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

101–110 of 206 posts

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

#101

Post by mhandley »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #97
mhandley wrote: post #91

Yes, Hinkley and Sizewell may be expensive - but they're unlikely to be that much more expensive than wind/PV plus enough storage to provide reliable 24/7/365 power. In the end, I'd much rather have some diversity in the system. If the choice was 100% nuclear vs 100% wind/PV, the answer would probably be different, but for 15% of the UK's capacity to come from a reliable (but expensive) source that is uncorrelated wi…

Why hold wind to a higher standard than a nuclear plant? A nuclear plant typically has 95% uptime. Wind/PV/storage can hit 95% or 99% or 99.9% a lot cheaper than Hinkley can hit 95%.

I'm not holding wind to a higher standard - I'd rather have two pretty reliable sources whose downtime is uncorrelated.

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

#102

Post by blitzar »

chickenbig wrote: post #88
blitzar wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK’s average nuclear load factor for 1970 to 2017 was 67.4 per cent 3 GW 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 34 weeks a year. or 3 GW 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.

IAEA's PRIS database is good for reactor information. For instance https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.... shows Sizewell B has a load factor of 83.1% which is better than the AGR fleet.

That is an excellent link thanks. Really sad reminder of how many sites were opened and how many reactors built in the 60's & 70's and how little has been done since (except for power down reactors).

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

#103

Post by chickenbig »

griffzhowl wrote: post #26
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…

OTOH if I understand it right the French "taxpayer", i.e. govt, will be the beneficiary of the above-market price for electricity produced by the plant that the UK has guaranteed, presumably for the lifespan of the plant, which is 60 years. So I presume that will be a net gain for France, otherwise there would be no sense in continuing with the project.

> that the UK has guaranteed, presumably for the lifespan of the plant, which is 60 years

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hinkley-point-c

  The Hinkley Point C CfD provides a Strike Price for the developer of £92.50/MWh (2012 prices), reducing to £89.50/MWh (2012 prices) if EDF take a FID on their proposed Sizewell C project, for a 35 year term from the date of commissioning.
> I presume that will be a net gain for France

I think the project has a certain momentum to it. Also failing to complete the project would rather call into question their competence for the EPR2 build-out in France.

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

#104

Post by chickenbig »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #94
pfdietz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Huge mistake for France, that. Fixed price contracts in the nuclear industry have rarely if ever worked out well for the suppliers. Contrast this with renewables which typically come in within 10% of the contracted price.

Yes, it seems the only projects that have larger cost overruns than nuclear power stations is dealing with nuclear waste.

Don't forget the Olympics, with a format designed to minimise the learnings.

Note that the point of the article was that the design is being proven, lessons are being learnt, and the skills of individuals and organisations developed, which reduces the risk of overruns etc.

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

#105

Post by pfdietz »

chickenbig wrote: post #104
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it seems the only projects that have larger cost overruns than nuclear power stations is dealing with nuclear waste.

Don't forget the Olympics, with a format designed to minimise the learnings. Note that the point of the article was that the design is being proven, lessons are being learnt, and the skills of individuals and organisations developed, which reduces the risk of overruns etc.

Hasn't it already greatly overrun the initial promises? I mean, that's the whole reason France is crying for relief here from the UK. Anyway, claims that nuclear will show good experience effects this time, for sure, are to be treated with skepticism.

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

#106

Post by anovikov »

SirHumphrey wrote: post #69
davedx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Output of the discussed nuclear facility is 3.6GW, which means weekly production of 604.8 GWh, or around 100x as much as currently installed storage capacity. And going into only one type of electricity production especially with the unpredictability of renewables is never wise.

Storage is almost useless at over 24 hours of daily peak capacity stored, and fulfils most of it's purpose at as little as 2-6 hours depending on the climate and solar/wind mix.

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

#107

Post by ben_w »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #100
ben_w wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 d…

>Or batteries, but yes. Grid batteries make sense for those 30 second to 30 minute outages but it seems unlikely that they would be viable for those 2 week cloudy windless spells we get. My understanding is the UK plans to fill that gap with peaker gas plants with CCS. They are being contracted for a maximum of two weeks in the year.

Currently sure, hence the numbers I gave. Theoretically possible already, but the UK isn't buying 30% of global supply for the next decade.

Forecasts suggest supply will rise to the level where this is doable… but over the next decade or so of increasing global manufacturing capacity.

Considering what happened to global and local trade in the last decade, I'm not confident beyond 5 years, and even then only somewhat confident.

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

#108

Post by chickenbig »

blitzar wrote: post #102
chickenbig wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IAEA's PRIS database is good for reactor information. For instance https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.... shows Sizewell B has a load factor of 83.1% which is better than the AGR fleet.

That is an excellent link thanks. Really sad reminder of how many sites were opened and how many reactors built in the 60's & 70's and how little has been done since (except for power down reactors).

It is possible for reactors to come back from shut-down. See Palisades and TMI 1.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/palisades-on-sch...

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/constellation-to...

And China seems to be taking all forms of energy security seriously (intermittents as well as nuclear, combined with EVs).

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

#109

Post by protomolecule »

defrost wrote: post #10
dvh wrote: post #4

What would be equivalent solar/wind installed power?

Enough wind + solar + storage to deliver > which gives Hinkley Point C a total output of over 3.2GW. at least 3 GW 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 50 weeks a year (allowing for some step down in output for maintainance, etc) for some 30+ (?) years.

60 years

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

#110

Post by mrspuratic »

myrmidon wrote: post #61
blitzar wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

£11Bn is just Dogger Bank A, B, C (which is only 3.6GW total nameplate power, not 8GW)-- but this is in fact where my "~£20Bn total cost" estimate came from :P Maintenance cost for offshore wind is NOT negligible. This is possibly as high as the reactor maintenance cost already by itself. Then, for a fair comparison, you would also have to add costs for improving grid connectivity and/or local battery storage... I'm…

Definitely not negligible.

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/10/19/very-intense-r...

Post reply on HN