Hinkley Point C

[Pho]

I think the idea of nuclear power - we need power and it needs to be cleaner than fossil fuels. We can't afford renewable or have the space for it so that's out.

A friend who works within the renewables department at OfGem was telling me the other day wind farms are one of the cheapest sources of energy, much cheaper than gas power stations and much, much cheaper than nuclear especially when you consider clean-up costs. Pretty sure he knows what he's talking about

 

[Duke]

A friend who works within the renewables department at OfGem was telling me the other day wind farms are one of the cheapest sources of energy, much cheaper than gas power stations and much, much cheaper than nuclear especially when you consider clean-up costs. Pretty sure he knows what he's talking about

All good points but wouldn't the equivalent space needed compared to a nuclear site be a lot bigger? And they don't give consistent amount of power either so can't really depend on them entirely. I gather we don't have much storage in the network.

BTW this site has been posted a few times on here which shows usage breakdown - http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

 

[helpimcrap]

A friend who works within the renewables department at OfGem was telling me the other day wind farms are one of the cheapest sources of energy, much cheaper than gas power stations and much, much cheaper than nuclear especially when you consider clean-up costs. Pretty sure he knows what he's talking about

As said above it's a consistent baseline. We'll never get that with renewables until we can store energy for 6months to cover winter. The amount we'd need in winter to make it worthwhile just isn't worth it. Price per head V power output I can't imagine much in it.

 

[Trifid]

As said above it's a consistent baseline. We'll never get that with renewables until we can store energy for 6months to cover winter. The amount we'd need in winter to make it worthwhile just isn't worth it. Price per head V power output I can't imagine much in it.

Wind still works in Winter. And the UK is one of the best situated in the world for wind power.

Doing a quick calculation based on the Thames Estuary off shore wind farm, you could produce twice as much electricity for the same build price as this station. I'm sure closer in land, newer and larger turbines along with further economies of scale could bring this cost down further. I'm sure there are many sites that are suitable in land that can house wind turbines if government policy permitted.

 

[Smokey Deza]

Doing a quick calculation based on the Thames Estuary off shore wind farm, you could produce twice as much electricity for the same build price as this station.

It would take decades to install that many wind farms. And how much maintenance do they require?

Another reason, and probably the more important - sea birds.

The London Array was supposed to be expanded in 2014 but was thrown out because of danger to wildlife.

I mean is that really a plausible reason? Sea birds?

 

[phil675]

If they were cost effective, businesses would be sticking them to everything to save cash.

 

[Trifid]

It would take decades to install that many wind farms. And how much maintenance do they require?

London Array was built in 2 years. Multiple sites can be built in parallel around the country (desirable to average the variability of Wind) and Hinkley Point C will not be completed for at least a decade.

If they were cost effective, businesses would be sticking them to everything to save cash.

The issue is the cost of electricity from this new reactor is almost the same as current offshore wind generation. As much as I love nuclear power, this deal is rubbish and so we should be looking at alternatives.

 

[ron3003]

It would take decades to install that many wind farms. And how much maintenance do they require?

Another reason, and probably the more important - sea birds.

The London Array was supposed to be expanded in 2014 but was thrown out because of danger to wildlife.

I mean is that really a plausible reason? Sea birds?

300.000 birds killed annually in the States by wind turbines.
600 million killed flying into windows.
2.5 billion killed by cats.
Ban cats!

 

[dlite]

Did anyone here actually look for the terms? EU decisions are actually fairly transparent and available for public.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1277_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_34947
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015D0658

In addition, after the Commission's intervention the gains generated by the project will be better shared with UK consumers: as soon as the operator's overall profits (return on equity) exceed the rate estimated at the time of the decision, any gain will be shared with the public entity granting the public support; in addition, the decision defines a second, higher threshold above which the public entity will obtain more than half of the gains. These gains will be shared with UK consumers by a decrease in the price paid by the public entity to the operator (the so-called "strike price"). An increase in the profit rate of only one percentage point, for example, will generate savings of more than GBP 1.2 billion (about €1.5 billion). This gain-share mechanism will be in place not only for the 35-year support duration as initially envisaged, but at the request of the Commission for the entire lifetime of the project, namely 60 years. Moreover, if the construction costs turn out to be lower than expected, the gains will also be shared.

This doesn't necessarily make the deal good for UK tax payers as the future value of nuclear power is so dependant on the value of CO2 emissions. If CO2 doesn't get taxed -> gas powered and especially Coal powered plants will be greatly cheaper than currently available nuclear options.

Current security environment has made nuclear plants insanely expensive and this will not change any time soon.

I've yet to see any even relatively real alternatives for 0-emission electricity that actually produce energy during low-wind conditions, which happen all the time.

Anyone advocating wind energy should read and understand this article:
http://www.wind-power-program.com/intermittency2.htm

Not too surprisingly, using the same 10% required rate of return, cost of wind power is estimated to be about ~80-100p/kWh, so not too far from HPC striker price when you add the price of backup power to the mix.

 

[ron3003]

Did anyone here actually look for the terms? EU decisions are actually fairly transparent and available for public.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1277_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_34947
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015D0658


This doesn't necessarily make the deal good for UK tax payers as the future value of nuclear power is so dependant on the value of CO2 emissions. If CO2 doesn't get taxed -> gas powered and especially Coal powered plants will be greatly cheaper than currently available nuclear options.

Current security environment has made nuclear plants insanely expensive and this will not change any time soon.

I've yet to see any even relatively real alternatives for 0-emission electricity that actually produce energy during low-wind conditions, which happen all the time.

Anyone advocating wind energy should read and understand this article:
http://www.wind-power-program.com/intermittency2.htm

Not too surprisingly, using the same 10% required rate of return, cost of wind power is estimated to be about ~80-100p/kWh, so not too far from HPC striker price when you add the price of backup power to the mix.

But a world apart when you factor in the cost of cleaning up after nuclear and guess who's been left to pay for that.

 

[Trifid]

I've yet to see any even relatively real alternatives for 0-emission electricity that actually produce energy during low-wind conditions, which happen all the time.

Anyone advocating wind energy should read and understand this article:
http://www.wind-power-program.com/intermittency2.htm

Not too surprisingly, using the same 10% required rate of return, cost of wind power is estimated to be about ~80-100p/kWh, so not too far from HPC striker price when you add the price of backup power to the mix.

Some quick points, the whole of the UK is not going to be experiencing zero wind, especially offshore, which that article assumes with having 100% capacity generation backed by gas.

Point C will have a cost of 9.25p per KWh only slightly less then offshore when that article was written (it talks about future 5MW turbines but there are now 8MW being installed).

 

[dlite]

But a world apart when you factor in the cost of cleaning up after nuclear and guess who's been left to pay for that.

Cleaning of what?

Don't mix nuclear weapon production form 50's with modern commercial power plants. They have very little in common.

 

[Tefal]

Cleaning of what?

Don't mix nuclear weapon production form 50's with modern commercial power plants. They have very little in common.

All the steel etc fromt ge reactor is long term wasteeven if low level as it's made radioactive over time.

Thats a lot of tonnage of waste to dispose off

 

[Tefal]

Wind needs to be ditched and wave/tidal given the money ino

 

[PermaBanned]

I wonder how many potential hydroelectric dam sites there are in the UK. Seems to me that could be a great way of countering the short term variability of renewables. Given that they're essentially massive mechanical batteries - you pump water to the top when energy is cheap, and release it when you need to meet demand. The technology already exists and is proven on every conceivable scale all over the world.

The largest we currently have, Dinorwig, has just over half the capacity of Point C at 1,728MW and can run for up to 6 hours. It cost just 2.36% the current projected cost of Point C. And that's using 1970s technology. A similar facility was planned for Exmoor but never built. I imagine there must be dozens of potential sites for this type of plant, and even much larger capacity ones.

Point C does serve a valuable purpose, nobody's arguing about that. But there has been next to no discussion or debate about the reality of the potential alternatives for that level of energy investment in the UK. Alternatives which might be cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to buy energy from, actually promote UK industry and jobs and pave the way to a clean, stable renewable energy future rather than cutting renewable investment as this government is doing.

 

[phil675]

All the steel etc fromt ge reactor is long term wasteeven if low level as it's made radioactive over time.

Thats a lot of tonnage of waste to dispose off

Can't we bury it under the Falklands?

 

[FuriousGeorge]

Wind needs to be ditched and wave/tidal given the money ino

yeah lets ditch the commercially viable one in favour of experimental stuff. Sounds great.

Were you in charge of choosing the EPR at Hinkley....

 

[Amp34]

Wind still works in Winter. And the UK is one of the best situated in the world for wind power.

Doing a quick calculation based on the Thames Estuary off shore wind farm, you could produce twice as much electricity for the same build price as this station. I'm sure closer in land, newer and larger turbines along with further economies of scale could bring this cost down further. I'm sure there are many sites that are suitable in land that can house wind turbines if government policy permitted.

Out of interest what numbers are you using? Wind is around 30% efficient (based on efficiency of the actual turbine and the amount of time wind blows), so the actual usable energy is around 30% of the nameplate generating capacity.

Not trying to trap you here but just seeing if you've taken that into account.

What we really need is a mixed system. 20-30% nuclear as the base load, 50ish % renewable and the rest high efficiency, CSS gas plants that can take be turned on and off quickly to compensate for any reduction in renewables.

That's using todays (kinda) technology.

In the future we may be able to reduce our reliance on the nuclear and gas options if we can get a more reliable source of renewals (such as tide) to be used as the base load, and then wind and solar as extra. The only issue I have with tide at the moment involves the fact it appears to need a huge coastal area to be industrialised and changed beyond recognition for the large tidal lagoons that would be needed. I severely question if that will be very detrimental on nearshore wildlife. Wind on the other hand generally has a net benefit on wildlife as it each platform generally creates an artificial reef for subsea wildlife to colonise.

EDIT: Assuming Hinkley C cost of £25B, with 3,200MW generating capacity and the London Array cost of £1.8B and generating capacity of 630MW (with a 30% efficiency rating) up front cost per MW is negligible. That's assuming the nameplate generating capacity is about right for the nuclear station and it actually generates around that much. Obviously if your sums are more complex (subsidies etc) then that may be the difference, or of course my maths may be wrong!

 

[PermaBanned]

A wind turbine might only be 30% efficient at converting energy from the wind into electricity, but the nameplate capacity is the actual sustained peak output of a plant under ideal conditions. You don't need to do anything to that figure. It is probably more useful to look at average generation, because you're not always generating at peak conditions.

 

[Amp34]

A wind turbine might only be 30% efficient at converting energy from the wind into electricity, but the nameplate capacity is the actual sustained peak output of a plant under ideal conditions. You don't need to do anything to that figure. It is probably more useful to look at average generation, because you're not always generating at peak conditions.

That's the 30% i'm talking about. Wind, on average produces around 30% of the nameplate. You're right, efficient was the wrong word though.

EDIT: Actually, I may be lying there. It may be as high as 45%. I will go off and refresh my memory. It's been a year since I did any work on this!

EDIT 2: Nope, looks like I was right the first time, 35% is a high capacity factor for a wind turbine. Most will not be that high.