Nuclear power : how visions change

kabayiri

I stumbled across this Youtube video (as you do)

https://youtu.be/AGthnKlPHm8

It was interesting to hear the expectations from the new wave of nuclear power stations arriving in the 60s (starting with Berkeley). The future appeared promising.

Flash forward half a century and this appears in the news :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-34306997

It seems we need government underwritten Chinese investment to get the £25bn nuclear development at Hinkley back on track, and even then the subsidy required will mean energy costs twice the market price.

Is this a good deal for the economy? Can't we use fracked gas or buy in 'leccy from French nuclear until Fusion comes on stream?

It doesn't seem very MSE to me.

cells

Its over regulated so costs are too high. In America (largest nuke fleet) the average workforce is a little over 1000 people per 1GW reactor. Compare that to a CCGT of the same power which would have about 30 full time workers. These 970 extra staff cost a lot of money

The sane thing to do would be to have an evidence based regularity framework to reduce costs. That's sadly not likely.

So the smart choice right now is to just give up on nuclear and keep using what already exist.

I wish the Chinese good luck in their venture

BobQ

Compare that with this

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65713/6883-electricity-generation-costs.pdf

kabayiri

BobQ wrote: »

Compare that with this

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65713/6883-electricity-generation-costs.pdf

Maybe I am misreading that report, but is it including the decommissioning costs for nuclear when it shows the comparitive levelised cost?

cells

The simple choice is to just keep what we have and it's probably the smart move for the UK for the next 10 years. By that timeframe we will see if solar PV or wind becomes subsidy free competitive. The Chinese will also have built a hundred nukes so maybe they can start exporting economic versions.

Right now nukes here under current conditions are not viable. Cancle them and stop wind and PV too

It's a shame as the last nuke built in the UK was on budjet and on time

Mistermeaner

Shale

Shale (needed more characters)

BobQ

kabayiri wrote: »

Maybe I am misreading that report, but is it including the decommissioning costs for nuclear when it shows the comparitive levelised cost?

I think it is based on the total end to end cost from design to decommissioning. But like you I have not digest it in detail.

kabayiri

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Shale

Shale (needed more characters)

From what I can gather the productivity gains in Shale development seem significant.

Shale may have its environmental issues, but compared to nuclear?

zagubov

cells wrote: »

The simple choice is to just keep what we have and it's probably the smart move for the UK for the next 10 years. By that timeframe we will see if solar PV or wind becomes subsidy free competitive. The Chinese will also have built a hundred nukes so maybe they can start exporting economic versions.

Right now nukes here under current conditions are not viable. Cancle them and stop wind and PV too

It's a shame as the last nuke built in the UK was on budjet and on time

What will we use instead?

kinger101

kabayiri wrote: »

From what I can gather the productivity gains in Shale development seem significant.

Shale may have its environmental issues, but compared to nuclear?

Nuclear is much more benign both environmentally and in terms of loss of human lives to any carbon based fuel. In reality, the only enviromental effects of nuclear are from the mining, transport and enrichment of ores, and the construction of the reactor. The waste can be contained, unlike the burning of fossil fuels, where CO2 and other gases are released into the environment. Aside from the effects of CO2, which are difficult to quantify, the other pollutants cause many deaths.

For example, it is estimated that smog causes 3 million excess deaths per annum, worldwide.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/09/smog-causes-more-than-3-million-premature-deaths-a-yearworldwide/

On a safety measure, nuclear is also better than fossil fuels.

Between 2003 and 2013, there were around 1,200 deaths in the US alone in the oil and gas sector.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6420a4.htm

In China, coal mining deaths were around 7,000 per annum, and have since dropped to around 1,000.

http://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/energy_watch/china-coal-deaths-03162015103452.html

There have probably been fewer than 5,000 deaths as a result of nuclear in total, the most significant of these being Chernobyl, where 4,000 excess deaths were predicted (with 47 direct)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

Nobody died from radiation at Fukushima.

Martyn1981

kabayiri wrote: »

Maybe I am misreading that report, but is it including the decommissioning costs for nuclear when it shows the comparitive levelised cost?

Yes and no.

If we move away from that report for a minute, as it's from 2012 and renewables costs have fallen significantly since then, also we now have actual energy auction results on which to compare costs.

So nuclear is to get £93/MWh under the CfD* scheme, this years auction had bids from off-shore wind at £120 for 2017 generation, and £115 for 2018 (existing contracts/construction are around £150, so falling fast). On-shore wind bid £80 for 2016, and large scale PV also came in at £80 for 2016.

Wind and PV CfD's are for 15 years, the nuclear CfD is for 35 years.

The contract for nuclear includes decommissioning so the bid price for the CfD should therefore include this cost. However, the nuclear operators only have to set aside an amount that they think will grow, via investment, to meet the cost of decommissioning at end of life. The plants could operate for 40 to 60 years, so might not shut till 2085 (if they go online in 2025?), so your guess is as good as mine, as to whether costs will be covered.

*CfD - contract for difference - a guaranteed payment, where the price paid for the leccy is then made up to the contract price via a subsidy payment. If during peak times, the price paid is higher than the CfD, then the extra is actually paid back.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that the government is currently planning to remove all subsidy support for domestic PV. The subsidy will be 12.5p from 1st Oct. It could now be halved and the industry would survive. In fact it could survive, for ideal locations at 5p (just). At 5p, the domestic subsidy for small PV systems in the UK, after only 5 years of support, would be roughly equal to the proposed subsidy to be paid to nuclear in 10 years time, despite 50 years of support for nuclear already. [Edit: With PV install costs expected to fall a further 40% over the next 10 years, the domestic industry should be fully subsidy free by 2025.]

For some strange reason, the government is scrapping subsidy support for the cheapest and smallest generators (domestic PV, PV farms, on-shore wind farms), but maintaining support for the largest and most expensive generators (nuclear and off-shore wind), being operated by huge energy companies, and foreign investors!

Mart.