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

131–140 of 206 posts

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

#131

Post by chickenbig »

matt-p wrote: post #67
jillesvangurp wrote: post #50

The budget overruns are predictable. To the point where you can confidently predict that neither year nor the budget will stay as they are currently predicting. Honestly, it sounds more like wishful thinking at this point. I would say late 2030s at probably > 40 billion is realistic. They'll find a way to make it worse. Maybe they'll get lucky and only overrun only a few billion. Every year it overruns will cost bill…

Indeed, we may as well finish it, certainly, but it's going to reduce appetite for future nuclear schemes enormously. Realistically I think small reactors are our last hope for net new nuclear in the UK - if we don't get them we'll end up with Wind/Solar and storage.

> I think small reactors are our last hope for net new nuclear

Sizewell C appears to be moving along; nevertheless Ed Milliband has not vocally supported the project (despite the junior minister Lord Hunt visiting the site last month and Keir Stamer visiting last year).

What is most curious is that the announcement of up to £5.5B of extra funding (taking funding up to £8B so perhaps 1/3 of final project cost) until the final investment decision was not performed by a minister; usually this level of investment would merit a great fanfare.

https://www.sizewellc.com/news-views/keir-starmer-hpc-visit-...

https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/lord/lord-hunt-of-kings...

  We will seek to extend the lifetime of existing nuclear power plants while supporting the completion of new sites, such as Sizewell C.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/sizewell-c-to-receiv...

  Sizewell C joint managing directors Julia Pyke and Nigel Cann said the Devex Scheme is “significant support from the government and it further strengthens the position of this project, which is now full steam ahead”.

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

#132

Post by exe34 »

defrost wrote: post #31
chickenbig wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-sta... 118,770 apprenticeships achieved in the UK last year. We're not that big on practical education, with a preference for getting degrees so we can sit behind a desk moving (electronic) paper.

With 800,000 people (male and female) aged 20 (mid 2021) in a total population of 69 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Kin...

I'm so never retiring.

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

#133

Post by bryanlarsen »

throw0101b wrote: post #127
bryanlarsen wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.

> Wind/PV/storage can hit 95% or 99% or 99.9% a lot cheaper than Hinkley can hit 95%. I think the geography of the UK helps with offshore wind getting good capacity factors, but the general averages aren't great, often peaking at ~40%: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor As someone who lives in Ontario, Canada, I can see in real-time how wind goes up and down, while nuclear just keeps chugging along: * ht…

Nuclear is only 10 cents / kWh after the OEB has off-loaded all the costs for building and decommissioning to the federal and provincial governments.

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

#134

Post by [deleted] »

pfdietz wrote: post #43
chickenbig wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The capex per watt of gas backup is vastly lower than a nuclear plant. Like, by a factor of 10 to 20.

[deleted]

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

#135

Post by littlestymaar »

matt-p wrote: post #98
littlestymaar wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad the nights a little bit more than 76 minutes.

Indeed. We can only have a small amount of solar, but wind keeps blowing at night, Nucular continues, biomas too. The gap we need to bridge most urgently is turning off gas generation. Take a look here, https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical the majority of "turning off gas" is daytime demand that needs to be covered.

> wind keeps blowing at night

But stops during anticyclones, which can last several weeks (that makes it completely unfeasible to use wind power with gas as a backup, because there's no way we can build several weeks worth of storage).

> Nucular continues

The problem is that nuclear plants cost is roughly the same no matter if they produce or not, so nuclear + solar is strictly costlier than just nuclear.

Solar in a country as cloudy and rainy as the UK, and one that is so far north it gets very long nights in winter, doesn't make make any sense whatsoever.

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

#136

Post by throw0101b »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #133
throw0101b wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wind/PV/storage can hit 95% or 99% or 99.9% a lot cheaper than Hinkley can hit 95%. I think the geography of the UK helps with offshore wind getting good capacity factors, but the general averages aren't great, often peaking at ~40%: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor As someone who lives in Ontario, Canada, I can see in real-time how wind goes up and down, while nuclear just keeps chugging along: * ht…

Nuclear is only 10 cents / kWh after the OEB has off-loaded all the costs for building and decommissioning to the federal and provincial governments.

> decommissioning

Bruce Power is responsible for decommissioning costs:

> Bruce Power receives a fixed price for its electricity generation that is inclusive of all its current costs and funding of future decommissioning liabilities in the Bruce Facility. As previously noted, the average price over the life of the contract was estimated by the IESO to be $77/ MWh (in 2015$).

* https://www.brucepower.com/who-we-are/delivering-transparenc...

As is OPG (Pickering, Darlington):

> From the earliest days of each project, OPG is required by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to have a Financial Guarantee in place to ensure it can cover the costs of the eventual decommissioning of its nuclear facilities.

* https://www.opg.com/power-generation/our-power/nuclear/decom...

Federally, the generation companies are also responsible for handling waste:

> The Act required Canadian electricity generating companies which produce used nuclear fuel to establish a waste management organization to provide recommendations to the Government of Canada on the long-term management of used nuclear fuel. The legislation also required the waste owners to establish segregated trust funds to finance the long-term management of the used fuel. The Act further authorized the Government of Canada to decide on the approach. The government's choice will then be implemented by the NWMO, subject to all of the necessary regulatory approvals.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Management_Organ...

Do you have references that say otherwise?

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

#137

Post by adrianN »

littlestymaar wrote: post #95
matt-p wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, 5.9GWh, so after 1 hour at 4.6GW we could do another hour at 1.3 GW (or another 16 Mins at 4.6HW) ~76 mins at 4.6GW.

Too bad the nights a little bit more than 76 minutes.

Nobody claimed that the current battery capacity is sufficient to last a night. The interesting part is the growth curve of available storage.

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

#138

Post by adrianN »

littlestymaar wrote: post #135
matt-p wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. We can only have a small amount of solar, but wind keeps blowing at night, Nucular continues, biomas too. The gap we need to bridge most urgently is turning off gas generation. Take a look here, https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical the majority of "turning off gas" is daytime demand that needs to be covered.

> wind keeps blowing at night But stops during anticyclones, which can last several weeks (that makes it completely unfeasible to use wind power with gas as a backup, because there's no way we can build several weeks worth of storage). > Nucular continues The problem is that nuclear plants cost is roughly the same no matter if they produce or not, so nuclear + solar is strictly costlier than just nuclear. Solar in a…

Most countries have the infrastructure to store several weeks worth of methane. That can be repurposed to store hydrogen.

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

#139

Post by VICTORIAARCHIE »

littlestymaar wrote: post #95
matt-p wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, 5.9GWh, so after 1 hour at 4.6GW we could do another hour at 1.3 GW (or another 16 Mins at 4.6HW) ~76 mins at 4.6GW.

Too bad the nights a little bit more than 76 minutes.

[flagged]

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

#140

Post by littlestymaar »

adrianN wrote: post #138
littlestymaar wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wind keeps blowing at night But stops during anticyclones, which can last several weeks (that makes it completely unfeasible to use wind power with gas as a backup, because there's no way we can build several weeks worth of storage). > Nucular continues The problem is that nuclear plants cost is roughly the same no matter if they produce or not, so nuclear + solar is strictly costlier than just nuclear. Solar in a…

Most countries have the infrastructure to store several weeks worth of methane. That can be repurposed to store hydrogen.

It can theoretically be repurposed, but hydrogen is a much smaller molecule than methane and thus leaks in existing methane installations. Given that it is also much more dangerous when it leaks (it explodes much more easily than methane), that means reworking all the infrastructure around the storage site, which ain't free.

Also, producing hydrogen from electricity requires lots of investments in terms of conversion units, and the economics is already dubious even when they run 100% of the time, so using it just for absorbing excess production a fraction of the year really isn't economical. In addition, what are you going to do with the hydrogen? Burns too hot for existing gas turbines so you'd need new ones. Fuel cells? That's expensive too.

There's a reason why everyone is betting on batteries instead of hydrogen, the economics of hydrogen is just too difficult.

And you know what? Even if you want to go full hydrogen, Nuclear + hydrogen is also more efficient than Wind + hydrogen since the hydrogen production units are going to be used at capacity more often, because wind is intermittent.

Post reply on HN