[deleted]
Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years
111–120 of 206 posts
Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years
#112Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is storage for that There literally isn't, it doesn't exist.
https://www.energy-storage.news/massive-growth-potential-con... > current operational capacity of 4.6GW/5.9GWh Perhaps do some research before you speak of things you have no idea about
Which means it can give back 4.6GW for approximately an hour and 15 minutes. After that it is empty.
Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is storage for that There literally isn't, it doesn't exist.
https://www.energy-storage.news/massive-growth-potential-con... > current operational capacity of 4.6GW/5.9GWh Perhaps do some research before you speak of things you have no idea about
> 5.9GWh
In other words, energy storage to match what the nuke plant will be able to put out 24/7 literally doesn't exist.
Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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? Yes. Also because maintenance costs are probably somewhat similar-- offshore turbines are still mechanical systems in a very unpleasant environment, after all. > 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?…
Interesting. I've been reading about the much lower costs of grid level storage and the fact that it's now getting into economies of scale. I also assume there's a lot of room for cost reduction in wind over the next decade, while I'm guessing Nuclear won't see the same level of changes. Won't this change the situation significantly over the next decade.
> I also assume there's a lot of room for cost reduction in wind over the next decade
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/20/giant-windf...
What are the reasons behind believing prices will reduce further?
> I'm guessing Nuclear won't see the same level of changes
Parsons says the second reactor is being built 20% more quickly than the first one.
Parsons says he expects that Sizewell will be built between 20% and 30% faster than the second Hinkley reactor.
Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Pretty good for a rough estimate!
The best I could find was a document by the National Audit Office from 2017 (using 2016 estimates); page 18, figure 2 - The expected costs of Hinkley Point C.
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Po...
Back then the construction was estimated at £18.2 billion. Ongoing operation costs (including fuel, staffing, and grid charges) were priced at £29.3 billion and decommissioning (without the uplift) at £7.3 billion. Total project cost was put at £54.8 billion.
Again, it was from 2017 so things have changed.
Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)_/¯
Looking at the numbers for this, I don't see how it is better or even competitive at today's cost. Not taking into account the operating costs and decommissioning costs. Off-shore wind is still scaling to become cheaper and cheaper. In 30 years it might cost much less. How can Nuclear compete?
> and decommissioning costs
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792
So perhaps 1B-2B USD a plant. 2,000,000,000/(60 * 1,600 * 365 * 24 * .9) = 2.6 USD/MWh
> Off-shore wind is still scaling to become cheaper and cheaper.
Why did the UK have to raise the maximum bid price for the Contract For Difference AR6? Wind farm costs have exploded, and turbine manufacturers are having reliability issues.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-are-issues-with...
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/vineyard-wind-incide...
Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at the numbers for this, I don't see how it is better or even competitive at today's cost. Not taking into account the operating costs and decommissioning costs. Off-shore wind is still scaling to become cheaper and cheaper. In 30 years it might cost much less. How can Nuclear compete?
> and decommissioning costs https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792 So perhaps 1B-2B USD a plant. 2,000,000,000/(60 * 1,600 * 365 * 24 * .9) = 2.6 USD/MWh > Off-shore wind is still scaling to become cheaper and cheaper. Why did the UK have to raise the maximum bid price for the Contract For Difference AR6? Wind farm costs have exploded, and turbine manufacturers are having reliability issues. https://ww…
> Why did the UK have to raise the maximum bid price for the Contract For Difference AR6?
Bidders have to sell the government the electricity at the strike price. They pushed up the strike price to £54.23/MWh from a previous of £37.35/MWh with a current market price of £70-£80/MWh.
Nobody was going to offer to sell electricity for £37.35 for the next 5 years in a market where you can currently sell it for £70 - £100 (and where you could sell it for £300-£500 when the crisis occurred in 2021 / 2022).
Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. I've been reading about the much lower costs of grid level storage and the fact that it's now getting into economies of scale. I also assume there's a lot of room for cost reduction in wind over the next decade, while I'm guessing Nuclear won't see the same level of changes. Won't this change the situation significantly over the next decade.
> I also assume there's a lot of room for cost reduction in wind over the next decade https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/20/giant-windf... What are the reasons behind believing prices will reduce further? > I'm guessing Nuclear won't see the same level of changes Parsons says the second reactor is being built 20% more quickly than the first one. Parsons says he expects that Sizewell will be built between 2…
> What are the reasons behind believing prices will reduce further?
Economies of scale and room for technological/process innovation. The fact that solar reduced so significantly and battery costs too. This article seems a bit cherry picked about a specific project and not a global trend in costs. Offshore will naturally take time to become competitive since it requires complex installation and processes, but those seem like solvable problems for an admittedly laymen as myself.
Re: Hinkley Point C: Building Britain's first nuclear reactor in 30 years
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear capacity should be around 90% when running baseload, with However offshore wind has a capacity factor of 40% to 50%, and its lack of output is correlated with other wind farms. Therefore one backup power station can only really serve one wind farm. Not only is it capacity factor but demand correlation that weights against the intermittents.
The UK’s average nuclear load factor for 1970 to 2017 was 67.4 per cent. Furthermore, France demonstrated the correlation of nuclear downtime in the summer of 2022 when it was too summery, compounded with overrunning maintenance. At its lowest point, France’s nuclear availability sat at around 40% of maximum capacity for about a month. All single power generators need to be backed up for downtime.
> The UK’s average nuclear load factor for 1970 to 2017 was 67.4 per cent.
Finland's load factor over the last 3 years has been above 90%, as was the USA. Germany was up at 94% until ... stuff happened.
> At its lowest point, France’s nuclear availability sat at around 40% of maximum capacity for about a month.
Would they have shut down those reactors if alternatives were unavailable? I think they would have probably continued to run them, with permission of the regulators (at the behest of the government).
> All single power generators need to be backed up for downtime.
I'm not sure I follow what this statement means. What does "single" mean, as the preceeding comment talks about correlated downtime. Should we ensure that all methane plants are backed up too?