4 ms·

In the UK there is a nuclear power plant under construction [1], and two more plants with the same reactor type are planned to be built in France and Finland. T

by fy20 5y ago

In the UK there is a nuclear power plant under construction [1], and two more plants with the same reactor type are planned to be built in France and Finland. The plant will cost around £23 billion to build, mostly financed by the owners, EDF (state owned by France) and CGN (state owned by China), with a little funding from the taxpayer. However they have negotiated a "strike price" of £92.50/MWh - how much they can sell the electricity for. In 2019, auctions for offshore wind were sold at a strike price of £39.65/MWh [2], so that's nearly 3x the price. Somebody is getting a good deal out of it, but definately not UK electricity consumers :D [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... [2] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/prices-tumble-as-u-k-awards-5-5gw-of-offshore-wind https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/prices-tumble-a...

sesuximo 5y ago
Is it bad to pay more for more consistent energy? When you factor in cost of storage, I doubt the multiple is still 3.
- manmal 5y ago
  It’s a bit weird to have fixed prices for some players while other players in the same market need to compete. If a new tech comes along in 10 years which offers basal power like nuclear plants do, then there won’t be any incentive to invest there because they are stuck with the much higher price.
jsnell 5y ago
Just to be clear, the plant in Finland isn't just "planned". They started construction in 2005, and it was supposed to be operational in 2009. They've just loaded the fuel for final verification tests, so it should finally go online next year. The delays and budget overruns for that project have been quite something.
- euroderf 5y ago
  The overruns bankrupted the French prime contractor, so there's that. I suspected they underbid the job, never suspecting the Finnish regulatory authorities would as strict as they are.
jorvi 5y ago
We as humanity need base load capacity, and getting enough battery capacity for even just the West is a pie in the sky. Hydro is very localized. So then the choice falls to coal or nuclear. Coal is more polluting, and it even has more (indirect) radioactive spillout than nuclear. I'd happily pay a few cents/watt more if that means turning most energy production green. It also has the knock-on effect of making driving electric more green.

by fy20 5y ago

sesuximo 5y ago

Is it bad to pay more for more consistent energy? When you factor in cost of storage, I doubt the multiple is still 3.

manmal 5y ago
It’s a bit weird to have fixed prices for some players while other players in the same market need to compete. If a new tech comes along in 10 years which offers basal power like nuclear plants do, then there won’t be any incentive to invest there because they are stuck with the much higher price.

jsnell 5y ago

Just to be clear, the plant in Finland isn't just "planned". They started construction in 2005, and it was supposed to be operational in 2009. They've just loaded the fuel for final verification tests, so it should finally go online next year. The delays and budget overruns for that project have been quite something.

euroderf 5y ago
The overruns bankrupted the French prime contractor, so there's that. I suspected they underbid the job, never suspecting the Finnish regulatory authorities would as strict as they are.

jorvi 5y ago

We as humanity need base load capacity, and getting enough battery capacity for even just the West is a pie in the sky. Hydro is very localized. So then the choice falls to coal or nuclear. Coal is more polluting, and it even has more (indirect) radioactive spillout than nuclear. I'd happily pay a few cents/watt more if that means turning most energy production green. It also has the knock-on effect of making driving electric more green.