Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

zeupater

GreatApe wrote: »

We are not starting from scratch so no the best solution would not be to build 50GW of reactors in the UK because that would more or less mean we wasted the money on the 20GW of wind and 10GW or whatever it is now in PV that already exists as neither would be required in such a high nuclear scenario. Plus we do not know for sure if BEVs will be mass market one would hope so but it is not guaranteed at this point so even if we were starting from scratch it would not be prudent to commission more than 20GW until it was more clear BEVs will indeed become the dominate transport of the future once that was clear an additional 30GW could be commissioned

If the option was 50GW of nuclear vs 120GW wind, 120GW solar, 50GW backup CCGTs and the grid upgrades and storage to make all that work then I would still say the nuclear option would have to be at least 5-10% cheaper both to install and run than the wind mix to go for the nuclear instead.

But for the tenth time it is too late for the nuclear road we have already set off on the windy road we are not going to go back



The French have lost their experience and are also building a new design with new teams. As I keep saying building homes is not a complex thing literally millions of homes are built each year yet you try to build a custom home its always over budget and takes much longer than imagined.

If anything the cost of £6,000/KW for their first of a kind in so long is an encouraging sign. That is not that massive a cost considering the plant is likely to generate for 60-100 years and operate at 90-95% CF. Consider that versus say the solar on your roof you would need 27GW of solar to match just HPC dual reacotrs. Sure £20 billion is a lot for HPC but how much would 27GW of solar PV cost today? £30 billion? And what about the grid issues in adding another 27GW of solar vs the absolutely non issue of adding the 3.3GW from HPC? Or try adding two HPCs absolutely no problem try adding an additional 54GW of solar and see what happens.

Plus with the nukes almost all of it will be domestic money spent, with the PV your sending half to a totalitarian regime half way across the world.



So you claim yet a new build development near me is running at least 9 months late and over budget partly because of legal issues partly because of sewerage connection issues and who knows what else. Its a very simple design but as you can see !!!! happens in low build inexperienced builders.

£6000/KW is not a bad cost compared to say solar.
Build out 16GW at £6k/Kw = £96 billion.
How much would it cost to install the 144GW of PV to generate the same as the 16GW of nukes? Perhaps £150 billion? And how many more ££billions££ for the grid upgrades and mass storage such PV would require? Another £100 billion on top?

And you were claiming just a few breaths ago that this is the 6th one so they should be fully experienced! Clearly not the case these are still for all intents first of a kind

Hi

Still claiming to be anti-nuclear on cost grounds whist expending considerable effort to support nuclear even at current costs .... odd approach really, more-so considering the continual swipes at RE ...

Regarding "If the option was 50GW of nuclear ...", of course, your economic comparison would obviously include the through-life costs as well as those related to decommissioning, decontamination, waste processing & storage ... comparing costs on a build-only basis has been used numerous times in such debates by the pro-nuclear lobby ...

Your continuing analogy regarding bespoke houses &" .. low build inexperienced builders" ... we're not talking about "Bodger & Sons", the inexperienced start-up around the corner, the international corporations involved in these projects are very large, very experienced & invariably the same ones employing many of the same key personnel across multiple developments ... The EPR project is based on standardisation of product design in order to encourage a continuous learning & improvement process leading to incremental cost savings on each sequential build ... to date, there are no EPRs generating on a fully commercial basis.

On "£6000/KW is not a bad cost compared to say solar ..." ... as above, you're comparing build costs, not build, operating and decommissioning ... you're now spinning 16GW at £96billion to compare against alternatives ... The decommissioning cost of Sellafield alone is far higher higher than that at an estimated £160.594billion, the smaller 2x250MW Magnox reactor plant at Hinkley Point A being £3.31billion all this within a total current decommissioning estimate of ~£230billion & that excludes plant still generating which will supposedly be covered by the nuclear liabilities fund, all before long-term waste storage too

Source UK Decommissioning Authority "Nuclear Provision: the cost of cleaning up Britain’s historic nuclear sites (12 July 2018)" - Table 4.1 2017/18 Estimated Discounted Lifetime Plan.

Decommissioning costs associated with EPR sites will be bourne by the owners, so for HPC that's EDF. These costs are not included within the build cost, they're future expenditure and likely accounted for on an accumulation basis in a corporate level liability account to ensure that money is available when decommissioning becomes necessary. Of course, the costs will ultimately be bourn by the consumer through higher wholesale energy supply prices or CfD, therefore must be included in any direct technology cost comparison ....

Finally ... "And you were claiming just a few breaths ago that this is the 6th one so they should be fully experienced! Clearly not the case these are still for all intents first of a kind" ... absolutely not the case - as you are aware, HPC is planned to include the 5th & 6th EPRs, the plant in discussion that the French nuclear regulator has raised as having further unresolved problems (Flamanville) is in France and was planned to be the first EPR (the technology demonstration plant), but due to delays resulting from public consultation became the second in line to commence build behind one in Finland ... From that point onwards the project has been riddled with management, supervision, design & quality issues each of which should have been resolved in a manner which would prevent reoccurrence on further builds thus reducing costs ... yet, even including these 'improvements', HPC is estimated to be more costly (capacity adjusted) than the prototype ...

Anyway, please start to take note of the advice which has now been given to you under your various guises over the years by multiple forum members - if you have a need to discuss nuclear or anti-renewable positions at length, it would be more acceptable to stop trolling this or other threads & simply open your own argumentative play area where you can impress the interested masses & postulate to your heart's delight ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

As long as it is the 'turn it off and never turn it back on' kind of trouble and not the Fukushima type of trouble......

My previous understanding was that the extra deployment etc costs of offshore wind made it more expensive than onshore and that if onshore were politically acceptable it would be built in preference but I am wondering with the sizes and cf now being built whether offshore is not actually cheaper than onshore. Does anyone know?

On-shore is still cheaper, in fact some on-shore farms around the world have insanely low prices, around $30/MWh, beaten only by even more insane PV contracts in sunny places.

What off-shore brings to the table is that higher cf, making it more predictable, but don't confuse cf and cost per MWh, the auction price submitted will already take cf into account, so as an example let's say the off-shore install is 3 times the cost of on-shore, but has a cf twice as great, then they'll divide the 3x cost by 2x cf and get a cost per MWh that's now 'only' 1.5x higher than on-shore.

But, higher cf's, very little NIMBYism, and an unlimited amount of generation (we could get 10 to 100 times the UK's future leccy demand from off-shore) are huge advantages, and off-shore costs might fall far enough to challenge on-shore in the future, something I never thought I'd say!

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Still claiming to be anti-nuclear on cost grounds whist expending considerable effort to support nuclear even at current costs .... odd approach really, more-so considering the continual swipes at RE ...

HTH
Z

I see you let him off lightly. I particularly liked the claim that with PV half the cost goes to China (assuming that's the totalitarian country). Of course this misses the point that many East Asia countries are now producing PV, and also misleads on the percentage:

Let's say you get a 4kWp install for £5k, I'd suggest the factory price of the 14 panels will be south of £100 each, (perhaps half that) since the importer has to make money, then the UK wholesaler, before we get to retail prices. So perhaps 20% if from China ......... where most of our goods come from now anyway!

But the other half of the claim is that the nuclear spending is UK based, which seems at odds with the tenders that are all from outside the UK ..... including China. With HPC, just the subsidy element over the 35yrs is approx £44bn, going to the two largest investors EDF (French government owned) and China.


But it's all a pointless discussion, since better brains than ours have already concluded that large scale nuclear has a higher LCOE than renewables, and those RE costs are still falling. If nuclear had an economic future then the two nuclear giants (US in terms of GW's and France in terms of %) would be expanding, not contracting their nuclear.

Yes China is building a lot of nuclear, but even there expansion is slowing down, and many builds are behind schedule. It looks like RE and RE & storage is starting to change their policies too.

silverwhistle

I find Zeupater remarkably patient in that he has the ability to read word salad and come back with apposite rebuttals, so thanks.

The last post mentioned decommissioning, and it was interesting to read in one of my feeds the other day that a successful decommissioning of an end-of-life wind farm off Sweden has taken place within budget.

No mention was made of re-using the foundations, but what was significant is that the turbines were only 1.5 MW, and we have seen that X4 or 5 or 6 that figure is now available. It shows the technical progress that's been made and the expertise now available for operating in a marine environment.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I see you let him off lightly. I particularly liked the claim that with PV half the cost goes to China (assuming that's the totalitarian country). Of course this misses the point that many East Asia countries are now producing PV, and also misleads on the percentage:

Let's say you get a 4kWp install for £5k, I'd suggest the factory price of the 14 panels will be south of £100 each, (perhaps half that) since the importer has to make money, then the UK wholesaler, before we get to retail prices. So perhaps 20% if from China ......... where most of our goods come from now anyway!

But the other half of the claim is that the nuclear spending is UK based, which seems at odds with the tenders that are all from outside the UK ..... including China. With HPC, just the subsidy element over the 35yrs is approx £44bn, going to the two largest investors EDF (French government owned) and China.


But it's all a pointless discussion, since better brains than ours have already concluded that large scale nuclear has a higher LCOE than renewables, and those RE costs are still falling. If nuclear had an economic future then the two nuclear giants (US in terms of GW's and France in terms of %) would be expanding, not contracting their nuclear.

Yes China is building a lot of nuclear, but even there expansion is slowing down, and many builds are behind schedule. It looks like RE and RE & storage is starting to change their policies too.

How do you propose France expand its nuclear capacity it is already for all intents and purposes 100% electricity from nuclear plus some heating too (about a third of french homes are electrically heated by majority nuclear). If electricity demand was to increase say due to a mass conversion to BEVs the french nuclear fleet is ready to increase supply with just the existing reactors. Despite all the hate for nuclear the french solved their needs decades ago and have had a much cleaner grid for decades and will have a much greener grid for decades to come

The USA has abundant secure really cheap coal and gas and lots of existing coal and gas plants there is no need for any additional nuclear it cant compete again 1 cent/kWh natural gas. However having said that many USA reactors have actually been upgraded and uprated and have had 20 year life extensions and will perhaps get another 20 years after that too. But if you want the Americans to close down their nukes thats fine by me they have plenty of nat gas to go around and the higher NG prices might help the frackers bring more oil out of the ground too

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

On-shore is still cheaper, in fact some on-shore farms around the world have insanely low prices, around $30/MWh, beaten only by even more insane PV contracts in sunny places.

What off-shore brings to the table is that higher cf, making it more predictable, but don't confuse cf and cost per MWh, the auction price submitted will already take cf into account, so as an example let's say the off-shore install is 3 times the cost of on-shore, but has a cf twice as great, then they'll divide the 3x cost by 2x cf and get a cost per MWh that's now 'only' 1.5x higher than on-shore.

But, higher cf's, very little NIMBYism, and an unlimited amount of generation (we could get 10 to 100 times the UK's future leccy demand from off-shore) are huge advantages, and off-shore costs might fall far enough to challenge on-shore in the future, something I never thought I'd say!

and yet when the tax credits and or other subsidies stop the install rate crashes so something doesn't add up.......

zeupater

GreatApe wrote: »

.. If nuclear had an economic future then the two nuclear giants (US in terms of GW's and France in terms of %) would be expanding, not contracting their nuclear ..

How do you propose France expand its nuclear capacity it is already for all intents and purposes 100% electricity from nuclear plus some heating too (about a third of french homes are electrically heated by majority nuclear). If electricity demand was to increase say due to a mass conversion to BEVs the french nuclear fleet is ready to increase supply with just the existing reactors. Despite all the hate for nuclear the french solved their needs decades ago and have had a much cleaner grid for decades and will have a much greener grid for decades to come ...

Hi

I'm pretty confident that the majority would understand what Martyn actually posted, the reason it was posted and the context in which it was posted ... you yourself have argued the case for a vast build of additional capacity within the UK to meet EV demand, so "cake" & "eat it" readily comes to mind ...

Anyway, if anyone's interested in the what the French government's actual energy roadmap looks like, they've published a brief English language overview which is pretty easy to follow, including pretty pictures, available here ... https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/4pages_PPE_GB_DEF_Web.pdf ... no need for postulation, it's a joined-up summary of the official French energy strategy, including energy sources (including nuclear!), storage, microgeneration, EVs etc in just a few pages ...

Grandiose postulation of French strategy -or- the actual French strategy ... I'd see that debate as totally unnecessary ....

HTH
Z

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

On-shore is still cheaper, in fact some on-shore farms around the world have insanely low prices, around $30/MWh, beaten only by even more insane PV contracts in sunny places.

What off-shore brings to the table is that higher cf, making it more predictable, but don't confuse cf and cost per MWh, the auction price submitted will already take cf into account, so as an example let's say the off-shore install is 3 times the cost of on-shore, but has a cf twice as great, then they'll divide the 3x cost by 2x cf and get a cost per MWh that's now 'only' 1.5x higher than on-shore.

But, higher cf's, very little NIMBYism, and an unlimited amount of generation (we could get 10 to 100 times the UK's future leccy demand from off-shore) are huge advantages, and off-shore costs might fall far enough to challenge on-shore in the future, something I never thought I'd say!

Offshore, as well as having a higher cf, I am guessing also generates a higher proportion of the time - might this become more valuable as the proportion of renewables goes up?

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

Offshore, as well as having a higher cf, I am guessing also generates a higher proportion of the time - might this become more valuable as the proportion of renewables goes up?

Yes, more predictability adds value, you are right. But we'll still end up at a point where we need a broad mix of RE generation to help reduce the scale of the peaks and troughs. This summer we saw poor wind generation (below average) but the high solar made up for it.

If we had huge amounts of really cheap battery storage then no probs, but a daily balance will be needed, and then chemical storage (and possibly CAES & LAES) for longer term storage, utilising dirt cheap excess generation (or spill).

For the UK I think off-shore wind is logically going to be the backbone of our RE generation (33%+), with a broad mix of other technologies, especially on-shore wind, PV and bio-energy.

Around the world, especially in sunnier countries, PV is expected to be the 'backbone', which comes back to your predictability point - good PV generation almost every day, and across the whole year, backed up by other RE and batts, will make for a relatively simple solution ........ did I say simple?

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I'm pretty confident that the majority would understand what Martyn actually posted, the reason it was posted and the context in which it was posted ... you yourself have argued the case for a vast build of additional capacity within the UK to meet EV demand, so "cake" & "eat it" readily comes to mind ...

HTH
Z

Thanks Z.

Yes my post and the use of the word expanding referred to the future. Most of the French fleet is now pretty old, and costing more and more for extensions. Plus France has said they will be reducing the percentage of electricity they get from nuclear (which isn't 100% at the moment, especially when they buy in German lignite generation to meet peaks).

To stand still on a % basis, they will need to expand the GW's they have, and to stand still on current GW's they will need a large build out policy ready to replace the ageing fleet.

My understanding, which is of course open to challenge, is that the move away from nuclear (smaller % and possibly smaller capacity) is driven both by the economics of RE and the popularity of RE, whilst nuclear is extremely unpopular in France ...... yes I did say that, see page 28, table 8, with only 23% supportive of nuclear, v's 40% in the UK, and wind and solar getting 79%-93%.

Another 'turncoat' with a significant nuclear % is South Korea who have changed course and plan no new reactors after current builds are complete.

In the world, only the UAE (I believe) is demonstrating a strong nuclear policy in sun rich countries. S. Africa recently changed course which seems to add credence that no sunny country now needs nuclear going forward as PV is simply too cheap already, and storage costs are tumbling. Plus CSP (with built in storage (thermal storage)) is making an economic comeback.