Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 7th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Nuclear power station trouble has fallout for BE



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
14 November 2007
LIVINGSTON-BASED power producer British Energy has warned that the rest of its current trading year would be "significantly impacted" by problems it was having at two of its nuclear power stations.
But it attempted to sweeten the blow with prospects of an additional dividend to shareholders, albeit one that would be determined by the current operating difficulties, as it unveiled the blow.

Costs associated with the problems are expected to run to at least £50 million, with the firm having forked out £30m so far to buy out disrupted contracts.

The group, which owns Torness power station in East Lothian, delivered the warning as it posted a rise in underlying half-year earnings to £511m from £481m a year earlier, helped by higher power prices. Revenue rose 2.3 per cent to £1.39 billion.

Britain's biggest power provider, which delivers around a fifth of the country's electricity needs, has been hit by recent closures at sites at Hartlepool and Heysham 1 in Lancashire, which together are capable of supplying over 1.5m homes.

That followed on from outages and subsequent load restrictions at Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B, in Ayrshire, after the group repaired boiler cracks there.

The company, which manages eight nuclear power stations built since 1965 to a unique UK design, has in recent years struggled with cracks in boilers and other issues linked to ageing.

New problems emerged in recent weeks at its Hartlepool and Heysham 1 plants, where corrosion was discovered in eight concrete and steel plugs in the top of the boilers that surround the reactor cores.

British Energy said inspections continued, but could give little new information. Analysts think closures could run to as much as six months.

Bill Coley, the group's chief executive, said: "The remainder of the financial year will be significantly impacted by the boiler closure unit issue at Hartlepool and Heysham 1."

The company said its realised power price for the half-year was £38.40 pence per megawatt hour (MWh), up eight per cent on the period a year ago.

However, Mr Coley remained upbeat and said: "The first half of the year has shown many operating metrics across the entire fleet at 'best ever' recorded levels.

"That is a tribute to the operational focus of our employees and the investments made in improving the material condition of our plant."

British Energy said it would take account of its recent problems when setting a special dividend in February.

Analyst Edmund Reid at Cazenove said: "Despite the continuing operational problems, the macro outlook for British Energy is increasingly positive."

"UK forward electricity prices have rallied on the back of tightening reserve margins and higher gas prices and new nuclear in the UK is getting ever nearer, in our view."

The full article contains 470 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 November 2007 11:22 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: British Energy
 
1

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 14/11/2007 13:42:43

This is absolutely, totally rediculous. Our nuclear industry should never have been allowed to get into this state.

All the mis-informed prophets of doom who decry nuclear power because they are too stupid to realise that it is basically safe, need to take note. Because of their stupid ideas, the nuclear industry has to scrimp and mend 42 year-old reactor boilers. These idiots need to learn that like it or not, once built and up and running, nuclear power stations need maintenance and that costs money. If you don't maintain them, they wear out, which is exactly what is happening here. This could increase the likelihood of a nuclear incident substantially, from "hardly any at all" to reasonably likely.

And if that happens, what will the morons all say? "Oh! nuclear power isn't safe". Wrong again nuggets! it's because you are all to anal to realise some basic facts.

Stop spending money on stupid bloody windmills and start spending it where it is needed---on the nuclear industry.

2

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 14/11/2007 16:43:11

Once commissioned, access to the internal parts of a nuclear reactor is denied as it is "hot". A combination of high temperature and irradiation progressively destroys metal components and the graphite moderator. The nuclear inspectors have to decide at what point operation can continue safely. They also scrutinise plans to extend the original planned life. Safety is compromised if they are kept going for too long.

However, the main objection to the nuclear renaissance is the looming shortage of uranium and the poor economic performance of the sector, the costs of which were masked by state ownership. Nuclear generated electricity, since its inception in 1956, has cost the consumer and taxpayer three times more than it should have done.

The Energy Review has admitted that nuclear generation can only be economic with carbon credits provided by taxing other fossil fuel burners. As BE has a coal station it will have to subsidise itself! In any case shrinking coal reserves will mean that levies on carbon burners will also shrink. The whole carbon trading ethos is a nonsense.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.