Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Coastalwatch

shinytop said:

Coastalwatch said:

QrizB said:

Coastalwatch said:

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60889001

We'll all own a bit of it now whether we like it or not.

There is also a very positive story on wind power in the Times but it's pay walled so  I won't bother linking it. 

Yep, another white elephant along with HS2, the latter of which will only benefit a very small minority of the population.

HS2 is what, four times the price of HPC?
Or, put another way, for the cost of 100 miles of high-speed railway we could have 12.8GW of new-build nuclear, roughly 30% of our winter electricity demand.

That maybe, but surely would be even better served putting toward renewables and have double the energy available in half the time rather than gambling on Sizewell C actually being completed and coming on stream when it's too late anyway. In addition the recommendation of the Examination Authority, for approval or otherwise, has yet to be completed so just another gamble to add to the the lop sided equation.

Is that peak or capacity?  

For £11bn or half the cost of either HPC or Sizewell C, take your pick, then place this into offshore wind we would completely fund 5.5GW of capacity, which at a 55%cf would give us 3.03GW of equivalent constant generation. SZC, like HPC, will have a 92% capacity factor, assuming nothing ever goes wrong, and it only shuts down every two years for 2 months for refueling, so 3.2GW @92%cf = 2.94GW.

As yet we haven't included the cost of decommisioning, currently standing at around £125bn for future generations to clear up after we've long gone. But why should we worry, let's just keep on kicking the can down the road.

ed110220

shinytop said:

Coastalwatch said:

QrizB said:

Coastalwatch said:

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60889001

We'll all own a bit of it now whether we like it or not.

There is also a very positive story on wind power in the Times but it's pay walled so  I won't bother linking it. 

Yep, another white elephant along with HS2, the latter of which will only benefit a very small minority of the population.

HS2 is what, four times the price of HPC?
Or, put another way, for the cost of 100 miles of high-speed railway we could have 12.8GW of new-build nuclear, roughly 30% of our winter electricity demand.

That maybe, but surely would be even better served putting toward renewables and have double the energy available in half the time rather than gambling on Sizewell C actually being completed and coming on stream when it's too late anyway. In addition the recommendation of the Examination Authority, for approval or otherwise, has yet to be completed so just another gamble to add to the the lop sided equation.

Is that peak or capacity?  

Likely neither, but amount of electricity generated per year. 

Exiled_Tyke

Coastalwatch said:

That maybe, but surely would be even better served putting toward renewables and have double the energy available in half the time rather than gambling on Sizewell C actually being completed and coming on stream when it's too late anyway. In addition the recommendation of the Examination Authority, for approval or otherwise, has yet to be completed so just another gamble to add to the the lop sided equation.

Is that peak or capacity?  

For £11bn or half the cost of either HPC or Sizewell C, take your pick, then place this into offshore wind we would completely fund 5.5GW of capacity, which at a 55%cf would give us 3.03GW of equivalent constant generation. SZC, like HPC, will have a 92% capacity factor, assuming nothing ever goes wrong, and it only shuts down every two years for 2 months for refueling, so 3.2GW @92%cf = 2.94GW.

As yet we haven't included the cost of decommisioning, currently standing at around £125bn for future generations to clear up after we've long gone. But why should we worry, let's just keep on kicking the can down the road.

And how quickly could we start getting some of those WTs producing compared to a nuclear power station? 
 
And let's not forget the rather damning NAO report on HPC.  To many of us it looked like a bad idea then it looks a lot worse now. 

michaels

Then again our wind turbines which can produce nearly 20Gw have been running at well below 5 for the last couple of days and less than 2 for example today.  Floating wind will help as it allows greater dispersion of generating sites but perhaps we need 10x or more current capacity to actually 'keep the lights on' - how much would that cost compared to HPC?  Wind may cost half as much per theoretical GW but if you need 10x as much theoretical power because of intermittency then actually it costs 5x as much....

Drax Electric Insights

shinytop

Coastalwatch said:

shinytop said:

Coastalwatch said:

QrizB said:

Coastalwatch said:

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60889001

We'll all own a bit of it now whether we like it or not.

There is also a very positive story on wind power in the Times but it's pay walled so  I won't bother linking it. 

Yep, another white elephant along with HS2, the latter of which will only benefit a very small minority of the population.

HS2 is what, four times the price of HPC?
Or, put another way, for the cost of 100 miles of high-speed railway we could have 12.8GW of new-build nuclear, roughly 30% of our winter electricity demand.

That maybe, but surely would be even better served putting toward renewables and have double the energy available in half the time rather than gambling on Sizewell C actually being completed and coming on stream when it's too late anyway. In addition the recommendation of the Examination Authority, for approval or otherwise, has yet to be completed so just another gamble to add to the the lop sided equation.

Is that peak or capacity?  

For £11bn or half the cost of either HPC or Sizewell C, take your pick, then place this into offshore wind we would completely fund 5.5GW of capacity, which at a 55%cf would give us 3.03GW of equivalent constant generation. SZC, like HPC, will have a 92% capacity factor, assuming nothing ever goes wrong, and it only shuts down every two years for 2 months for refueling, so 3.2GW @92%cf = 2.94GW.

As yet we haven't included the cost of decommisioning, currently standing at around £125bn for future generations to clear up after we've long gone. But why should we worry, let's just keep on kicking the can down the road.

What does 'equivalent constant generation' mean?  Is it what is normally known as 'average' or is it something different? 

Martyn1981

michaels said:

Then again our wind turbines which can produce nearly 20Gw have been running at well below 5 for the last couple of days and less than 2 for example today.  Floating wind will help as it allows greater dispersion of generating sites but perhaps we need 10x or more current capacity to actually 'keep the lights on' - how much would that cost compared to HPC?  Wind may cost half as much per theoretical GW but if you need 10x as much theoretical power because of intermittency then actually it costs 5x as much....

Drax Electric Insights

As discussed before, nuclear will also need storage (like intermittent RE) to help balance intraday generation to demand, and a simply mind blowing amount of seasonal storage to time shift summer excess to winter shortfall. Whereas RE generation is weighted towards the winter / higher demand, so even if we need days/weeks of long term storage for RE, it would still be a fraction of the storage capacity and cost that nuclear would need.

Once we accept that nuclear is not storage free, something you seemed to do previously, then comparisons like yours of wind capacity v's HPC become largely moot.

For the cost of nuclear generation, we can have 2+ times as much generation, and unlike nuclear it would be green and ethical, and generating in about 1/3rd of the time it takes to build new nuclear. Given that in the 2010's we displaced about half of FF generation with RE generation, then we should be able to displace the majority of the remainder this decade. With further RE deployment to tackle rising leccy demand (from industry, transport and space heating) and falling nuclear generation (as ageing nukes age out) as we need going forward.

A nuclear option would cost vastly more than a RE option, take decades longer, be (therefore) responsible for far more FF emissions during the delayed build out, need far more storage. The tendency is simply to 'hide' nuclear's storage need behind RE storage by suggesting just 'some' nuclear, or call it baseload, or simply forget about it accidentally. But since they both require storage we need to consider that cost for both, or exclude it from both, rather than trying to imply that RE / wind will cost 5x or 10x as much as HPC.

EricMears

shinytop said:

Coastalwatch said:

For £11bn or half the cost of either HPC or Sizewell C, take your pick, then place this into offshore wind we would completely fund 5.5GW of capacity, which at a 55%cf would give us 3.03GW of equivalent constant generation. SZC, like HPC, will have a 92% capacity factor, assuming nothing ever goes wrong, and it only shuts down every two years for 2 months for refueling, so 3.2GW @92%cf = 2.94GW.

As yet we haven't included the cost of decommisioning, currently standing at around £125bn for future generations to clear up after we've long gone. But why should we worry, let's just keep on kicking the can down the road.

What does 'equivalent constant generation' mean?  Is it what is normally known as 'average' or is it something different? 

'equivalent constant generation' would only mean anything if the WT (or the system of which it's part) had a backup facility - e.g. local batteries. Without that it would offer noting if the wind drops.

Martyn1981

shinytop said:

Coastalwatch said:

shinytop said:

Coastalwatch said:

QrizB said:

Coastalwatch said:

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60889001

We'll all own a bit of it now whether we like it or not.

There is also a very positive story on wind power in the Times but it's pay walled so  I won't bother linking it. 

Yep, another white elephant along with HS2, the latter of which will only benefit a very small minority of the population.

HS2 is what, four times the price of HPC?
Or, put another way, for the cost of 100 miles of high-speed railway we could have 12.8GW of new-build nuclear, roughly 30% of our winter electricity demand.

That maybe, but surely would be even better served putting toward renewables and have double the energy available in half the time rather than gambling on Sizewell C actually being completed and coming on stream when it's too late anyway. In addition the recommendation of the Examination Authority, for approval or otherwise, has yet to be completed so just another gamble to add to the the lop sided equation.

Is that peak or capacity?  

For £11bn or half the cost of either HPC or Sizewell C, take your pick, then place this into offshore wind we would completely fund 5.5GW of capacity, which at a 55%cf would give us 3.03GW of equivalent constant generation. SZC, like HPC, will have a 92% capacity factor, assuming nothing ever goes wrong, and it only shuts down every two years for 2 months for refueling, so 3.2GW @92%cf = 2.94GW.

As yet we haven't included the cost of decommisioning, currently standing at around £125bn for future generations to clear up after we've long gone. But why should we worry, let's just keep on kicking the can down the road.

What does 'equivalent constant generation' mean?  Is it what is normally known as 'average' or is it something different? 

If you have a quick read of this thread you'll see this discussed throughout. To compare the output (energy) of different sources of generation, we need to consider their capacity factor.

To put it simply, you have the generating capacity of an energy source, its power, and to work out its theoretical annual generation, you could multiply by 8,760hrs (24hrs x 365 days) to get its annual energy. In reality energy sources don't run at 100%, 100% of the time. Typically nuclear shuts down for one month a year for refuelling, these new EPR's, two months every two years, so their capacity factor is roughly 92%*. Nuclear refuelling is almost always carried out in the summer months when demand is lower, giving them a small winter bias. FF's tended to have cf's in the 70's (due to maintenance and demand following), but these have been falling for a decade. Of particular notice in the US where cheaper RE is quite 'naturally' pushing more expensive FF's (and nuclear) off the grid more and more. In fact some US nuclear reactors are being shutdown early, as the cost of overhauling them for another 10yrs use would make their electricity uncompetitive going forwards against anticipated falling RE costs.

*The actual cf for French nuclear is around 77% due to unscheduled shutdowns, and some load following. Note, load following for nuclear doesn't save money (as it would for FF generation, where less fuel is consumed), so it's akin to curtailment.

Offshore wind has a capacity factor heading into the low to medium 50%'s (older smaller WF's are in the 30's and 40's). Onshore is heading for a cf of 30%+. PV in the UK is about 11%. The cost of generation build out gives you the CAPEX (capital expenditure), the annual running costs give you the OPEX (operating cost), and when all is combined with the higher or lower cf, you get an approximate cost of generation, against which the investor will want to make a profit, giving us the rough cost/bid price for the leccy generated. New off shore wind, on shore wind and PV costs are trending towards a figure in the mid to high £40/MWh's**. New nuclear (2027(ish)) HPC is about £107/MWh***.


**Offshore wind has a higher cf but also higher CAPEX and OPEX, whilst at the other end is PV with a much lower cf, but also a lower CAPEX, and much lower OPEX, which helps to balance out the cost per MWh. In countries with higher PV cf's, such as the lower US states where single axis trackers can push cf's towards 25%, PV tends to be the cheapest source of generation.


Edit - ***For completeness, but warning mostly guesswork, I've tried to work out what the CfD strike price might be for SZC. Last decade, the Gov tried to rescue it by suggesting they reduce the subsidy by investing about £5bn directly into the build cost (not dissimilar to what they seem to be suggesting now). At the time I think they hoped to get the CfD strike price down to low £70's/MWh (via reducing the capital cost with that direct investment). In todays money and inline with HPC index linking, £70/MWh would now be approx £84/MWh (prior to the April uplift).

Another guess would be based on a recent article suggesting the cost impact to each household bill for SZC will be approx £12pa. Based on a wholesale cost of £50/MWh, HPC adds approx £20pa to every household bill, so, if £57 (£107 - £50) represents £20, then £12 would be approx £34, plus £50 equals £84/MWh CfD strike price.

These are simply guesses and the £84/MWh figures matching is purely a coincidence, and presumably due simply to a multitude of counter errors on my behalf.

ed110220

shinytop said:

Coastalwatch said:

shinytop said:

Coastalwatch said:

QrizB said:

Coastalwatch said:

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60889001

We'll all own a bit of it now whether we like it or not.

There is also a very positive story on wind power in the Times but it's pay walled so  I won't bother linking it. 

Yep, another white elephant along with HS2, the latter of which will only benefit a very small minority of the population.

HS2 is what, four times the price of HPC?
Or, put another way, for the cost of 100 miles of high-speed railway we could have 12.8GW of new-build nuclear, roughly 30% of our winter electricity demand.

That maybe, but surely would be even better served putting toward renewables and have double the energy available in half the time rather than gambling on Sizewell C actually being completed and coming on stream when it's too late anyway. In addition the recommendation of the Examination Authority, for approval or otherwise, has yet to be completed so just another gamble to add to the the lop sided equation.

Is that peak or capacity?  

For £11bn or half the cost of either HPC or Sizewell C, take your pick, then place this into offshore wind we would completely fund 5.5GW of capacity, which at a 55%cf would give us 3.03GW of equivalent constant generation. SZC, like HPC, will have a 92% capacity factor, assuming nothing ever goes wrong, and it only shuts down every two years for 2 months for refueling, so 3.2GW @92%cf = 2.94GW.

As yet we haven't included the cost of decommisioning, currently standing at around £125bn for future generations to clear up after we've long gone. But why should we worry, let's just keep on kicking the can down the road.

What does 'equivalent constant generation' mean?  Is it what is normally known as 'average' or is it something different? 

If you know how much electricity something produces in a year, it's straightforward to calculate. Wh per year (choose an appropriate prefix) has time on both sides of the "per" so both can be eliminated to convert energy to power.

Eg Hinkley Point B is given as 7202 GWh per year. 8760 hours in a year so 7202/8760 = 0.822 GW. Nameplate capacity is given as 1.31 GW.

Exiled_Tyke

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60903879

Looks like the treasury doesn't like the cost of nuclear!