuclear power station, fantastic company and safety is paramount, and I genuinely mean this, safety safety safety and it goes from top to bottom. Hate hearing negatives as I have seen it first hand for the last 10yrs that I've worked there. It's not the tea we need to worry about, it's these electric cars they all want us to have soon, how are we charging them? Also the security element on these stations is scary, armed police 24/7 and lots of them, the security element is £££££ and people need to remember this.

[@OwtDaftUK]

This is what happens when you see the government as solution to all the worlds problems, things just get worse. The same logic that could be used to say Nuclear is much safer than the 3 old plants that failed, could also be used to point out that there are cleaner coal technologies now. Wind turbines are blights on the country side and even the sea side and they require far more space than one power plant to equal the power output.

[@alexk6126]

how often to wind turbines ruin your views of the ocean??

[@OwtDaftUK]

+Alex Kahn Examples of damages sea views. All links are locations not even anywhere near each other. www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.1413236,0.3474664,3a,15y,57.84h,89.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBf6bSWGhwd9JMB9Y7XujGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3659257,1.4446448,3a,15y,63.99h,89.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZQZLbcLGDy2LvVXm7MLkBg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.547623,-3.1030094,3a,15y,343.64h,90.45t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-nKr3i_LzUnA%2FVZgDtNZPRkI%2FAAAAAAAAAIA%2FW5cDeYcnEvIL7tRzOz4Tmw8KlhPxAKASw!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2F-nKr3i_LzUnA%2FVZgDtNZPRkI%2FAAAAAAAAAIA%2FW5cDeYcnEvIL7tRzOz4Tmw8KlhPxAKASw%2Fw203-h101-n-k-no%2F!7i10240!8i5120

[@alexk6126]

You're from the UK so you don't really ever deal with oil spills. They ruin not just the view or your beach but the whole Goddamn cities economy. Here are some examples www.google.com/search?q=Oil+spill&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD9P6e5sXMAhUJFz4KHQl7BRMQ_AUICCgC&biw=360&bih=559

[@OwtDaftUK]

Alex Kahn You sure that comment was intended for me?

[@roderickimackenzie]

I used to agree with you that nuclear power (and radiation) was in principle OK as long as the plants were well maintained. I changed my mind when I found out that 50 - 150 mg ingested was was enough to chemically kill a person (i.e. through poisoning not through radiation). Then when you consider we will have to look after tons of this waste for hundreds of years to come, nuclear power starts to look less attractive.

[@bigladseb253]

"Most expensive electricity ever produced" checking back in on this one with wholesale prices currently trading at about £370 per MWh

[@nkkashmiri]

Thanks for the typically British critique ! Just one more thing - I know UK is prohibitive but ironing a shirt is less than a pound.. :)

[@fullychargedshow]

+koshur99 excellent comment. Ironed shirts are for bankers and accountants man, I'm too cool to iron... Okay, I'll try and smarten up just for you

[@99beta]

In Canada we have the CANDU reactor style that handles the base load. In developing a new reactor design Ontario racked up a huge debt. There is a debt retirement charge on our electricity to pay this off. Ontario also has solar and wind production under a feed in tariff system. To off set cloudy days or no wind days they have built natural gas power plants that can be turned off or on very quickly according to demand.

[@davidmaxwaterman]

I'd be interested in the comparison of nuclear vs coal if you also include the deaths of those mining the nuclear fuel. I'd also be interested in your opinion of using the money to research LFTR technology, and if it would facilitate using up any/all of the nuclear waste stored in selafield.

[@xxwookey]

+David Waterman Nuclear is still safest. The numbers (from 2012 which includes Fukushima, I've not seen any more recent) are here: beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source-480254.html Note that nuclear was safer than rooftop solar and wind too at that time (as well as coal, oil, gas, and hydro). I'd like to see some more recent figures including all the ground-mount PV that has gone in, which I'd expect to be quite safe, so it should have got better.

[@thomasmacgowan]

£92.5/MHW now seems cheap given Europes reliance on Russian gas. Wholesale prices now >£400/MWH. It’s also worth noting that electricity was more than £100/MHW since September 2021 because Europe has had long term wind speeds below average. It’s not just war in Ukraine and sanctions.

[@deep_dive6699]

Most of what is in Sellafield is related to weapons development, the cost is related to poor record keeping and novelty. New nuclear will not greatly add to the clean up cost.

[@michael-nantwich4877]

Quote “Sizewell C is a carbon copy of Hinkley Point C”… Sizewell has shedloads of nuclear waste (literally a field of sheds) and the Indians are working on a reactor that burns waste; a bit late now but it sounds like a prospect?

[@MUSTASCH1O]

I'm confused, Robert says renewables are cheaper than nuclear yet on GOV.UK (yes I know they will pick the best figures for their agenda) shows a figure of £110/MWh for renewables compared to a HPC strike price of £65/MWh (which takes into account decommissioning). Where is the difference in conclusion coming from?

[@nutzeeer]

So, now it seems i have about reached the point where i said i would want to watch all your videos, one year ago. keep it going!

[@calvinengsci]

Totally understood. This is a great channel and the comment was meant to underscore the accuracy that is presented in the content of each video. I originally missed the text under the video.

[@leerman22]

Fuck that's more than delay filled Darlington NPP in Ontario, and it produces 3.5GW of power. The 4 unit plant that cost just as much as the 8 unit Bruce NPP, 6.3GW of power. I say throw out the old designs for molten salt breeder reactors like the Uranium based DFR or Thorium based LFTR. Only about 1 tonne of waste per GW/year, compared to about 250 tonnes per GW/year this thing will make. That mass includes enrichment tailings.

[@Buddy648]

I so wish this episode was a piece of satirical comedy. Oh Deary Me Hinkley Point C 😂😂😂. Really enjoying your content exceptionally funny, keep up the good work chap.