Talk:Hinkley Point C nuclear power station/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reference retrieval dates of little use

The display of retrieval dates seems to clutter the references. Can/should we omit them ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Negative bias

Protests seem to be given undue weight and prominence in this article. Much of the local population seem to support HPC. - Rod57 (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed!

Boundarylayer (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree. This article has been largely taken over by anti-nuclear activists. Just one example "Photo-voltaic industry estimates agree there is 'huge potential for (PV) cost decline" well of course the PV industry would say there's a big potential for cost decline. But first of all, does that belong in a Wiki article on a nuclear plant? If so, why is there no mention of the nuclear industry talking about cost reductions in advanced nuclear plants? This is just all negative bias that has no place in a Wiki entry. Shame on the anti-nuclear activists for distorting this article!!!Siphon06 (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Storage, distribution and cleanup costs

I would expect to see something in this article on the long-term cleanup, decommissioning, and nuclear waste storage costs. Who will pay for them? EDF, the government, or both?--greenrd (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Other costs need to be taken into account, although using blogs is probably WP:SYNTHESIS.

Should we integrate and link the section on PV trends to this article, which also discusses Moore's Law and says that 'as of 2011, the cost of PV has fallen well below that of nuclear power and is set to fall further': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#Economics

The main issues is that the UK government trend for PV (3%) is more pessimistic than independent estimates (10% for Nagy et al. trend (10%). Over the 35 years of the strike price (plus the ten years between now and construction) a 3% decline amounts to renewable prices being about 1/4 what they are today, compared to 1/70th for a 10% decline.

This section could take account of trends in nuclear technology. The government strike price for nuclear stays the same (in real terms) for the whole period. So there are two problems... the relative rate of improvement (nuclear versus other technologies) and the fact that the government assumes there will be no improvements in nuclear technology.

Here are some papers on storage and distribution costs that might help:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05282.x/asset/image_n/NYAS_5282_f3.gif?v=1&t=hn9b9olt&s=55abb94283b220b9d4da90702c206988c0b317d8 http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/ee/c3ee41973h#!divAbstract http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf

This paper suggests adding 25% to the costs to account for the need to transfer renewable across greater distances (page 45) but it is a little bit out of date: http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/REPORT%20lbnl-1471e.pdf

Lancastle(talk • contribs) 13:31, 29 October 2013 (EDT)

Controversy

Several IP Edits have deleted the word 'controversial'.

There has been an ongoing public debate about Hinkley Point C since the 1980s, including the current EU investigation, so this would seem to be a 'a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view'.

The use of this word can be referenced, see: ITV: www.itv.com/news/2013-10-21/government-closes-historic-deal-to-build-first-nuclear-plant-in-a-generation-hinkley-point Cheddar Valley Gazette: http://www.cheddarvalleygazette.co.uk/Hinkley-Point-Timeline/story-19965239-detail/story.html The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/30/hinkley-point-nuclear-power-plant-uk-government-edf-underwrite

It is accepted practice on Wikipedia to cite newspapers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancastle (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

An other example of negative bias on this page. While the government financing has led to the European Commission investigation, this does not justify the the third word after the page name to be "controversial". Wikipedia should be about education, not propagating your own ideologies. I also realised that my input on why nuclear and solar should not be compared like to like has had its points edited out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.86.59 (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The trends in costs, including storage and transmission, are relevant given the strike price is for 35 years. No-one is arguing with you about that, 88.108.86.59. Please see the Talk item above to see if this could be integrated with other Wikipedia projects on energy prices trends.Lancastle (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Economics: Nagy et al.

While the latest version of this edit is a bit better in that it doesn't mention future coal-based electricity prices, the problems remain that the future estimate of solar prices is based on an estimation method which takes the simple-minded approach of assuming that future costs will follow a particular curve, and that it starts from some poorly-characterised costs per kWh. Are they LCOE, are they US-based, with US levels of insolation etc? The source doesn't say.

Taking the figures from the right-hand side of the graph, which are in 2005 US dollars, and multiplying them by what I assume is the current exchange rate to give a cost in pounds, is hopeless. If you were going to use this estimation method on UK prices you should probably start with the current UK LCOE cost per kWh and use the speculative cost reduction factor from the study, and use inflation projections to get the cost in 2030, but again this would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Dcxf (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There has to be an estimation method, as this section discusses the economic arguments for and against the project. Unfortunately the UK government have not stated the assumptions used to estimate strike prices, nor the error range.

There is no need for inflation projections to 2030. The UK government draft strike prices are 2012 prices and the Nagy et al data were inflation-adjusted and published in 2012. The 2020 UK government strike price might need to be discounted if it is not re-based to 2012.

The data from the Santa Fe Institute are described as the most expansive of their kind and available here: pcdb.santafe.edu. "The data are sampled at annual intervals with timespans ranging from 10 to 39 years. The choice of these particular technologies was driven by availability – we included all available data, with minimal constraints applied, to assemble the largest database of its kind. The data was collected from research articles, government reports, market research publications, and other published sources".

The solar costs include the 'photovoltaics 2 historical dataset' which were collected in the US: if the section used data for the UK that might be WP:SYNTHESIS. This has been addressed by stating that US data are used.

The practice of converting different datasets to a single currency is common on Wikipedia. Normally, amounts are converted to USD using end-of-year exchange rate. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance for an example. This is not WP:SYNTHESIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancastle (talk • contribs) 11:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

(merged previous response to make a talk page thread).

That doesn't answer my objections to this data:

1. assuming it's US-based, it has little relevance to the UK which has different costs and insolation for solar
2. there's no indication of what the cost per kWh represents, is it LCOE, and if so at what capacity factor and discount rate?
3. According to the graph axis the data is in constant 2005 US dollars, not 2012 dollars. It can't be compared directly to UK pounds in 2012 or 2030 without adjustments.

Even setting aside the silly prediction method used by the study, it has too many problems to use. You should find a reliable source that directly says "this is what we predict the future UK solar price will be in 2030" - I'm sure there is one - rather than trying to shoehorn this one in. Dcxf (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Global energy prices, and global trends in energy technology, ARE relevant to the UK
2. To overcome your objections I have presented the Nagy et al data as a percentage annual decline. The base year and exchange rate are no longer relevant... the difference is simply that between linear extrapolation and Wright's hypothesis that 'cost decreases as a power law of cumulative production'
3. Your use of the phrase 'silly prediction method' suggests you have disagree with the evidence from Nagy et al that UV technology costs decrease according to Wright's hypothesis. Do you have evidence for this, or is it WP:NOR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancastle (talk • contribs) 16:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Solar LCOE is very sensitive to insolation levels, and fixed costs such as real estate will start to have a lot more influence as module prices fall. The UK lacks the vast blazing South-Western deserts from which these figures were no doubt sampled, so using them as a basis for future UK costs is misleading.
2. The Nagy graph used Moore's law (or rather their hijacked version of Moore's law), not Wright's hypothesis, it says so right on the graph. Deriving a percentage figure from their graph is certainly better than using an absolute value in pounds, but if you put any of the absolute costs in it (including coal) you have to go into detail about why they aren't relevant to the UK, so better to leave them out altogether? And it should certainly mention the US origin of the source figures, and the margins of error.
3. The upper bound of the error is ridiculous, effectively they are saying "it might not be any cheaper at all in 2030, who knows?". It's obviously silly to use such a stab-in-the-dark estimation method when we have perfectly good estimation methods based on likely values for the actual system costs and sunshine levels in Europe and the UK. See [1] for example, although I believe this is out of date already as costs have fallen further. Dcxf (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

1. This section is about the strike price trends, which are independent of insolation levels and location
2. The authors clearly state that the trend is closer to Wright's hypothesis than Moore's law
3. Stating that the trend is irrelevant to the UK would be WP:SYNTHESIS
4. Nagy et al state their trend assumptions, methodology and margin of error; the UK government does not. Describing Nagey et al as having a 'stab-in-the-dark' while not being critical of the UK methodology suggests you have a bias
5. The reference you cite (for PV costs in Europe) is consistent with Nagy et al on the trend when it states 'there is a huge potential for further generation cost decline: around 50% until 2020'. This is a much steeper decline in PV costs than estimated by the UK government and I agree it could be included as supporting the Nagy et al paper

Lancastle (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously suntime has an impact on solar economics, as the price of a solar panel is pretty much the same around the world. But Mojave has better payback than Seattle or London, which has better payback than Rjukan. Solar panels will therefore become economic in Madrid sooner than in England. Whether politicians decide to adjust the necessary strike price accordingly is another matter. Resource and asset price are two different discussions which cannot be transplanted at will. Surely there must be a source somewhere which predicts UK solar costs at an aggressive price decline? TGCP (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There is. This paper [2] referenced by Dcxf. it says that there is 'huge potential for (PV) cost decline: around 50% until 2020' (page 16) meaning PV will become less expensive in the UK than the already cheap Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power plants between 2017 and 2019 (page 7). Their estimates use the Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) which includes investment, operations and maintenance costs. The barrier, as Nagy et al. point out, is that you need to invest in production to achieve economies of scale. If, instead, you use foreign currency to buy this equipment from overseas, you are more likely to see your exchange rate decline and a reduction in fossil fuel prices as high insolation countries (Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal) benefit. It turns Europe upside down in terms of where to locate production, which probably isn't a bad thing. Lancastle(talk • contribs) 16:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The article talks about falling cost of generating solar et al - misses the point that renewable strike prices are higher (and in some cases much higher) than the nuclear agreed strike prices. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209361/Levy_Control_Framework_and_Draft_CfD_Strike_Prices.pdf - this stuff isn't really difficult, you're confusing generation costs and what generators want to be paid for building plants and selling to the market, solar/wind/tidal et al are looking for the exact same (and worse) assurances from central government. Streaky (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible effect of Brexit

This Times article (28 June) suggests that Brexit is likely to have an effect on final decisions about construction. Should this be included in the article? and if so where?— Rod ^talk 10:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

World Nuclear News also covers this,[3] to the contrary reporting EDF CEO saying Brexit will have no impact on EDF Energy's strategy to build Hinkley Point C. Though PwC's global head of nuclear said the decision "could have a significant impact on our nuclear program" because "Ongoing uncertainty ... could affect access to capital and investor confidence in what is already a limited trading arena". Overall I wonder if we are best leaving this issue out as there are so contrary views. Before too long we will know. Rwendland (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Timeline section

Do we need a separate Timeline section in the list format if this information belongs to the History section. I propose to merge it into the History section in the prose format. Beagel (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead

@Lancastle: Please see what WP:LEAD says. That kind of details are too specific for lead; however, they are all included in the relevant sections together with this reference. Moving it from the specific section to the lead is not in line with WP:MOS. I would kindly ask you to revert your edit. Beagel (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would like to ask you to avoid misleading edit summaries. What you reverted was not deletion as information was moved (and not removed) from the lead to the Financing section. And reverting somebody's edit is not minor edit, except in the case of reverting vandalism. Beagel (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Beagel - I will take a look at your suggestions as soon as I have finished reviewing your latest round of deletions, to make sure that the material is included elsewhere on Wikipedia and suitable x-referenced. Lancastle (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lancastle: Unfortunately I see that you have strong ownership feeling and you are interested to keep your own version instead of having this article in line with Wikipedia policies. Please stop edit warning and discuss your edits at the talk page. Beagel (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Beagel - what do you propose for the content you have deleted relating to 'strike prices'? Please respond to my earlier proposal that this be x-referenced to the article Renewable energy in the United Kingdom to support expert commentary on the 'cost to consumers'? Lancastle (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I have been through most of your edits and deletes, Beagel, reinstating deleted material in other articles and including x-references to sections rather than the deletes that you were making and were leading to edit warring. The x-referenced sections are Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#Strike_prices and Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_opinion_and_protests. I agree there is more that can be done with the remaining section on this article Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#EPR. It contains a lot of technical information about the EPR design and repeats information on the page EPR_(nuclear_reactor) about voices for and against the design. Perhaps we can work on this section next? The only relevant part to an article on Hinkley Point C is that other EPR projects, run by EDF and Areva (which EDF is in the process of buying up) are over-budget and over-running. Addressing this will deal with your comment (below) about your second article on Olkiluoto. Lancastle (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Quoting a single number from a WP:PRIMARY (twice) is not WP:OR

@Absolutelypuremilk: With your help, we now have a WP:RS for the statement that power can be delivered at lower cost to consumers via an interconnector to Norway (where electricity is currently cheaper) than from HPC. Ditto for Denmark. To elaborate in this context on the interconnector and the electricity price in Norway is not WP:OR. Ditto for Denmark. And using a WP:PRIMARY source to quote the electricity price (i.e. a single number) is to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge and is thus permitted. As such I am reinstating my edit. Please revert only with justification here. Lklundin (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It is your interpretation that they are comparable numbers - there may be transmission costs involved in using the power from Norway here, as well as the fact that Hinkley will provide a constant power stream which may make it more attractive to the UK. The cost of the power provided by Norway may fluctuate by the time that Hinkley is built, and indeed we can see from past data that the cost was more than double in 2010. Also, I am not sure why you have selected the Kr.Sand figure rather than the other (more expensive) ones. Finally it has not been sourced that the NSN link will provide access to the south Norway bidding area, the only place it appears in NSN link is where you yourself have added it, again unsourced. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems that we are converging on the issues with this improvement to the article. It is the Guardian, not I, who states that an interconnector can provide power cheaper than HPC. All I do is to elaborate on what 'electricity currently cheaper in Norway' means. Ditto for Denmark. It is a fair point that there was not enough detail on why 'Norway' should be interpreted as 'Nord Pool Spot bidding area NO2'. I added a source to explain this. Ditto for Denmark. Thanks for your help in improving the article. Lklundin (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why it is necessary to elaborate on what 'electricity currently cheaper in Norway' means, given that I have raised numerous issues of why the content that you have added may not be a fair comparison. The map you have added still does not show explicitly that the NSN link will provide access to the south Norway bidding area. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the topic of the section is cost and the content of the section has numerous electricity prices, so I find it quite natural to also provide prices detailing the Guardian's claims. As for the NO2 access, it should come as no surprise that the UK - Norway interconnector lands in southwestern Norway, which is the region of Norway closest to the UK. But in the interest of satisfying everyone, I found a source that specifically states that the interconnector will land in NO2. Lklundin (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The interconnector will not grant the same price in the both ends of the cable. If it does, there is no need for different price areas of the Nord Pool Spot which all are well interconnected. It would contribute for less differences in prices but the cable alone (even if we assume there is not transfer costs which is not true) is not enough to ensure the same price. Therefore, the all information about 2015 prices in the different price areas is just WP:SYNTH. Beagel (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beagel: Your assertion about the interconnector is true only when its capacity is maxed out. But your whole (and mostly correct) reasoning about its effect on the price is a digression. All I am doing is to elaborate on the statement from the Guardian, that currently the price of electricity is lower in Norway (and Denmark) than in the UK. The whole subsection is about cost and details a number of prices, so detailing the current prices that the Guardian is referring to is relevant. So please revert your edit. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

As Beagel and I have made clear, you have made the assumption that there would be the same price, otherwise it is not a valid comparison. If you can find a source that says it is a valid comparison, then feel free to add it, but until then it should stay out. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

What part of The Guardian's other European countries, where electricity is currently cheaper do you not understand? I am not making any comparison, I am just pointing to current electricity prices in two countries, since the quoted source (and not I) mentions that the electricity there is currently cheaper. I am not making any comparison, I am detailing what the current electricity prices are. So please reinstate my detailing of current electricity prices in the countries already mentioned by the quoted WP:RS. Lklundin (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not disputing the Guardian's argument that prices would be cheaper in Norway. What I am disputing is that you then extend that argument to make a direct comparison between the prices of Hinkley and the current prices in Norway, using only primary sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not a simple matter. Guardian compares HPC to 5 other power sources, inferring that they compete with and can replace eachother, which may or may not be the case, depending on circumstances. A more prudent comparison could be comparing both HPC and the other sources to gas turbines and the 4 GW coal Drax power station (no timeframe for coal phaseout), since Drax is near the North Sea. There may be local grid constraints preventing these sources in reaching Southwest England. I could not find out if England is one single price area.

Cable trade is usually handled with the merit order method; the start of the cable demands power at low price, pushing lower price buyers out of the market, but pays the common price in that area (NO2). The end of the cable supplies power at high price, pushing higher price suppliers out of the market, but is given the common price in that area (Newcastle). The cable owner profits from the price difference between the two areas. The net effect is to decrease price difference; in Norway price will increase with less than a eurocent and a similar decrease is likely in England. The consensus is that Norwegian price will increase regardless, but not to the level of England.

In any case, these power sources have different characteristics which affect their useability. If the Guardian piece is to be kept, it should thus be wp:balanced with other sources which include the bigger picture of emissions, supply security and grid constraints. Not an easy task. TGCP (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

While that is all interesting, it does not change the point that the effect the interconnector (and other possible alternatives) will have on the price is not the topic here, since the quoted price just details the statement that The Guardian makes on current electricity prices. What remains from your above comment is that the electricity delivered by the interconnectors differ from the electricity from HPC, other than by price.

I will now argue that in the given context these differences are irrelevant:

1) The subsection specifically deals with cost and not other aspects of different technologies, and others are already mentioned (as cheaper) in the section.

2) The quoted source from the Guardian makes a comparison about cost without going into details about other differences between the different technologies.

3) The Nord Pool Spot has a healthy (or maybe diverse, to be NPOV) mix of electricity sources, including nuclear within the bidding areas (Sweden+Finland) and including interconnectors into the bidding areas (from e.g. Germany). Yet, within Nord Pool Spot the different suppliers are evaluated _only_ based on their price per energy unit.

So please reconsider allowing the detailing of the current electricity prices that the Guardian source refers to. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The premise of the blog is that other sources can replace HPC, but it fails to quantify the consequences of such replacement. For example; solar power produces nothing at night, and cables may have a higher failure rate than nuclear. Pricewise, consumers pay UK grid price for NSN power, not Norwegian prices (however, half of the cable profit may befall the the private NatGrid, raising competition issues). As such, the blog is lacking suitable breadth, and its inclusion distorts this article. That's okay if other refs balance that viewpoint. I find it highly likely that NSN will provide near fulltime green power at lower price, but I don't see it as a replacement for HPC, rather as a reduction in gas usage. Here's an image showing a slightly bigger picture. TGCP (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian (a WP:RS) cites a not-entirely unknown think-tank, for the statement that interconnectors are one out of five ways that are better/cheaper than HPC. So it is misleading to state that a 'blog' makes a premise regarding alternatives to HPC, when what we actually have is a normal WP:secondary source reporting from the field. And don't let yourself be confused by the fact that the reporting comes from a preallocated area called a blog, the cited reporting from The Guardian comes from their head of reporting on the environment. Further, your own analysis (i.e. WP:OR) really has a very limited relevance here. For example: You cite a Norwegian language source, and maybe it is the language barrier, but your use of that source conveys the wrong idea. The Norwegian source estimates that once the cable goes into operation, the market price will be consistently higher in the UK than in Norway, causing the electricity to flow almost only from Norway to UK, at the cable's full capacity. We could actually cite this source in the article, regarding future price differences between Norway and the UK, if we wanted to. The source goes on to estimate that this increased demand in Norway (on the order of 10 TWh / year) will increase the price in Norway by less than 1 Eurocent (with all their hydro power they are sure to be able to fully utilize the wind farms they are constructing and any cheap power any neighbor may have to offer, so yes). You then add the statement 'a similar decrease is likely in England'. This is not supported by the article, but is rather your own WP:OR, supported by nothing. But again, I am not trying to introduce any statement about future electricity prices in the UK, regardless of how that country's supply-mix evolves. All I am trying to do is to elaborate on what it means when the source says that electricity prices are currently lower in Norway (and Denmark) than in the UK. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is it necessary for you to elaborate what it means by prices being lower in Norway? Is it not pretty obvious what that means? What you are actually doing is trying to show exactly how much lower they are, which is unnecessary without a secondary source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

My point is that Gaventa needs to explain 1) that NSN and similar can replace HPC power, and/or 2) do so at reduced price for consumers. Otherwise there is no point in comparing them - they might as well compare HPC to donated oil and nuclear in North Korean electricity. Gaventa fails to do so; 1) because NSN power lands at Newcastle and has to cross most of the constrained English grid to reach Southwest England which is not proven, and 2) because consumers pay almost the same price for NSN as before; the profit goes to the cable owners, not the consumers (but as I stated, cheaper than HPC). Yes, 2) is OR at the moment, but could be clarified if needed, and will still be a prediction. However, since Gaventa fails to prove his inference, the present word "argued" is appropriate. It is adding the current prices that introduces wp:Synth because it infers that such prices are available for consumers, but that is not the case. A comparison with the future France2 cable from Normandy would be more relevant, as it lands in Southwest England.

Further explaining 1): Gaventa assumes that those items render HPC unnecessary. On the contrary; UK needs BOTH Hpc AND NSN AND Viking AND France2 AND solar AND energy efficiency - if so, UK might have a chance of reaching a reasonable grid state (yes, more OR). This article does not contain the words "self" or "sufficiency"; if that is the main reason in choosing HPC despite the high price, the article should include that. Page 15 in Gaventa's ref shows energy mix in 2014 and 2030; England has a reduction in nuclear power and a large dependency on Conventional sources (coal&gas). It will increasingly rely on imports as North Sea gas winds down. TGCP (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It does not actually matter if you think and argue that The Guardian is wrong, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Our article clearly attributes the relevant statement to the Guardian, which is a WP:RS and that is what we need. Lklundin (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lklundin: Actually, it is matter because the the piece from The Guardian is an opinion and not a news story. More specifically, it is from the blog of Damian Carrington. While journalists' blogs may be reliable sources in some cases for reporting facts, in other cases they are not accounted as WP:RS for Wikipedia when publishing opinions. To report opinion, the author of it should be an expert in this field or they should be in some other way significant. If we agree that this is an opinion of The Guardian (an not just Damian Carrington), it would be justified to include it as it is in the current version. However, expanding it with arguments and facts not included in the source is original research. Beagel (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

LK correctly shows that Gaventa is the expert to quote, not Damian. This increases the validity of the source, blog or not. However, we do have the discression of judging sources - we do not follow Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth blindly. That's why we can state that solar works differently than HPC in the grid, decreasing the value of Gaventa's overall statement. NSN works more like HPC (fulltime power as estimated by Markedskraft), but a direct replacement is an opinion, not a fact. Which is why "argued" is the correct wording for Gaventa's viewpoint. A counterpoint is likely available for those interested. The article remains insufficient in covering the subject. TGCP (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I comment because I find the discussed topic of electricity sources interesting, although I have to say the topic seems less relevant to the discussed 'Cost to consumers'. It is not obvious that the differences between nuclear, solar and interconnector works out to nuclear's advantage. In fact, from a point of view of supply stability the optimum is a mix of all three. The interconnector has the advantage over both nuclear and solar that it can be regulated (over e.g. a 24 hour time-scale, which is the typical bidding time-scale on the electricity exchanges). (Yes, we have a source that states that the specific interconnector NSN will likely transmit from Norway to UK at close to full capacity, since the electricity is expected to be more expensive in the UK than in Norway when NSN goes into operation, but this is not an inherent interconnector characteristic). Nuclear on the other hand should ideally produce power, whether it is needed or not. As such the concept of 'baseload' which is interpreted as something useful, just means not-to-be-regulated, i.e. the exact opposite of the more useful hydro-power which can be regulated on a very short time-scale. Solar can also not be regulated, but has the advantage that it's production (which is largely predictable within a 24 hour time-scale) correlates well with the general increase in power consumption during the day. Without getting into the toxic debate over risks associated with nuclear, I would say that solar also has the advantage over interconnector and centralized power stations (such as nuclear), that it has virtually no transmission loss (with the typical placement at the consumer). So it is not obvious to me that the value of Gaventa's overall statement is reduced by his comparison. Again, when selling electricity for next-day delivery an exchange such as Nord Pool Spot cares only about the price, not the source. This is also true of the N2EX exchange, which operates in the UK. So I see no inherent problem with Gaventa's overall statement. Lklundin (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC) PS. Does 'LK' refer to me?

Mostly agree. But Gaventa does not argue for a mix including HPC, but for HPC to be replaced by some of the mentioned sources. Therefore, the attributes of these other becomes important. HPC is likely to run nearly fulltime, being taken out only for maintenance. French nuclear is somewhat more flexible than most others to accomodate daily swings. The situation is different in UK where coal phaseout leaves a gap for constant power (and strike price means constant high revenue regardless of market price), and many natgas plants also run fulltime. Despite UK building renewables faster than most others, it still takes decades to replace conventional sources. Much of these aspects are not explained in the article. Sorry yes, LK was short for Lklundin. TGCP (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This is misleading to say that The Guardian argued if the statement is referred as of Gaventa's. I changed the text in the article accordingly. Beagel (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Cost comparison

The cost comparison belongs to this article if the the source actually compares cost of HPC with other cost. If that kind of direct comparison is not provided by the source, it is WP:SYNTH. Beagel (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The deleted section does several things, to explain the cost to consumers. It explains how the 'strike price' and Contract for Difference work, how the HPC 'strike price' will fall if Sizewell is also approved, it provides more detail about the cost to consumers of Hinkley Point C as estimated by the NAO, that no nuclear would be built without these subsidies, and how these subsidies compare with other renewable technologies, again using the 'strike price'. There is no WP:SYNTH because the 'strike price' is directly comparable as represents the price paid for electricity by the Low Carbon Contracts Company.

There is more work that can be done on Wikipedia, for sure, in terms of explaining how the UK electricity market works. However, deleted this section without cross-referencing and editing other sections to improve Wikipedia in potentially vandalism. I have tried to add the tag to your edit, but since you have removed all of the content this is not an option. However, rather than resort to edit warring I have reverted the first section only (actual strike prices) and suggested we use this talk page to agree a better place for the second section on maximum strike prices. Lancastle (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

COMMENT - This section shows actual strike prices (cost to consumers) for other low-carbon technologies. I agree there is more that can be done here in terms of x-referencing to show relative transmission and energy storage costs, and to compare prices with other nuclear such as Hanhikivi at £41 per MWh and the Jim Ratcliff/French Nuclear deal at £37.94 per MWh. To avoid edit warring, perhaps we can co-edit a single section with further cost comparisons such as small nuclear, Japanese nuclear, imported nuclear and the relative cost of 'old' nuclear technology such as that still operating in the UK?

Compared with other power generation sources, actual UK strike prices in 2015 were in the range £50-£79.23/MWh for photovoltaic, £80/MWh for energy from waste, £79.23-£82.5/MWh for onshore wind, and £114.39-£119.89/MWh for offshore wind and conversion technologies (all expressed in 2012 prices). These prices are indexed to inflation. Lancastle (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

COMMENT - This section shows maximum strike prices and, I agree, is less relevant to this section as these prices are only a guideline. To avoid further edit warring, can you suggest a better place for this on Wikipedia and/or a cross reference so that the reader can dig deeper into UK strike prices if they wish?

In 2012, maximum strike prices were £55/MWh for landfill gas, £75/MWh for sewage gas, £95/MWh for onshore wind power, £100/MWh for hydroelectricity, £120/MWh for photovoltaic power stations, £145/MWh for geothermal and £155/MWh for offshore wind farms. For projects commissioned in 2018–2019, maximum strike prices are set to decline by £5/MWh for geothermal and onshore wind power, and by £15/MW for offshore wind projects and large-scale photovoltaic, while hydro power remains unchanged at £100/MWh. Lancastle (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Lancastle I am not sure you understand what the problem is here. If the sources you quote do not mention Hinkley, then that is WP:Synth. Whether you think that strike prices are not covered enough in this article is irrelevant if you cannot find sources relevant to this article. If you want to go and create an article on UK strike prices, and perhaps link to it from this article, then that is up to you (and I would encourage you to do so). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutelypuremilk Thank you for your comments. I disagree that it is WP:Synth to show prices from different sources side-by-side, it is a common approach on Wikipedia, for example, see this article on electricity pricing.However, to continue to improve the article, I have included some high quality references that directly discuss the 'strike price' for HPC compared with other low-carbon options, including other nuclear. One of these is from the HM Parliament website. Lancastle (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not WP:SYNTH to do that when the article is about the price of electricity in different countries. It is when that is not the topic of the article. For example, using a primary source to show that Theresa May was born in 1956 would be acceptable, whereas using it on an article about David Cameron would be WP:SYNTH, even if you thought it was important that people knew that she was older. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lancastle: What you are explaining here is a classical original research and as such it should not be added to Wikipedia. Please read carefully the Wikipedia policy named No original research, particularly its part about Synthesis of published material. Concerning your question, maybe Energy in the United Kingdom may be the more appropriate article? Or maybe you can create a separate article e.g. Energy prices in the United Kingdom or even Electricity strike prices in the United Kingdom? Beagel (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. This section deliberately avoids a detailed discussion of the economics of new nuclear power plants. The 'cost to consumers' is limited to a discussion of 'strike prices' and expert commentary on HPC costs relative to other low-carbon alternatives. Many commentators refer to the 'strike price' which is why it is explained - this is not original research or Synthesis of published material as the 'strike price' commentary is readily available in a synthesised form. There is no need to write the new Wikipedia articles proposed, there is already an established article on Renewable energy in the United Kingdom which needs updating to include actual 'strike prices' and more recent research. Please do not delete this text until I have had time to investigate further. I edit as a volunteer and this is much harder when there is edit warring and there are deletions. I'm sure that neither Absolutelypuremilk or Beagel are intentionally vandalising the page, but I have had to revert a series of edits that have included references, specific dates and expert commentary. Next time I will use the tag 'subst:uw-vandalism1' so that this is flagged for more experienced Wikipedians to step in. Lancastle (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it would fit perfectly in Renewable energy in the United Kingdom. Beagel (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I moved it into Renewable energy in the United Kingdom, so the problem is resolved. Beagel (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Just because there is a reference to the strike price does not mean it is not OR to add in a primary source about that on an article which is not about the strike price. I am of the opinion that edit counts and experience should not matter in a discussion, but seeing as you brought it up: while I am a moderately experienced editor with around 5,000 edits, Beagel is an extremely experienced editor with over 80,000 edits, and also has several privileges granted, so I would suggest that if you are looking for more experienced people than Beagel to come in, you might be looking for a while. If you wish for other people to come in, then I suggest you post at one of the WikiProjects that the article comes under, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy and ask for help. In the meantime, I will revert your addition. By the way, it is customary to sign your username after your talk posts rather than before. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course your opinion matters, Absolutelypuremilk, but by reverting edits, without proposing or agreeing to a way forwards, is vandalism. Please comment on the proposal above and, if you do not agree, please suggest an alternative. Lancastle (talk)

The alternative is to do as Beagel did, and delete the content. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

One alternative could be asking comments at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Beagel (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added a link to this discussion there. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I was momentarily away to take care of something IRL, so trying to catch up now. An important point in this discussion is that we do have a WP:RS (from The Guardian) which states that the HPC has five alternatives that are all cheaper. So we do have price comparisons that are neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH. Lklundin (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If the opinion in The Guardian blog does not make these price comparisons, it is WP:SYNTH to make these comparisons yourselves based on sources not mentioning HPC. Please read what WP:SYNTH says - this is a classic example of synthesis as original research. Beagel (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the price comparisons are unnecessary here unless coming directly from a secondary source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Beagel - please can you replace WP:OR in the section Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Cost_to_consumers with the more specific so that Lklundin and I can better understand why have been were deleting material? From this discussion, I understand your main objections are to provide secondary source to support price comparisons, as Lklundin did with the reference for cheaper Norwegian, Danish and French electricity? Can you use the more specific to show which parts you are concerned about. Is it the references to cheaper nuclear at Hanhikivi and the cancelled EPR project at Olkiluoto? Should the cancelled project be move to the section Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#EPR since this relates to rejection of the EPR design? Lancastle (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beagel: First, please stop dismissing the Guardian source as an opinion. The quoted source is clearly a WP:SECONDARY reporting from the field and the claims made are clearly attributed to the source. Second, the quoted source clearly and specifically reports on a comparison between the price of electricity from HPC and alternatives such as an interconnector to Norway. It does so by repeated use of the word 'cheaper'. As such you need to stop claiming that such a price comparison is WP:SYNTH. Lklundin (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lklundin: Well, yes, this is a statement of Gadiva and it should be included in the article as such, not saying that The Guardian argued. And yes, he repeated saying "cheaper" which is correct to be included and it is included in that way. However, starting to add information about prices from the sources which do not mention HPC is original research. Beagel (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The head of environment reporting from the Guardian decided to report on this comparison, so I find the current in-text attribution natural, but you are welcome to suggest an improvement. A comparison with the adjective 'cheaper' asserts that 'X < Y'. We have a source for this. I find the position that it is WP:SYNTH to quote a separate source for the actual, non-controversial value of 'X' to be most surprising. Due to the cited source 'X' is already relevant to the paragraph, so quoting a separate source for the value of 'X' is just benign juxtaposition of the sourced statements. Lklundin (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe in that case you should start the process to change original research policy. Beagel (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

No, after ten years of Wikipedia editing I find our policies quite adequate. For example this one:

WP:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_presumed.

So before I proceed and given that we already have a source stating that the electricity price in Norway is currently cheaper (than in the UK), 'what new thesis is being introduced' by actually stating the current price of electricity in Norway? Lklundin (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

As for WP:What SYNTH is_not#SYNTH is not_presumed, it has been described several times. Answering your question, it makes a new thesis that after commissioning the link, the UK will get electricity by Nord Pool Spot prices if HPC is not built. Therefore it is important to have a reliable source making that kind of link between HPC and Nord Pool Spot prices, not making this link yourself. Beagel (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, so let's take one step at a time. There can clearly be no problem in detailing the current Norwegian price, since this one is already mentioned (as cheaper) by the quoted source. So do I understand you correctly, that it is the step from the current Norwegian price to a price from Nord Pool Spot that you consider a problem? Lklundin (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem with sources mentioning the Norwegian price cheaper. However, detailing the price (e.g. providing some NPS area price for 2015) is not ok as it makes impression that after commissioning the interconnector the UK will receive electricity at that price. If any source does this, it may be added in the case it is a significant viewpoint and this viewpoint is correctly attributed (according to Mr. X or something similar). But we can't do this by ourselves. Beagel (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Since the article already mentions the current price of electricity in Norway, I think it is a misunderstanding or a misuse of WP:SYNTH to argue that the actual price is not allowed by appear in the article, because of the possible thoughts this can lead to in the reader. It is just like a (hypothetical) discussion regarding metrication, in which a source stated that the yard is shorter than the meter, yet no one would be allowed to write how long the yard is, because a source different from the one making the comparison had that information. Kafkaesque. However, after some thought, I have come to the conclusion that the much debated price is not uniquely defined. As such I will stop arguing that a price should be quoted, simply because it is not entirely self-evident which out of a few possible prices (eurostat maybe?) would actually reflect the reasoning behind the quoted source. Happy editing, Lklundin (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Financing

Any thoughts on how to improve Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Financing? The bare bones of the financing arrangement (2/3 EDF, 1/3 CGN, UK Government guarantees) are included, plus key dates. This could also show the rights issue in April 2016 and announcement to raise funds via asset sales. Lancastle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

More news to add regarding the potential financing deal, with China's stake apparently split with national nuclear weapons maker: http://dailym.ai/2b1qZKo Lancastle (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, it would be a relevant update to Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Financing. Additionally, the source also implies that the change in financing would have an impact on UK national security. That angle seems notable as well. Lklundin (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Given that Absolutelypuremilk and Beagel are not responding to my proposal on this Talk page to agree a way forwards, and working together to delete a range of materials from the page in complex, multiple edits (dates, references, individual words and whole sentences) that are making it difficult to unravel their changes, I have raised a dispute resolution request:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station Lancastle (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Point of order - can someone edit this Talk page to follow WP guidelines for signing? I find the current difference in signature placement confusing, and it makes it hard to follow and participate in a discussion. TGCP (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I have moved Lancastle's signature to the end of their comments as requested, I agree it is confusing. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

After considerable effort, I have been able to undo the majority of the effects of the deletions by Absolutelypuremilk and Beagel by merging it with other pages and x-referencing, in particular the section Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#Strike_prices. However, I would appreciate a reply on the claims of original research or Synthesis of published material on the talk page Talk:Hinkley Point C nuclear power station given this was the original reason given for the deletions. Lancastle (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

So instead of discussing restoration of this material you preferred to start edit warring? As for WP:SYNTH, I will ask one more time: did you read the relevant policy_ If not, it is very hard to have meaningful discussion. Beagel (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Beagel I raised the dispute to encourage you to discuss your changes on this page, rather than your gung-ho approach to editing where you delete substantive parts of the article, when you have more friendly alternatives to highlight the need for better referencing. Lancastle (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lancastle: Did you read the relevant policy or not? Beagel (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beagel: Yes, I reviewed this deletion which you had marked as WP:SYNTH but the dispute is about a wider range of deletions by yourself and Absolutelypuremilk, for example:

• Not cross-referencing when you have move text to another article [4]
• Unnecessary date trims [5]
• Misleading and unhelpful re-wording (e.g.: 'may be' rather than the word 'estimate' used by the NAO source: [6]

Please refrain from all-out deletion when there are more subtle tools at your disposal such as and this talk page Lancastle (talk)

(Just to point out that I often trim dates when the day of the month is included but irrelevant. I feel that it clutters up the article because attention is drawn to the number, which often does not particularly matter, especially when it is several years since the event) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk:. I agree this is mainly a difference in style and is not substantive to the dispute - when you edit dates individually it is easy to follow what you are doing - thank you for this and for your explanation. As there are many contributors to this article, some historical information may be released in the future (e.g.: HM Treasury reports on the 'strike price'), and a final deal has not been signed, my view is that specific dates are still important - especially if the terms of the deal are renegotiated.Lancastle (talk)

Could you then remove it from the dispute resolution form? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed this. Lancastle (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

From your answer I understand that you have not read the relevant Wikipedia policy about original research. Please follow this link and read it, particularly the section about synthesis of published material. Beagel (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I have read and applied the relevant policies. The logical construction of this section is entirely consistent with these. It is as balanced as it can be, with views for and against EPR listed in date order. There is no concluding synthesis saying whether EPR is, or is not, a good design. Lancastle (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You made the following construction. First statement: HPC would use EPR reactors. (supported by source) Independently this is correct. Second statement: EDF and Areva have been facing 'lengthy delays and steep cost overruns (supported by sources). Independently this is also correct. However, putting this two statements together implies that the same may happen with HPC. It may or may not happen. However, for inclusion we need a source which says that due to delays and cost overuns at Flamanville and at Olkiluoto same thing may happen also in HPC. But there is no source included which makes that kind of linkage. Therefore, this construction is a synthesis of published material and as such should be not included. Beagel (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beagel: Thank you for explaining your thinking I am glad you agree that the statement 'the same (delays) may happen in the UK' is implied by you, as the reader. An unbiased reader could equally imply the opposite statement that 'EDF will learn from these mistakes and not repeat them in the UK'. Therefore, I disagree with you that an implied (i.e.: unwritten statement) is WP:SYNTH. Logically, I could construct a number of statements A & B that imply a range of subjective interpretations C, D, E, F and so on - each depending on your prior assumptions. Having said that, and without accepting your unreasonable argument that there is WP:SYNTH, your subjective/implied dilemma can be made explicit in a concluding sentence and, I hope, the article is improved:

In 2016, EDF Directors Thomas Piquemal and Gérard Magnin have both resigned over their concerns about the risk of the project. However, Chris Bakken, an EDF Project Manager, has said that EDF has full confidence they 'won’t repeat the mistakes of the Finnish and French EPRs'. Lancastle (talk)

Olkiluoto

@Lancastle: We have a separate article about the Olkiluoto NPP. Discussing it in this article which IS NOT about Olikuoto, is POV: I kindly ask you to revert your reversion and instead of edit warring please discuss. Beagel (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree there is no sense in having a technical section on EPR design. The information that is relevant to HPC is limited to the project risk of overruns, i.e.: the information on delays to other EDF and Areva EPR projects. Lancastle (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Beagel - the relevant information on Olkiluoto NPP is that Finland cancelled the EPR project and opted for the cheaper VVER-1200/V-491 reactor at <€50/MWh (5 cents/kWh). A possible section might be 'EPR Risks' or 'EPR Criticism' that can be referenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancastle (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No, this is irrelevant. It is relevant only as a significant viewpoint if any reliable source says that HPC should be cancelled because of Olkiluoto. In that case it should be included as significant viewpoint. All other ways of inclusion are irrelevant and in the form you restored it this violates WP:SYNTH to support a certain WP:POV. Beagel (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Beagel - the section Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#EPR does not suggest the project be cancelled, which I agree would be WP:SYNTH to support a certain WP:POV. The quote used refers to 'lengthy delays and steep cost overruns' and there are good sources that propose delaying the HPC decision until the EPR overruns and problems at Olkiluoto NPP have been resolved, eg: this correspondence with the UK Parliament. Can I suggest that the section Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#EPR is re-written to include this and similar references (for and against) - and renamed 'Project Delays' or something similar? The technical material relating to EPR reactors could be moved to the general section EPR_(nuclear_reactor) which is already linked, and gives additional information for those who are interested. Lancastle (talk)

If you can find a better source saying something similar to the Parliament source, then that would be acceptable, but using a primary sourced letter from a trade union is not. As with the other disputes, I recommend you read WP:SYNTH to see that in general secondary sources are needed. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, Absolutelypuremilk. Please use start with the more user-friendly options 'Original research section' and and the talk page rather than outright deletions of content. Lancastle (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Beagel, Absolutelypuremilk and Lklundin - please comment on this proposal to improve the section Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#EPR to show voices for and against the EPR design, and suggest details that could be better placed in the general section EPR_(nuclear_reactor). Lancastle (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lancastle: Edit warring is not a way to resolve disputes. You think that there is nothing wrong with Olkiluoto. I believe that this a classic example of synthesis of published material Maybe I am wrong, maybe you are wrong. Lets have a third opinion of some uninvolved editor who is an expert on the original research issues. However, until the dispute solution if the disputed text stays, also the relevant tag should stay. Therefore, I would kindly ask you to restore the tag for now. Beagel (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

We already have a third party opinion, above, which was to "find a better source saying something similar to the Parliament source, then that would be acceptable". You will see that a secondary source was used, rather than HM Parliament.Lancastle (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see further comments in TALK:Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Dispute_Resolution regarding assertion by Beagel that if A + B implies C, D, that is [WP:SYNTH]. To avoid the reader making an implicit (and unreasonable) assumption, section has been edited to state C1, C2 and D explicitly. However, I disagree with the approach taken by Beagel on the grounds that SYNTH is not presumed. When SYNTH is claimed, the guidance clearly states that 'you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't.' SYNTH is 'original research by synthesis' and not 'getting the reader(s) to draw invalid/opposing conclusions by omission'.Lancastle (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Lets explain it one more time in more detailed way. The source used for Fennovoima contract with Rosatom says:

"Fennovoima’s signing of the contract with Rosatom comes at a crucial time in the European nuclear power market. Several European countries, including the UK, the Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania and Turkey, are currently trying to find ways to get new nuclear power plants built. The UK government has recently announced it will offer EDF of France a 35-year guaranteed, inflation-indexed “strike price” of £92.50 (€110) per MWh to build a new nuclear plant at Hinkley. The European Commission has subsequently announced that it will launch a state aid investigation into the Hinkley Point C project, which will consist of two 1600 MW EPR units (European Pressurised Reactors) which are expected to cost £8 (€9.55) billion each."

That is true that the source is mentioning HPC; however, it is mentioned in the context that these things are happening at the nuclear power market. This does not make any direct link between these two event. However, adding this information into the article specifically about HPC and not about Hanhikivi NPP, makes impression that there is a direct link (it would be different in the case of the article about the developments in the nuclear sector in general). Inclusion of Hanhikivi NPP into the article about HPC is justified only in the case if there is a direct link between these two things. If that kind of direct link exists, we need a source stating this direct link. Without that kind of source, this is a synthesis and as such it does not belongs here. If you say that there is no direct link between these two things, in that case this information does not belong in this article. The same principle concerns the third EPR reactor at Olkuluoto and Flamanville NPP. Beagel (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beagel: Thank you for your more detailed explanation. Can I suggest we break this out into two sub-topics, as follows:

Cost to Consumers - Olkiluoto

Beagel - My understanding is that the section 'cost to consumers' includes the expert commentary on the 'cost to consumers' of HPC. These experts tend to talk in terms of strike prices, spot prices and (occasionally) LCOE. My understanding is that we have agreed a way forwards here, which is to:

• Move technical details that elaborate on relative strike prices, spot prices and LCOE to the section Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#Strike_prices
• Retain the expert commentary, with x-refs to detailed strike and other prices for the interested reader. Expert commentary includes Jim Ratcliffe, the chairman of Fennovoima, Henrik Poulson and so on. This section should not elaborate on actual prices unless the expert/secondary source goes into specifics
• If the expert commentary compares two nuclear plants, it could/should also be included in both articles, e.g.: the comments by the chairman of Fennovoima are a useful addition to Olkiluoto NPP and so on
• It is not WP:SYNTH if the section Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#Strike_prices is edited to shows UK strike, LCOE and SPOT prices side-by-side, from multiple sources. I am assuming this on the basis that aggregate tables are common elsewhere on Wikipedia, eg: this article. That is, your objection of [WP:SYNTH] is context-specific

If so, I can begin editing this section to add/move useful content to these other articles, and to improve the detailed side-by-side comparisons at Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#Strike_pricesLancastle (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposals. I try to comment them one-by-one:

• Yes, we agreed that information on renewable (strike) fits better in Renewable energy in the_United_Kingdom. I think that this is a correct location for all information about renewable energy prices in the UK. I think that also comparison with prices of other sources fits there if that kind of comparison is made by any reliable source. This does not mean that there may not be other problems but as a principle way forward I don't see any problem with this at the moment. Maybe in some cases the information suits better in Electricity sector in the United Kingdom etc.
• The commentary of Jim Ratcliffe belongs here as he directly comments the price of HCP.
• The second part of the commentary of Henrik Poulsen belongs here. I would suggest to remove the first part "... confirmed DONG's commitment to its £5.1bn UK investment programme and ..." as the DONG's investment programme is not related to the HPC.
• The comment of Pekka Ottavainen of Fennovoima about the UK price belongs here as its clear from the context he meant theHPC price. I think that we may also included his comment that nuclear should be built without subsidies. However, all the information about Rosatom, Hanhinkivi NPP and Hanhinkivi planned price does not belong here.
• Of course, all comments should be weighted for inclusion separately based on WP:DUE but the comments listed above are significant enough for inclusion.

Beagel (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. As this discussion relates to Talk:Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Cost_comparison we should ask Lklundin for his comments. The sources I have introduced mostly begin with HPC, as I have a weekly HPC email alert. It is good to see that we seem to be converging. To summarise, the concerns raised about WP:SYNTH in this section are largely of the form 'expert opinion says A + B (and incidentally, A1 and B1) will result in C and D. The concerns about [WP:SYNTH] relate specifically to incidental material/padding (A1, B1) that have been included but are not specific to the article. Therefore, it should be a simple case of reviewing each reference and deleting the parts A1 and B1 where they are incidental. Although this seems odd to me - there is going to be less context - I don't have any particular axe to grind and I can see the benefits of brevity. I fully understand your point about WP:DUE. Lancastle (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I have simplified this section, to minimise inclusion of incidental material, but retaining expert commentary on the relative prices of HPC as discussed above. Lancastle (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

EPR Section - Olkiluoto

Beagel - Do you have any remaining concerns about this section? The ref from the Union of Concerned Scientists saying EPR is 'safer and more secure' does not mention HPC. Do the same principles apply - this content should be moved to to the general section EPR_(nuclear_reactor)? I'm just trying to understand your WP:SYNTH being about Olkiluoto but not about the Union of Concerned Scientists? Presumably the HPC/EPR expert commentary by the Fédération Nationale des Cadres Supérieurs and the resignation commentary on EPR project risks is OK - although could perhaps be further balanced by additional positive commentary assuming a suitable secondary source can be found?Lancastle (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you mentioning the Union of Concerned Scientists. That information definitely belongs to the article on EPR as also other commentaries about risks of EPR. Maybe it could be summarized here representing both positive and negative views, but it depends of the exact wording and context. I don't think this will create synthesis here but there may be a problem if we will put all this information here and not in EPR (nuclear reactor). Beagel (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I was assuming this section to be HPC-related +ve/-ve commentary on the EPR design, yes. We are discussing a project, and there is detailed discussion about the project costs in Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Economics - but a project is a balance between cost, time and quality - and it is less obvious where the expert commentary about time and quality goes. There are refs with expert commentary on project delays in Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#History but is that the right place? The -ve commentary could be moved to Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Criticism_and_organised_opposition but doesn't a section on 'criticism' requires balancing to achieve WP:POV. I will take a look at other articles on big infrastructure projects to see how these are structured (Olympic stadia, airports and railway infrastructure come to mind). Lancastle (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Ownership of EDF

I note the uncited claim that EDF is "French-owned" has been put back into the article (with an edit summary and hidden reason "The free float is 15%... meaning 15% of the shares are freely traded. The majority stake (85%) is 'French-government owned' not 'French-owned'.") Can we find a reference to support that and then remove the "citation needed" tag?— Rod ^talk 20:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain how the fact that 15% of EDF's share my be floated is relevant for this article? Beagel (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The 15% is relevant to the details of Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Financing and not especially useful in the pre-amble - I will move it. The reference for the majority stakeholder (85%) in EDF is the French-government is relevant to the description of EDF as being 'mainly French state-owned' which introduces the reader to the pivotal role of government support in building new nuclear power plants.Lancastle (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that that we should mention that the major shareholder is the French government or that the company is French government controlled. However, as the topic of this article is Hinkley Point C nuclear power station and there is a separate article about EDF, details about EDF belong there in specific article and not here. Actually, the current statement in the article ("EDF may sell up to 15% of their stake.") is incorrect and it is not what the source says. The source says "EDF said it might sell another 15% stake in the project", that means 15% in additional to the 33% had negotiated with the China General Nuclear Power Generation. Beagel (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the 15% refers to EDF's stake in the project, and this accurately describes the proposed project financing (China - 33.5%, EDF 66.5% less up to 15%) which is why it is in the section Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Financing Lancastle (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I propose to make this more clear as at the moment it mau be understood differently. Maybe: "In addition to 33.5% stake in the project financed by the China General Nuclear Power Generation, EDF may sell up to 15% of their stake in the project." It helps to avoid confusion about the stakes. Beagel (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, hopefully this is resolved now.Lancastle (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Decommissioning and storage/disposal of spent fuel ?

The article does not mention the decommissioning nor storage/disposal of the spent fuel. The article on cost of electricity by source states that these costs are usually not included in the LCoE of a nuclear power plant. This raises several questions that the article could be improved by addressing:

• Does the proposal include restoration of the site to greenfield status after decommissioning?
• If not, in what state should the decommissioning leave the site?
• Is there an actual plan for the long term storage/disposal of the spent fuel?
• What are the expected costs of decommissioning and long term storage/disposal of spent fuel?
• Will these costs be covered by the owners of the plant (EDF/CGN) under the agreed strike price?
• If yes, is there any agreed mechanism to ensure that the plant owners will actually be able to cover these costs in due time (around year 2090)?

Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

According to these sources [[7], [[8]] and [[9]] the decommissioning costs are included in the strike price - funds are set aside for every year of operation - perhaps this detail could be included with a x-ref to this article since the legal framework applies to all new nuclear build in the UK, not just HPC.

Lancastle (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Controversy (unresolved, despite auto-archive)

An unsigned IP Editor deleted the word 'controversial' from the introduction. The use of this word can be referenced, see:

• ITV: www.itv.com/news/2013-10-21/government-closes-historic-deal-to-build-first-nuclear-plant-in-a-generation-hinkley-point
• Cheddar Valley Gazette: http://www.cheddarvalleygazette.co.uk/Hinkley-Point-Timeline/story-19965239-detail/story.html
• Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/30/hinkley-point-nuclear-power-plant-uk-government-edf-underwrite

The IP Editor left a comment on this Talk page:

An other example of negative bias on this page. While the government financing has led to the European Commission investigation, this does not justify the the third word after the page name to be "controversial". Wikipedia should be about education, not propagating your own ideologies. I also realised that my input on why nuclear and solar should not be compared like to like has had its points edited out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.86.59 (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 

Lancastle (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: the word 'controversial' continues to crop up in the press, see:

• The Week: http://www.theweek.co.uk/60778/hinkley-point-nuclear-plant-delayed-at-last-moment
• Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/28/hinkley-point-c-to-go-ahead-after-edf-board-approves-project

This is a proposal to reinstate this word in the intro, and to call it a 'project' rather than a 'proposal' on the basis that about £2 billion has already been spent on the site: 'Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power station is a controversial project to...' Lancastle (talk)

I disagree with reinstatement - putting it that far up in the lead gives it undue prominence. I would agree with the change from proposal to project though. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Now that the contract has been signed

Now that the contract has been signed (BBC report, Guardian report) are any changes needed to the article to take this into account? (I note "proposal" has already been changed to "project"). I note there is still a "citation needed" tag on the strike price in the infobox - can anyone resolve this? Is there anything else needed to ensure that the article meets the Good article criteria? Also would it be worth contacting EDF & asking if an "artists impression" of what the final plant will look like, could be released under a suitable licence for use here? I've just come across a load of stuff about the archaeology of the site (funded by the new development money but will probably put that at Hinkley Point.— Rod ^talk 07:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

There does seem to be repetition between the sections 'history' and 'timeline' - is it possible to merge these? The sections on EPR and the PWR both relate to 'design' - does it make sense to have a main section 'design' with two sub-sections (and move some of the EPR criticism into the linked articles on EPR(nuclear reactor) and the related articles on Flamanville and Olkiluoto? This will give the section more balance - nuclear scientists and EDF spokespeople for the design, Monbiot/anti-nuclear and FNCS against the design)? Looking forwards, details of financing/costs and construction work are likely to continue to emerge - should 'construction work' become a separate section, too? Lancastle (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Grid Upgrades Required for Wind and Solar ?

@Garzfoth: You have twice gone against other editors to insert text that the Agora study "ignores the cost of grid upgrades required for wind and solar", the second time doing so with the edit summary "You didn't read the entire source, did you? Read it again". With that you need to be reminded of WP:BURDEN, i.e. "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". So please either cite "the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)" or self-revert. Thank you. Lklundin (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Link to PDF: https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2014/low-carbon-technologies/Agora_Analysis_Decarbonisationtechnologies_web_final.pdf

Key quotes:

• Page #9: "compares publicly stated remuneration levels for new PV, wind (in Germany)"
• Page #13: "Offshore wind 2013 without grid costs; in Germany, the regulatory approach excludes grid costs from being covered by the remuneration. Offshore grid costs are estimated to be between 25 and 35 EUR/MWh, depending on the distance to shore."
• Page #17: "The analysis here is limited to power generation cost and backup capacity. While the cost of grid expansion is not considered because it very much depends on the existing infrastructure in each particular case, its likely impact on the results is discussed in the final section of this paper."
• Page #17: "Our analysis is based on a historical load profile for Germany and the detailed modelling of power generation from onshore wind and PV performed by Fraunhofer IWES (Consentec et al. 2013). The system design ensures that hours of curtailment are scarce. Accordingly, this assessment does not consider storage technologies."
• Page #21: "The cost estimates presented here leave out grid costs, potential additional system costs (e.g. voltage and frequency control) as well as possible cost differences related to how gas power plants are operated (e.g. higher ramping rates)"

So, this source clearly states that it ignores all grid costs, and additionally ignores all offshore grid costs. It also ignores the other integration costs, is blatantly optimizing the system to favor renewables, is ignoring important factors in the operation of gas capacity, cites an earlier report from the organization that did this report as the primary source for the majority of the figures, calculations, assumptions, and models used in the document (WTF), compares German costs to UK costs, uses highly dubious cost figures, intentionally omits storage, intentionally avoids optimization of gas capacity for nuclear while optimizing it for renewables, and fails to disclose much of the logic behind the construction of key parts of their analysis. I was extremely conservative in limiting myself to simply pointing out the lack of consideration for grid costs, which are considerable when large quantities of renewable resources are introduced onto the grid, and especially so (to a major degree) when you are attempting to lower wastage to the levels that they are. Conclusion: My edits are justified by, if nothing else, this simple quote directly from the source used..."the cost estimates presented here leave out grid costs". I do not need to justify the edits any further than this. Please listen when you are asked to read sources in the future, it will save both of us quite a bit of time. Garzfoth (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Garzfoth: All of the above argues that the cited study ignores all grid costs. You did leave out one important quote regarding the ignored grid costs, the one I cited in the summary of the edit you reverted. On page 12 under the heading "LCOE for different fossil-based power generation technologies with CCS", the study states that the costs of new fossil-based power "do not include any further cost com-ponents relevant to the entire energy system, such as grid costs or costs of providing sufficient backup capacity". So while the cited source does ignore grid costs (such as those required for new fossil-based technologies) it does not support your assertion that grid upgrades are required for wind and solar. As such your contested edit cannot remain as it is. Lklundin (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Per the above I have removed the unsupported "required for wind and solar", so the sentence now reads "The study ignores both the cost of grid upgrades". The deliberate absence of assumptions related to grid costs (for any of the considered sources) partially addresses the above concern, that the study is specific to Germany. Additionally, I modified the second half of the sentence to just stress that the study also chooses to not consider the expected continuation of price reductions for wind and solar, without drawing any explicit conclusion from that. Lklundin (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Criticism and organised opposition

What relevance have "about" (about ? really ? so difficult to count ?) seven protesters in February 2012 that set up camp in an abandoned farmhouse on the site of the proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power station ? Are we kidding ? --Robertiki (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)