Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years

building.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 206 posts

Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years

#51

Post by invalidname »

myrmidon wrote: post #37
blitzar wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dogger Bank Wind Farm

Thats a very good comparison-- to be fair though, 3.2GW nuclear are comparable to pretty much the whole Dogger Bank (including Sofia/South) at ~8GW (nameplate power), because offshore capacity factor is about ~40% in the UK. Total cost for the wind farm is probably around 20-ish billion $, but the lifetime is likely shorter than the reactor (possibly less than half!). It's surprising to me that the reactor at $35bill…

Do you mean it's competitive due to the longer lifetime?

Is the operation cost of the reactor over such a long duration not significant?

Also why are you comparing 8gw to 3.2gw? Is it due to peek output? if so won't this be solved by grid level storage?

Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years

#52

Post by enopod_ »

anovikov wrote: post #11

It will produce annually, about as much electricity as UK produces now from solar. Which is installed at a much faster clip than these two sad reactors are built, even if UK is one of the worst countries for solar in the civilised world due to expensive land and terrible weather. What's even the point? Maybe this reactor is a live testament to the observation that "any new nuclear starting construction today will be…

„Sans nucléaire civil, pas de nucléaire militaire“ as the French say…

Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years

#53

Post by blitzar »

myrmidon wrote: post #37
blitzar wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dogger Bank Wind Farm

Thats a very good comparison-- to be fair though, 3.2GW nuclear are comparable to pretty much the whole Dogger Bank (including Sofia/South) at ~8GW (nameplate power), because offshore capacity factor is about ~40% in the UK. Total cost for the wind farm is probably around 20-ish billion $, but the lifetime is likely shorter than the reactor (possibly less than half!). It's surprising to me that the reactor at $35bill…

Dogger Bank will when fully built-out at a cost of some £11bn.

Lifetime cost will be much lower - near 0 staff - no anti-terrorism policing operation - no fuel. If it were onshore, cost would be significantly cheaper and would be able to scale onto the grid and generate revenue (nearly) one turbine at a time as they are installed which makes a massive difference for financing and servicing a debt.

Cost wise certainly not orders of magnitude difference, and it is competitive. The sensible non partisan thinkers out there know it isn't a choice of building one or the other, you build both.

Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years

#54

Post by Moldoteck »

anovikov wrote: post #11

It will produce annually, about as much electricity as UK produces now from solar. Which is installed at a much faster clip than these two sad reactors are built, even if UK is one of the worst countries for solar in the civilised world due to expensive land and terrible weather. What's even the point? Maybe this reactor is a live testament to the observation that "any new nuclear starting construction today will be…

there are several problems here: 1 - this nuc plant in uk is a 'customized' one because uk has different laws compared to france. As result when you want something custom for the first time - it's both expensive and time consuming. 2- solar/wind can be scaled faster leading to faster decarbonization but makes the grid more unstable, just like the prices. Some tell you can use batteries for this but battery tech isn't there yet, you need absolutely huge amounts of them to cover the deficit reliably,especially for uk. Transmission&balancing costs are huge too. Right now uk's strategy is gas + more imports, usually from france. Afaik there aren't any countries globally(without big hydro resources) with a clear plan to ditch gas and reduce imports from nonfossil neighbors to cover own needs with renewables, be that California or Germany. Even green hydrogen plans are still a pipedream. It's ironical that even Norway with huge hydro resources is considering kickstarting some new nuclear plants

Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years

#55

Post by blitzar »

chickenbig wrote: post #29
defrost wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each phase will have an installed generation capacity of 1.2GW and represents a multi-billion pound investment. Combined, they will have an installed capacity of 3.6GW and will be capable of powering up to 6 million homes annually. ~ https://doggerbank.com/ Sounds about right in scale .. how many homes in the UK in total?

The obligatory "what's the capacity factor" discussion should happen here; 40% to 50% might be reasonable, with highly correlated availability. Additionally the wind farm requires backup (CCGT or OCGT), which cost money to sit there. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6556027d046ed... (take it with a pinch of salt) gives a figure of £80/kW/year for an H class CCGT; that's £250M/year (2015 prices). Another…

> Additionally the wind farm requires backup

So does a nuclear reactor.

Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years

#56

Post by Moldoteck »

davedx wrote: post #38
anovikov wrote: post #11

It will produce annually, about as much electricity as UK produces now from solar. Which is installed at a much faster clip than these two sad reactors are built, even if UK is one of the worst countries for solar in the civilised world due to expensive land and terrible weather. What's even the point? Maybe this reactor is a live testament to the observation that "any new nuclear starting construction today will be…

The pro nuclear types hate these observations because they’re painfully true. Battery storage is already doing a lot in the UK (4.6GW/5.9GWh) and the huge solar build out is a no brainer. Nuclear power is a dead end technology

i mean you can look here https://app.electricitymaps.com/map how much batteries are doing for uk vs gas/imports...

Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years

#57

Post by myrmidon »

rapnie wrote: post #45
myrmidon wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats a very good comparison-- to be fair though, 3.2GW nuclear are comparable to pretty much the whole Dogger Bank (including Sofia/South) at ~8GW (nameplate power), because offshore capacity factor is about ~40% in the UK. Total cost for the wind farm is probably around 20-ish billion $, but the lifetime is likely shorter than the reactor (possibly less than half!). It's surprising to me that the reactor at $35bill…

Does the $35billion also include decommissioning the nuclear reactor and storing the nuclear waste for the duration at which it is considered harmful? If not, then what amount are we talking approximately if that was accounted for as well?

Rough estimate for decomissioning the reactor could be something like £5Bn.

Decomissioning the offshore wind turbines could get into the same range though, assuming £400M per installed GW (nameplate), this would be £3.2Bn

Numbers need to be taken with a large grain of salt.

Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years

#58

Post by mpweiher »

myrmidon wrote: post #37
blitzar wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dogger Bank Wind Farm

Thats a very good comparison-- to be fair though, 3.2GW nuclear are comparable to pretty much the whole Dogger Bank (including Sofia/South) at ~8GW (nameplate power), because offshore capacity factor is about ~40% in the UK. Total cost for the wind farm is probably around 20-ish billion $, but the lifetime is likely shorter than the reactor (possibly less than half!). It's surprising to me that the reactor at $35bill…

Yeah, that's one point that gets lost in the brouhaha over nuclear cost overruns:

Even the most catastrophic nuclear projects are competitive if not better than the best renewable projects.

Yeah, I know this sounds like frothing-at-the-mouth nuclear fanboiism, but run the numbers!

I did, and once I did I started sounding like a frothing-at-the-mouth nuclear fanboi.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years

#59

Post by ben_w »

chickenbig wrote: post #29
defrost wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each phase will have an installed generation capacity of 1.2GW and represents a multi-billion pound investment. Combined, they will have an installed capacity of 3.6GW and will be capable of powering up to 6 million homes annually. ~ https://doggerbank.com/ Sounds about right in scale .. how many homes in the UK in total?

The obligatory "what's the capacity factor" discussion should happen here; 40% to 50% might be reasonable, with highly correlated availability. Additionally the wind farm requires backup (CCGT or OCGT), which cost money to sit there. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6556027d046ed... (take it with a pinch of salt) gives a figure of £80/kW/year for an H class CCGT; that's £250M/year (2015 prices). Another…

> Additionally the wind farm requires backup (CCGT or OCGT), which cost money to sit there.

Or batteries, but yes.

Battery manufacturing capacity is growing fast, but still — figures from recent years as reported by the IAE are [2022: 1720 GWh, 2023: 2500 GWh], but that's global and I'm not sure if demand is currently driven (no pun intended) by vehicles or by grids.

Still, if those batteries need replacement every decade, that global manufacturing supply can backup 150 GW of generation if they each need an independent 1 week backup and can't e.g. just use a broader grid to get e.g. Spanish sun for any of that.

Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years

#60

Post by blitzar »

snalty wrote: post #8
roenxi wrote: post #3

> As the cost of Hinkley Point has increased, the backers have had to provide more funding. The souring of relations between Britain and China saw CGN stop providing any more money, leaving EDF to fund the shortfall. EDF has called upon the UK government to help out with the escalating cost but it has refused. EDF was fully nationalised in 2023, leaving the French taxpayer to pick up the tab for the cost overruns. Th…

It's about time our national infrastructure benefitted from foreign taxpayer money, considering how often it's been the other way around! Especially with the railways.

We were laughing at the stupid foreigners who don't understand maths when they bought these things from us. Humble pie is a wonderful dish.
Post reply on HN