Hinkley Point C

dlite said:
Cleaning of what?

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

it doesn't matter which modern plant it is, all have highly radioactive waste.
none of these reactors are fast breeders. let alone the plant decommission at the end which as far as I understand is not part of the deal either.
 
Amp34 said:
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!:o

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.
Click to expand...

According to wiki it was 45.3% in 2015. But I have now found some better stats that break it down by month. The output is higher in winter (as you'd expect) where also demand is greater. http://www.variablepitch.co.uk/stations/1881/output/
 
The Dutch have spent billions on wind farms, and even they have said it's not a good option because of the inconsistency and maintenance costs. These are the people known for doing stuff with wind.
 
Trifid said:
According to wiki it was 45.3% in 2015. But I have now found some better stats that break it down by month. The output is higher in winter (as you'd expect) where also demand is greater. http://www.variablepitch.co.uk/stations/1881/output/
Click to expand...

Pretty good stuff then. Most turbines aren't that high. Maybe the 45% was what I used to use. Just had a quick search and the highest I came up with was around 35% which is why I then changed my mind!

Still, that means the Array doesn't produce electricity at anywhere near half the cost of Hinkley as your post says. It works out at about 25% cheaper, but you still have the inconsistency of wind over nuclear, although the cleanup cost of nuclear will almost certainly be more.

I'm not suggesting one is better than the other, just questioning whether your maths is right. :)

EDIT: As an example of how varied the capacity factors for different fields can be

Gwynt y Mor - Capacity Factor 34% (Second Largest)
Greater Gabbard - Capacity Factor - 47% (Third Largest)

Farms vary depending on location and age. Looks like the round two offshore farms are a lot more "efficient" than the prior farms.
 
Last edited:
FuriousGeorge said:
yeah lets ditch the commercially viable one in favour of experimental stuff. Sounds great.

Were you in charge of choosing the EPR at Hinkley....:D
Click to expand...

Except its not viable and its pretty useless at providing reliable predicable power.


Atm we could ditch wind expansion with little negative effect.

Wave and tidal as the potential for predictible reliable base load power production but is starved of funding by the "oooo loook at rhe pretty windmills" crowd
 
Amp34 said:
I'm not suggesting one is better than the other, just questioning whether your maths is right. :)
Click to expand...

It's all back of fag packet stuff. I just believe people much cleverer and experienced than I should be taking an unbiased look at it. If we can produce electricity at a similar real world cost through wind then why not?
 
Trifid said:
It's all back of fag packet stuff. I just believe people much cleverer and experienced than I should be taking an unbiased look at it. If we can produce electricity at a similar real world cost through wind then why not?
Click to expand...

Because when the wind is strong rhe nuclear plant keeps working.

While the windfarm has to be shut down.
 
The most expensive energy is the Kwhr that isnt there when you really need it.

The typical "Cold Snap" in the UK goes along with being over cast, possibly even with snow fall, and no wind.

This is a situation where electricity demand will be at its highest and "renewables" will not be producing anything at all.

Most people could survive a 24 hour power cut without any serious issue, however, and especially if it is sub-zero outside, anything much longer than this is going to be a different issue.

This isn't the 60's any more. Back then most homes were heated with solid fuel so electricity wasn't that important to survival.

Today is a different matter, extended power cuts combined with heavy snow and sub zero temperatures would see people actually dying in quite large numbers.
 
Trifid said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah but how much time goes into planning and surveying for potentially suitable areas? Probably just as much time if not longer as I bet there's a stupid amount of red tape to wade through just to get the green light to start installing them.

Again with maintenance, how much is required? How long do they last?

I'm all for renewables, especially sticking them out offshore where no one can see them. I'm just interested as to why this is not being persued more aggressively.

Surely there's always a considerable and continuous amount of wind out at sea, right?
 
I am still hoping for several of the barrage schemes to be fully developed. The Severn in particular. Tidal power in the correct setting, between Islands or between the mainland and Islands or across estuaries offers huge benefits, Unlke onshore wind, tides are guaranteed. The Uk has one of the longest coastlines compared with its land area in the world and that should be a clue to the viability of the proposal.

If this generation (sic) of nuclear power does go ahead, it will probably be the last throw for fission power.
 
Shamelessly stolen from a post of mine in another thread. Based on statistical analysis of wind farm output. I meant to post it over the weekend but couldn't find the opportunity.

Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation November 2008 to December 2010 - Stuart Young - Executive Summary said:
In fact, the report finds that:-
  • On 124 separate occasions from November 2008 to December 2010, the total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW (a fraction of the 450MW expected from a capacity in excess of 1600MW+). These periods of low wind lasted an average of 4.5 hours.
  • Actually, low wind occurred every six days throughout the 26-month study period. The report finds that the average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
  • At each of the four highest peak demand points of 2010, wind output was extremely low at 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
  • In fact, the average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
  • The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.
The report also found that during the study period, wind generation was:
  • below 20% of capacity more than half the time
  • below 10% of capacity over one third of the time
  • below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one day in twelve
  • below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just under one day a month
Click to expand...
The full report is downloadable from the following link, it's been a while since I read it, so if at any point I've misrepresentated it I apologise.

https://www.johnmuirtrust.org/about...wer-generation-november-2008-to-december-2010
 
Smokey Deza said:
I'm all for renewables, especially sticking them out offshore where no one can see them. I'm just interested as to why this is not being persued more aggressively.

Surely there's always a considerable and continuous amount of wind out at sea, right?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that there is an increased cost in cabling out to offshore wind turbines. That may be one of the reasons.
 
ZombieFan said:
I'm guessing that there is an increased cost in cabling out to offshore wind turbines. That may be one of the reasons.
Click to expand...

In lifetime cost per unit electricity, offshore wind is comparable to gas and much, much cheaper than Hinkley C.

The major difference is Hinkley C would provide a constant amount, whereas wind is intermittent.

Some huge power storage projects in the UK and more international connections to balance load around Europe would be a lot better than this overpriced nuclear station, IMO.
 
Cabling is expensive, the initial capital is far higher because civil costs are higher as are installation (it's at sea). The maintenance costs are higher because of the more damaging environment, the sporadic availability access and the cost of access (boats).

Even then as evidenced in the John Muir Trust report I linked to you still get frequent prolonged periods with little or no wind to generate with.

Edit: in response to Joeyjojo, what kind of storage projects are you thinking of because other than pumped storage for which there are limited options on the scale required in the UK there are no viable mass storage solutions at present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom