4 years 1 month 3 weeks to build a nuclear reactor

GreatApe

ed110220 wrote: »

I don't think reactors built in China or started more than 30 years ago are a good analogue for the UK today. Especially as all the recent reactors built recently in the western world have been massively delayed and over budget (Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3) or abandoned part way through construction wasting billions of dollars after costs had become excessive (VC Sumner). Those would be much better analogues for UK conditions.

If China can genuinely build reactors reliably, quickly and affordably that is good news. I am skeptical though because even though China has the largest nuclear construction program in the world, it's still rather small as a percentage of electricity generation and has increased, and is planned to increase considerably slower than output from new renewables.

I'm skeptical on a world scale because nuclear output is increasing very slowly. If it were the attractive solution its proponents paint, there would be a boom in construction especially in developing countries where electricity demand is rising fast. I do not buy the anti-nuclear conspiracy that "greenies" are blocking nuclear power. It could explain a nuclear phase out in a few rich countries like Germany but it's implausible that "greens" are blocking/limiting nuclear power in India, China, Vietnam, South Africa etc.

So what you're saying is any example which shows nuclear can be built at good prices and good speeds should be void and any example which shows the opposite should be seen as gospel. No confirmation bias there then!?!

It's the coal industry which blocks expansion of nuclear in China
It does this by the fact that existing infrastructure is almost always cheaper than new infrastructure

GreatApe

Bump

To remind the haters that nuclear can be built rapidly at good prices

tim_p

I’d rather they took longer and did it properly. Besides isn’t it more important how long it takes to decommission the things and make safe the waste.

1961Nick

GreatApe wrote: »

Bump

To remind the haters that nuclear can be built rapidly at good prices

What's the life expectancy of a nuclear plant compared to a windfarm?

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

What's the life expectancy of a nuclear plant compared to a windfarm?

This thread isn't really to compare nuclear to something else, it's to disprove the assertion as fact that nuclear is intrinsically slow and costly and always runs late. Nope

But since you ask

Some parts of both systems will probably have long lives other parts limited but can be replaced

About 90% of a nuclear plant is non nuclear buildings and tunnels etc
Those will last more or less indefinitely (let's say 200 years)
Other parts like the steam generators and turbines will have limited lives but we are still talking 60-80 years. But those can be replaced and maintained more or less indefinitely

Likewise I suspect wind farm foundations and towers will last more or less indefinitely (let's say 200 years)
Other parts like blades and generators will have limited lives perhaps 20-30 yeaes
But those can be replaced and maintained nor or less indefinitely

ABrass

Windfarms will last much longer on at least one basis, the names don't need to be changed as often.

See windscale nuclear plant. They still have a site there but it got rebranded after the entire lot caught fire and dumped a load of iodine onto a load of cows.

joefizz

1961Nick wrote: »

What's the life expectancy of a nuclear plant compared to a windfarm?

What about the half life expectancy? ;-)

ABrass

Onshore wind farms may never die. Once you've got the grid connection then you just replace bits as needed. This is already happening for early phase wind farms.

Offshore is more interesting, the design is typically quoted as 20-25 years but the sea is a tougher environment than on land. The only study I've found was the junk science from the REF that got posted a while back.

Martyn1981

ABrass wrote: »

Onshore wind farms may never die. Once you've got the grid connection then you just replace bits as needed. This is already happening for early phase wind farms.

Offshore is more interesting, the design is typically quoted as 20-25 years but the sea is a tougher environment than on land. The only study I've found was the junk science from the REF that got posted a while back.

Regarding life expectancy, it might be better to consider total subsidy support. I'll explain.

The off-shore contracts issued in 2017 were at £65/MWh, so perhaps £15/MWh subsidy, but that's only a 15yrs subsidy, whereas the £102/MWh for HPC (approx £52/MWh subsidy) is for 35 yrs.

So HPC operates for 60yrs, with 35yrs of high subsidy, whilst the wind farm operates for say 20yrs with 15yrs of low subsidy. Then, as you point out, the WT (wind turbines) are replaced with another set, subsidy free for 20yrs, and another, subsidy free for 20yrs.

So we get the same 60yrs, for a fraction of the subsidy.

Also, approx 40% of the cost of off-shore wind is the deployment of the bases and electrical infrastructure, so expect those replacements to cost around 40% less, even if costs don't fall.

But ..... we know costs will fall, as the 2019 auction results last week came in at £45/MWh, so effectively subsidy free for 20 (to 60) yrs+ v's that £50bn subsidy for HPC.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Regarding life expectancy, it might be better to consider total subsidy support. I'll explain.

The off-shore contracts issued in 2017 were at £65/MWh, so perhaps £15/MWh subsidy, but that's only a 15yrs subsidy, whereas the £102/MWh for HPC (approx £52/MWh subsidy) is for 35 yrs.

So HPC operates for 60yrs, with 35yrs of high subsidy, whilst the wind farm operates for say 20yrs with 15yrs of low subsidy. Then, as you point out, the WT (wind turbines) are replaced with another set, subsidy free for 20yrs, and another, subsidy free for 20yrs.

So we get the same 60yrs, for a fraction of the subsidy.

Also, approx 40% of the cost of off-shore wind is the deployment of the bases and electrical infrastructure, so expect those replacements to cost around 40% less, even if costs don't fall.

But ..... we know costs will fall, as the 2019 auction results last week came in at £45/MWh, so effectively subsidy free for 20 (to 60) yrs+ v's that £50bn subsidy for HPC.

Why do you feel it's fair to use first of a kind EPR design after 30 years of no nuclear build experience ?

Why not use the cost of this 4 years 1 month 3 weeks to build nuclear reactor?

The nuke will also displace a coal or gas plant
The wind farm requires those as backup or it doesn't work

Anyway this isn't a nuclear Vs wind thread
This is a thread to show nuclear can be built in 4 years 1 month and 3 weeks so as to disprove your and others assertion that nuclear is slow always over budget and costly. Nope not when you build more than a dozen