Story from Bloomberg: H/T Andrew McKillop
Electricite de France SA, Europe’s biggest power generator, said it’s seeking partners to help finance new nuclear plants in the U.K. after debt swelled.
“We are considering the possibility of opening a little more the capital of these projects by finding a partner,” Senior Executive Vice President of Finance Thomas Piquemal said today on a conference call. “We are considering a better means to finance them and the best way to attract partners.”
EDF is studying building two new reactors at Hinkley Point in southwest England and a further two at its Sizewell site in eastern England. The decision to seek partners follows a 19 percent jump in debt in the first half and comes four months after German utilities EON AG and RWE AG (RWE) scrapped a British project, saying they couldn’t justify the capital expenditure.
While EDF wants to retain control of reactor ventures in the U.K., that wouldn’t necessitate holding an 80 percent stake, Piquemal said. The company will decide whether to move ahead with new nuclear plants in Britain by the end of the year, Chief Executive Officer Henri Proglio said today.
The U.K. is seeking to revive an expansion of nuclear power to meet energy demand while reducing fuel imports and keeping a lid on polluting emissions. EDF investment would be a boon to the industry after EON and RWE abandoned their project in March.
EDF’s net financial debt rose to 39.7 billion euros ($48.8 billion) last month from 33.3 billion euros at the end of 2011 after spending commitments increased. Investments in France and the U.K., as well as an obligation to finance renewable-power subsidies in France, drove its debt ratio to 2.5 times earnings, the “maximum limit” set by EDF, it said today in a statement.
Read the rest of the story here.
I’m sure nuclear power companies keeps an eye on where the windmills will fail next, having already made proposals for nuclear plants.
EDF want more government risk underwriting and, I suspect, more commitment to retail price guarantees. With UK sitting on large reserves of natural gas in shale deposits the nuclear industry must be fearing for its future I think.
This delay in building new reactors is no bad thing IMO, and I’d like to see a moratorium on al new nuclear plants until a proper way to dispose of current nuclear waste has been agreed and implemented. Otherwise we are just storing up an even bigger problem for future generations to have to deal with.
… an obligation to finance renewable-power subsidies in France ….
I wonder how much this cost. Probably not significant, but an interesting point: whatever the numbers are would illustrate how much renewables are supported in reality, not in politicality.
Tenuc says: August 7, 2012 at 3:11 pm
“This delay in building new reactors is no bad thing IMO, and I’d like to see a moratorium on al new nuclear plants until a proper way to dispose of current nuclear waste has been agreed and implemented. Otherwise we are just storing up an even bigger problem for future generations to have to deal with.”
Born in a coal mining part of Wales I know how the waste from coal production was disposed of. Untold millions of tons piled in heaps transforming the landscape; stark reminders like Aberfan.
One of the wonderful things about nuclear fission power is its tiny “Footprint” in terms of mining and waste disposal. Then there is its outstanding safety record; while coal mining and hydro power have killed hundreds of thousands of people, nuclear power has killed several orders of magnitude fewer.
“Nuclear Waste” is fuel for Generation IV reactors, so what you see as a problem is really an opportunity.
gallopingcamel says:
August 8, 2012 at 2:24 am
“…Nuclear Waste is fuel for Generation IV reactors, so what you see as a problem is really an opportunity.”
If only it were that simple. The various current Gen IV reactor theoretical designs will require massive investment in time and money to deliver safe commercial operating plants. The planned construction of one of the first VHTR pebble bed modular reactor, was cancelled by the South African government in 2010 – this due to increasing costs and worries about possible technical problems discouraging potential investors.
An example of how difficult it is to deliver new nuclear technology, can be found in the events at the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor MONJU, built in Tsuruga Japan. Construction of this project started in 1986 and has been dogged by accidents and financial issues. It has yet to produce mains load and is likely to be decommissioned.
So my point still stands that we must have a moratorium on all new nuclear plants until a proper way to dispose of current nuclear waste has been implemented, otherwise we are just storing up an even bigger problem for future generations to have to deal with.
The environmental lobby have played this particular hand very well over the years. If you can cause sufficient delays in a highly capital-intensive project, then you can make a project uneconomic before it even begins operating.
Then, Presto!, the environmental lobby can say nuclear power isn’t even economic. Once investors are frightened off, further technological advances don’t occur and the [civilian] industry may disappear altogether without government support.
I’d bet on future reactors being Chinese/Indian etc. when they start being built in large numbers.
There seems to be an assumption from the pro-nuclear lobby in the UK that producing nuclear energy is cheap. In fact, the only reason the UK decided to build nuclear plants was to support its nuclear weapons programs and the real costs of nuclear power are high.
This was confirmed when, back in the 1990′s, the UK government sold off its electricity generating utilities, It was discovered that its nuclear plants were so unprofitable they could not be sold. They eventually gave them away to British Energy Company, but even they couldn’t make them profitable and had to be bailed out in 2004 to the tune of 3.4 billion pounds!
Nuclear generation is not a sensible solution for our power needs, even before the risks of a nuclear accident enter into the mix. For UK, home produced shale gas should provide a better solution for the medium-term, with cheap fusion energy the ultimate long-term solution – if this can be achieved.
Tenuc I think you are confusing issues here. Our Nuclear industry is mired in regulation, especially over waste, and much of this regulation is NOT based on scientific fact, but on the precautionary principle. Our aversion to low dose radiation is not supported by experience from Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl or any other release of radiation you care to mention. We increase costs to the point where progress and development cease. This is not just an issue for the nuclear industry but the same principle is at work holding up our world economy. In those areas that are still innovating you will see that it is because our regulators don’t understand it and haven’t figured out how to get in the way.
The other issue for the nuclear industry is a purely technical one, but solutions are not forthcoming because of the above issue. It is obvious to all and sundry that the Uranium reactor is not the best way to extract power from fissionable material. Yet this is exactly what the UK Government wants to build. I’m not surprised that the figures don’t add up. The only reason you have for building a uranium reactor is in order to enrich uranium for weapons use.
My personal view is if no one want to build a commercial nuclear reactor then so be it. No subsidy should be paid but rather tax breaks offered to those who wish to develop the Molten Salt Thorium Reactor as it is the only one on the horizon that shows any promise of being commercially viable. We are not short of carbon based fuel, only short of common sense in government.
TN, I think this is fair comment for the most part. But tell us, where is the working prototype thorium salt reactor? And will the holders of its secrets be offering to build commercial units in the UK before our lights go dim?
TB,
“But tell us, where is the working prototype thorium salt reactor?”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/01/china_thorium_bet/
You could wait for India and China to prove the technology!!
TB as with everything you don’t know until you try it. The great thing about our human invention and innovation is that whatever we think now will be the answer to our prayers, tomorrow someone will have thought of something else.
I believe that India is developing Thorium as a fuel in traditional type reactors which may not be the best way to use thorium. But they do have abundant thorium as do others in the west and as recent events have demonstrated India is in rear need of extra power.
Try this for the last word on Thorium
http://energyfromthorium.com/ieer-rebuttal/
AFAIK, every Cdn. CANDU reactor can burn thorium. They use unenriched Uranium, too, btw. India has used its versions as the basis for some of its thorium designs.
Anything that works is fine and it will be successful if done ASAP, chances are that if the UK keeps on wind ….it will be taken away by the wind along with all the past glory of the Great Britain…now under the EU servitude.
Ever so simple adolfo, all we have to do is encourage the growing of artichokes, are weeds here, has two ends, grows. (related to the sunflower, through to yellow flowers) Doing well here this year, can never get rid of them. (if they grow, is edible crop, may as well eat the root crop)
The wicked soup for posh dinner parties. Rumour has it, been done.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/recipes/4288979/Jerusalem-artichoke-soup.html
Comments off?
Oh dear mrs american in france
“These undisclosed (until recently) tubers (yes, they are, in fact, tubers like potatoes despite their misnomer) will never (no, never) again touch my face, let alone go into my mouth as long as I have control of my own will.”
http://www.phelios.com/sd/archives/feb05.html
Problem solved.
Currently about 7ft tall here and growing, no flowers yet, are tangled around a loved rose, why I can’t dig them out. In a way interesting, pull one sideways, bend firmly, seems to resist the wind rather well. Oops, wrong word.
Tenuc,
Developing new nuclear technology is difficult because we choose to make it so. Freeman Dyson pointed out that it is not fun any more:
http://atomicinsights.com/2012/04/bill-gates-describes-4th-generation-nuclear-energy-to-explain-his-investment-decision.html#comment-16998