Slashdot Mirror
China To UK: 'Golden' Ties At Crucial Juncture Over Nuclear Delay (reuters.com)
mdsolar quotes a report from Reuters: China has cautioned Britain against closing the door to Chinese money and said relations were at a crucial juncture after Prime Minister Theresa May delayed signing off on a $24 billion nuclear power project. In China's sternest warning to date over May's surprise decision to review the building of Britain's first nuclear plant in decades, Beijing's ambassador to London said that Britain could face power shortages unless May approved the Franco-Chinese deal. "The China-UK relationship is at a crucial historical juncture. Mutual trust should be treasured even more," Liu Xiaoming wrote in the Financial Times. "I hope the UK will keep its door open to China and that the British government will continue to support Hinkley Point -- and come to a decision as soon as possible so that the project can proceed smoothly." The comments signal deep frustration in Beijing at May's move to delay, her most striking corporate intervention since winning power in the political turmoil which followed Britain's June 23 referendum to leave the European Union.
If you're unaware, China has made an artificial island in the South China sea, near the Philippines. It's claiming a lot of sea off Vietnam, Malasia and Phillipines waters as its own territory. It's even build an airbase on the new island and placed ground-to-air missiles on it.
It's military has targetted US spy planes flying over the islands, despite those planes having permission from the Philippines to fly over its sea.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html?_r=0
UN has already adjudicated on this, and ruled the island as fake and the Chinese claim as false.
Do you really want their nuclear power plant in a western country? They seem to want to stir up a war.
Given that the wholesale price being guaranteed by the government for each kWh was massively higher than even the price consumers are expected to be paying when it was due to open I see no reason to go ahead with it. Energy prices should be dropping not climbing as we have better renewables being developed.
Yes but quite a few politicians would have got backhanders, erm I mean consultation fees
oh.. so please.. tell my why it is that 57.7 per cent of Scotland's electricity came from renewables in 2015? Do you think it' because Scotland does rather well with shitloads of offshore and wind generation? .. I know it is .. try researching before opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble. we currently use the following...
Hydro-electric power
Wind power
Wave power
Tidal power
Biofuels
Biodiesel
Biogas, anaerobic digestion and landfill gas
Solid biomass
Micro systems
Solar energy
Geothermal energy
And are world leaders on research too! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and behold the plethora of renewable stuff that gives us more than half our energy needs in Scotland... so tell me... how does it feel to be someone who could not be more wrong if your name was W . Wrongy Wrongenstien???
I totally agree; there's never going to be a sweetheart deal, nor was there ever any chance of one. The EU has to look out for the EU at this point. Basically, I think it's going to come down a choice between an EEA access agreement similar to Norway's with all the strings that entails, or a full exit and having to pay trade tariffs to the EU with all the strings that entails. There will be a little give and take on the details, but pretty much everything else comes down to window dressing on the EEA terms & conditions. Obviously any EEA access agreement that includes the almost inevitable free travel precondition is going to be considered completely unacceptable to most of those who voted Brexit, so I'm really looking forwards to see how Theresa May tries to salvage this and get another term - and who she's going to throw under the bus to try and pull it off (other than David Davis and Boris Johnson, obviously).
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Was a propaganda piece.
Remember, culturally, China takes the long view, and that includes fucking you over until you are their vassal.
> you forget all the problems with wind
No, I don't. Because most of them are made up by people who don't work in the energy industry, work for other sources (the nuclear and coal industries publish a constant stream of anti-renewables materials) or just don't want turbines in their backyard and will pick up any any old crap they find on the 'net as "proof", like YouTube videos.
Let me make this very simple: the people who actually buy, sell and finance these things *don't care about these made up problems* that anti-wind people dream up. They are as cogent as complaining about the color of the blades. Want proof?
https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/WEO2015SUM.pdf
power outages? only in storms or some such.. sorry bud but apart from the 1970's when strikes hit and there was a 3 day week... no power outages here apart from after storms etc. to say it's a shortage of generating power is is just plain bullshit and you made it up. .. Fairlytale? 57.7% of power generated for Scotland was renewable and we even exported some 24%..
As for paying several times the price? you are a fucking idiot pal, i pay quite cheap rates with my electricity supplier and it's mostly renewable ( www.ovoenergy.com ) not because i am all green and that but because IT'S FUCKING CHEAPER AND I WANT TO SAVE MONEY!
same reason i used energy saving light bulbs.. it's cheaper on my pocket You sir are full of shit!
cost is:
wind: $1.50 / .32 = $4.70 / Wc
nuclear: $8.25 / .80 = $10.30 / Wc
An installed watt of nuclear generates 3 to 5 times the amount of electricity in a year as an installed watt of wind. And you get the added value of reliability and dependability.
"All the problems with wind" is a bit of an overexaggeration. In fact, the video nicely shows how resilient it is. For instance, the first clip is of a wind turbine on fire. Notice how the rest of the wind farm is not on fire. The wind farm would have perhaps lost 2% of its capacity, but it has resilience in numbers.
To start with, yes, I think the UK needs new nuclear capacity - we need *something* that's not coal that is good at doing baseload.
But on the other hand: from the point of view of the National Grid, wind does have certain advantages:
* Each generator is small and there are an awful lot of them. A generator or two going offline doesn't cause sudden capacity problems. However, a large nuclear generating plant going offline suddenly can cause a huge power shortage that can be solved only by shedding load (in other words, blackouts).
* The wind, over a period of the next few hours, is pretty easy to predict. The wind doesn't just suddenly and unexpectedly stop blowing. You can pretty much say the wind will be doing in 10 minutes time what it's doing now, and if it's not going to do that (e.g. due to the passage of a frontal system) you can at least know what it's going to do. Not so with a large powerplant which may suddenly go offline with no warning.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
> An installed watt of nuclear generates 3 to 5 times the amount of electricity in a year
You did *actually read the post*, right? I ask, because you quoted the part that negates your complaint right here:
wind: $1.50 / .32 = $4.70 / Wc nuclear: $8.25 / .80 = $10.30 / Wc
Do you see the .32 and .80? Those are the capacity factors. Capacity factor is the "amount of electricity in a year" you're trying to talk about. It is not "3 to 5" times as you claim, it is about 2.5 times, yet wind is so much cheaper than nuclear to build that it doesn't make a difference, on a per kWh basis, wind is still less than half the cost.
Those numbers, by the way, are actually being very favorable to nuclear, because the actual value measured last year was 72%, not 80% as I put here. I used 80 because Hinkley would improve the CF, and I think that's a fair estimate of the result.