6 ms·

Ah now, let's not get ahead of ourselves. 400MW of wind power is actually about 120MW of actual power when you take into account the capacity factor typically 3

Ah now, let's not get ahead of ourselves. 400MW of wind power is actually about 120MW of actual power when you take into account the capacity factor typically 30% in the UK. While it's true that nuclear plants also have a capacity factor due to down time and refueling it's >90%. You also can't just arbitrarily increase the amount of wind generation and hope the grid copes. There need to be major structural changes to cope with the intermittency of power.

ajross 5y ago
See... this is again the rathole that leads to boondoggle spending. I'm not saying "buy wind only" as all the commenters immediately interpreted. I'm pointing out that this (hypothetical!) reactor is, even now, even in the development stage, already as expensive (plus or minus an order of magnitude) as readily deployed solutions already available in the market. Be real. It's not going to catch up financially. It will never catch up financially. Nuclear will be what we start deploying only when we're working on the last 20% of capacity and trying to wind down the old fossil fuel generators (which will themselves be increasingly expensive as they become peaker plants). Nuclear will never appeal to market producers of energy. It's just too expensive. Which is why we need to throw public funds at it instead. And if we're going to throw public funds at the problem, let's start with the low hanging fruit. The UK should be putting that money somewhere else, not here.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > Nuclear will be what we start deploying only when we're working on the last 20% of capacity and trying to wind down the old fossil fuel generators > Nuclear will never appeal to market producers of energy. It's just too expensive. It seems to me that these two sentences contradict. The first implies that Nuclear will be appealing for 20% of the energy market, which is still a huge market.
  - ajross 5y ago
    If it was appealing, private industry would be investing. What I'm saying is that the only time nuclear makes sense is when you're trying to back-fill the last 20% (or whatever) of capacity that can't easily be born by other renewable sources. That doesn't make that 20% magically profitable, it's a gap that needs to be filled (likely by public investment).
    - gwbrooks 5y ago
      :::Helion's $500m funding round has entered the chat:::
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      It doesn't make sense for backfilling the last 20%. That last 20% isn't steady, it's highly intermittent demand, something that nuclear is terrible at addressing.
      - nicoburns 5y ago
        If we can work out a good storage technology (and I am optimistic about this), then I totally agree. If we can't, then nuclear with demand-following load might be the best available option.
        pfdietz 5y ago
        Using nuclear for the last 20% makes no sense. Against wind/solar, you either use nuclear for everything, or you use it for nothing. There is no middle ground (well, except maybe in a tightly tuned scenario where solar could just be cheaper for daytime peak reduction, but even that is a bit iffy.)
- whiddershins 5y ago
  I’m getting confused. GP is saying 90% of 470MW (nuclear) versus 30% of 400MW (wind) for the same price, and you are saying that’s too expensive? Or did you leave a number out of your comment and 400MW of wind is only 50M, one-tenth the price.
  - ivalm 5y ago
    No, the grant, before any reactor, is equivalent to 400 MW (later adjusted down by capacity factor). The nuclear reactor itself is vastly more expensive ($2.4B after the 5th unit). So each reactor is closer to 1500MW of wind (again if we take 30% then 450MW more in line with the reactor) and that’s optimistic (because early nuke estimates tend to underestimate cost). So the real reason for nuclear is that it provides consistent output and thus has lower requirements on the grid.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  It does catch up, of course it does. It takes some time, but there is ROI, and it’s not even that far in time. It’s just that you have to spend more time in debt. https://youtube.com/watch?v=UC_BCz0pzMw https://youtube.com/watch?v=UC_BCz0pzMw
  - ajross 5y ago
    > It does catch up, of course it does. It takes some time It's had 70 years!
    - scrollaway 5y ago
      … goalposts, much? Watch the video, it takes far less than 70 years for a nuclear power plant to go ROI-positive. Hi, I'm French, I know a thing or two about how valuable the ROI on Nuclear is.
      - hkt 5y ago
        Fair comment, but in the UK we've screwed up nuclear for generations. Our old Magnoz reactors have a century long decommissioning period, and even in the 1960s were more expensive than coal. More modern reactors may differ, but Magnox set up the arguments for anti-nuclear advocates. More recently, we (stupidly) accepted an abominable price for energy from Hinckley C, and indemnified the operators (including EDF if memory serves) against the cost of decommissioning. There's evidently a good way to do nuclear, but Britain doesn't do it. We are inept, so our ROI is lower than yours. It is a great shame.
- JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
  Keep fighting the fight. Your comment is correct despite starting to get grayed out. I always sense shenanigans on nuclear posts on the internet.
- newsclues 5y ago
  Nuclear plant will last for decades. How long will wind turbines or solar panels last? The batteries for them also need to be factored in
andy_ppp 5y ago
Have people looked at combining gas generation and wind power, would being able to generate gas when there was too much electricity change the capacity factor equation?
- mschuster91 5y ago
  We don't have anything near that scale in power-to-gas. And even if we did have, power-to-hydrogen still is at only 60-70% efficency.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    What is the efficiency of hydrogen-to-power? Or, the round trip efficiency of using hydrogen as storage?
    - bjourne 5y ago
      About 60-70%. Possibly it could be improved with better electrolysis techniques or large-scale facilities. Some Swedish companies are pushing for that solution: https://www.hybritdevelopment.se/en/a-fossil-free-future/ https://www.hybritdevelopment.se/en/a-fossil-free-future/ For now it's only for the steel industry but could in theory be used for other parts of the grid too.
      - VBprogrammer 5y ago
        A 60-70% round trip efficiency would be very impressive for round trip efficiency of electricity to hydrogen and back. Its in the same ballpark as pumped storage. I can only assume it's assuming using fuel cells which are 90% efficient for the conversion to electricity. I'm not convinced these have really been deployed at that scale before, the biggest fuel cells I'm aware of are used in non-nuclear submarines where cost is not a priority.
  - 7952 5y ago
    That efficiency could be good enough if you can buy the energy cheap and sell high.

ajross 5y ago

See... this is again the rathole that leads to boondoggle spending. I'm not saying "buy wind only" as all the commenters immediately interpreted. I'm pointing out that this (hypothetical!) reactor is, even now, even in the development stage, already as expensive (plus or minus an order of magnitude) as readily deployed solutions already available in the market. Be real. It's not going to catch up financially. It will never catch up financially. Nuclear will be what we start deploying only when we're working on the last 20% of capacity and trying to wind down the old fossil fuel generators (which will themselves be increasingly expensive as they become peaker plants). Nuclear will never appeal to market producers of energy. It's just too expensive. Which is why we need to throw public funds at it instead. And if we're going to throw public funds at the problem, let's start with the low hanging fruit. The UK should be putting that money somewhere else, not here.

nicoburns 5y ago
> Nuclear will be what we start deploying only when we're working on the last 20% of capacity and trying to wind down the old fossil fuel generators > Nuclear will never appeal to market producers of energy. It's just too expensive. It seems to me that these two sentences contradict. The first implies that Nuclear will be appealing for 20% of the energy market, which is still a huge market.
- ajross 5y ago
  If it was appealing, private industry would be investing. What I'm saying is that the only time nuclear makes sense is when you're trying to back-fill the last 20% (or whatever) of capacity that can't easily be born by other renewable sources. That doesn't make that 20% magically profitable, it's a gap that needs to be filled (likely by public investment).
  - gwbrooks 5y ago
    :::Helion's $500m funding round has entered the chat:::
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    It doesn't make sense for backfilling the last 20%. That last 20% isn't steady, it's highly intermittent demand, something that nuclear is terrible at addressing.
    - nicoburns 5y ago
      If we can work out a good storage technology (and I am optimistic about this), then I totally agree. If we can't, then nuclear with demand-following load might be the best available option.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        Using nuclear for the last 20% makes no sense. Against wind/solar, you either use nuclear for everything, or you use it for nothing. There is no middle ground (well, except maybe in a tightly tuned scenario where solar could just be cheaper for daytime peak reduction, but even that is a bit iffy.)
whiddershins 5y ago
I’m getting confused. GP is saying 90% of 470MW (nuclear) versus 30% of 400MW (wind) for the same price, and you are saying that’s too expensive? Or did you leave a number out of your comment and 400MW of wind is only 50M, one-tenth the price.
- ivalm 5y ago
  No, the grant, before any reactor, is equivalent to 400 MW (later adjusted down by capacity factor). The nuclear reactor itself is vastly more expensive ($2.4B after the 5th unit). So each reactor is closer to 1500MW of wind (again if we take 30% then 450MW more in line with the reactor) and that’s optimistic (because early nuke estimates tend to underestimate cost). So the real reason for nuclear is that it provides consistent output and thus has lower requirements on the grid.
scrollaway 5y ago
It does catch up, of course it does. It takes some time, but there is ROI, and it’s not even that far in time. It’s just that you have to spend more time in debt. https://youtube.com/watch?v=UC_BCz0pzMw https://youtube.com/watch?v=UC_BCz0pzMw
- ajross 5y ago
  > It does catch up, of course it does. It takes some time It's had 70 years!
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    … goalposts, much? Watch the video, it takes far less than 70 years for a nuclear power plant to go ROI-positive. Hi, I'm French, I know a thing or two about how valuable the ROI on Nuclear is.
    - hkt 5y ago
      Fair comment, but in the UK we've screwed up nuclear for generations. Our old Magnoz reactors have a century long decommissioning period, and even in the 1960s were more expensive than coal. More modern reactors may differ, but Magnox set up the arguments for anti-nuclear advocates. More recently, we (stupidly) accepted an abominable price for energy from Hinckley C, and indemnified the operators (including EDF if memory serves) against the cost of decommissioning. There's evidently a good way to do nuclear, but Britain doesn't do it. We are inept, so our ROI is lower than yours. It is a great shame.
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
Keep fighting the fight. Your comment is correct despite starting to get grayed out. I always sense shenanigans on nuclear posts on the internet.
newsclues 5y ago
Nuclear plant will last for decades. How long will wind turbines or solar panels last? The batteries for them also need to be factored in

andy_ppp 5y ago

Have people looked at combining gas generation and wind power, would being able to generate gas when there was too much electricity change the capacity factor equation?

mschuster91 5y ago
We don't have anything near that scale in power-to-gas. And even if we did have, power-to-hydrogen still is at only 60-70% efficency.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  What is the efficiency of hydrogen-to-power? Or, the round trip efficiency of using hydrogen as storage?
  - bjourne 5y ago
    About 60-70%. Possibly it could be improved with better electrolysis techniques or large-scale facilities. Some Swedish companies are pushing for that solution: https://www.hybritdevelopment.se/en/a-fossil-free-future/ https://www.hybritdevelopment.se/en/a-fossil-free-future/ For now it's only for the steel industry but could in theory be used for other parts of the grid too.
    - VBprogrammer 5y ago
      A 60-70% round trip efficiency would be very impressive for round trip efficiency of electricity to hydrogen and back. Its in the same ballpark as pumped storage. I can only assume it's assuming using fuel cells which are 90% efficient for the conversion to electricity. I'm not convinced these have really been deployed at that scale before, the biggest fuel cells I'm aware of are used in non-nuclear submarines where cost is not a priority.
- 7952 5y ago
  That efficiency could be good enough if you can buy the energy cheap and sell high.