4 ms·

€50/MWh sounds a lot cheaper than £92.50/MWh (+inflation) that Hinkley Point C will cost in the UK.

ljf 7y ago
Certainly does... and don't forget that we are tied into paying that price for the life of the plant. And then on the hook for the decommissioning costs and storage of the waste. And are basically paying for much of the development cost, and providing a low interest loan... I cannot wait until storage options work financially and the case for coal, gas and nuclear is a moot point as the costs of renewables are so low.
- jabl 7y ago
  > don't forget that we are tied into paying that price for the life of the plant. Construction + 35 years, actually. (expected life 60-80 or more years) > And then on the hook for the decommissioning costs and storage of the waste. Not sure how it works in the UK, but in most places nuclear operators are required to pay a certain percentage of operating revenue into a government fund to cover the decommissioning and waste storage costs. Exactly so the taxpayers aren't left with the cleanup bill. > And are basically paying for much of the development cost, and providing a low interest loan... What the UK is largely paying for is actually capital costs due to refusing to provide a state guaranteed low interest loan. Had they done that they could have gotten it for half the price. Here's one alternative way to finance similar projects in the UK: http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/energy/the-nuclear-rab-model/ http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/energy/the-nuclear-rab-mo...
jandrese 7y ago
Yep, just don't count your chickens before they hatch. That was the bid price but it remains to be seen if they can deliver at that price point.
- aurelwu 7y ago
  With the recent delays at Flamanville 3 because of faulty welds [0] which make a completion before end of 2020 rather unlikely there are big question because that is one of the conditions in the hinkley point C contracts [1] [2]. [0] http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Weld-repairs-to-delay-Flamanville-EPR-start-up http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Weld-repairs-to-d... [1] http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Nuclear-disaster_EPR_EN.pdf#page=4 http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Nucle... (middle of page) [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2015:109:FULL&from=EN#page=52 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L... (first footnote)
ElKrist 7y ago
You're comparing the price of an energy that is non-drivable (wind) to one that is (nuclear). Non-drivable energy sources cannot stand on their own. People also want electricity in the evening when there's not enough wind or on a cloudy day. The fact that the energy produced is not drivable must be factored in the €/MWh otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges. Also, consumers have to pay (through a tax on the utility bill usually) for periods when renewables produce too much. See negatives prices in Germany [1] or Britain paying windfarms owners more than £1 million a week to shut their production down [2]. [1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-turn-negative https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-... [2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/11323685/Wind-farms-paid-1m-a-week-to-switch-off.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/1132...
- rakoo 7y ago
  And when you compare comparable things (ie same output 24/7 for the same duration), drivable solar and wind are not only more expensive, they also emit more CO2. This trend of replacing nuclear with unreliable intermittent energy is dooming us all.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    If there is a trend, then fix the cause.
  - simonebrunozzi 7y ago
    Really? Why would they emit more CO2? Can you expand?
- simonebrunozzi 7y ago
  Sorry for the dumb question, what is "drivable" energy?
  - ElKrist 7y ago
    English is not my native language so there might be a better word for what I meant: An energy that can be "produced" (physically transformed is more accurate) whenever you want and at whatever power you want (with the upper bound of its max power obviously). In practice there is no such energy: there is always a delay between your choice of delivering a certain amount of power from a hydroelectric dam, a nuclear plant or a coal plant. Some behave better than others in this regard. However with this delay taken into account, you can schedule production according to estimated demand. With pure renewables without a large storage system this is not possible. Please note that "drivable" energies also need some storage (hydroelectric dam for instance) to help balancing the production/demand. However it is marginal
southern_cross 7y ago
Bear in mind that even the best offshore wind systems only produce about 65% of their rated output, on average. You have no real control over the when and how much and for how long of that, either.
marsokod 7y ago
Given that the market price of the electricity when the wind is blowing is usually below €20/MWh (see time series on pfbach.dk), I hope they are expecting to reduce the price even more because it is still too expensive for the current market. There is a linear dependency between the wind production (and solar production) and the market price: the more intermittent energy is available on the market, the lower the price.

ljf 7y ago

Certainly does... and don't forget that we are tied into paying that price for the life of the plant. And then on the hook for the decommissioning costs and storage of the waste. And are basically paying for much of the development cost, and providing a low interest loan... I cannot wait until storage options work financially and the case for coal, gas and nuclear is a moot point as the costs of renewables are so low.

jabl 7y ago
> don't forget that we are tied into paying that price for the life of the plant. Construction + 35 years, actually. (expected life 60-80 or more years) > And then on the hook for the decommissioning costs and storage of the waste. Not sure how it works in the UK, but in most places nuclear operators are required to pay a certain percentage of operating revenue into a government fund to cover the decommissioning and waste storage costs. Exactly so the taxpayers aren't left with the cleanup bill. > And are basically paying for much of the development cost, and providing a low interest loan... What the UK is largely paying for is actually capital costs due to refusing to provide a state guaranteed low interest loan. Had they done that they could have gotten it for half the price. Here's one alternative way to finance similar projects in the UK: http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/energy/the-nuclear-rab-model/ http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/energy/the-nuclear-rab-mo...

jandrese 7y ago

Yep, just don't count your chickens before they hatch. That was the bid price but it remains to be seen if they can deliver at that price point.

aurelwu 7y ago
With the recent delays at Flamanville 3 because of faulty welds [0] which make a completion before end of 2020 rather unlikely there are big question because that is one of the conditions in the hinkley point C contracts [1] [2]. [0] http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Weld-repairs-to-delay-Flamanville-EPR-start-up http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Weld-repairs-to-d... [1] http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Nuclear-disaster_EPR_EN.pdf#page=4 http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Nucle... (middle of page) [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2015:109:FULL&from=EN#page=52 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L... (first footnote)

ElKrist 7y ago

You're comparing the price of an energy that is non-drivable (wind) to one that is (nuclear). Non-drivable energy sources cannot stand on their own. People also want electricity in the evening when there's not enough wind or on a cloudy day. The fact that the energy produced is not drivable must be factored in the €/MWh otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges. Also, consumers have to pay (through a tax on the utility bill usually) for periods when renewables produce too much. See negatives prices in Germany [1] or Britain paying windfarms owners more than £1 million a week to shut their production down [2]. [1] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-turn-negative https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-... [2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/11323685/Wind-farms-paid-1m-a-week-to-switch-off.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/1132...

rakoo 7y ago
And when you compare comparable things (ie same output 24/7 for the same duration), drivable solar and wind are not only more expensive, they also emit more CO2. This trend of replacing nuclear with unreliable intermittent energy is dooming us all.
- imtringued 7y ago
  If there is a trend, then fix the cause.
- simonebrunozzi 7y ago
  Really? Why would they emit more CO2? Can you expand?
simonebrunozzi 7y ago
Sorry for the dumb question, what is "drivable" energy?
- ElKrist 7y ago
  English is not my native language so there might be a better word for what I meant: An energy that can be "produced" (physically transformed is more accurate) whenever you want and at whatever power you want (with the upper bound of its max power obviously). In practice there is no such energy: there is always a delay between your choice of delivering a certain amount of power from a hydroelectric dam, a nuclear plant or a coal plant. Some behave better than others in this regard. However with this delay taken into account, you can schedule production according to estimated demand. With pure renewables without a large storage system this is not possible. Please note that "drivable" energies also need some storage (hydroelectric dam for instance) to help balancing the production/demand. However it is marginal

southern_cross 7y ago

Bear in mind that even the best offshore wind systems only produce about 65% of their rated output, on average. You have no real control over the when and how much and for how long of that, either.

marsokod 7y ago

Given that the market price of the electricity when the wind is blowing is usually below €20/MWh (see time series on pfbach.dk), I hope they are expecting to reduce the price even more because it is still too expensive for the current market. There is a linear dependency between the wind production (and solar production) and the market price: the more intermittent energy is available on the market, the lower the price.