4 ms·

at £120(current price is £240) per mwhr that's still £430 million a year income. With a 60 year lifespan, naively 5-8 years to profitability. The main risk to

at £120(current price is £240) per mwhr that's still £430 million a year income. With a 60 year lifespan, naively 5-8 years to profitability. The main risk to nuclear plant building is overuns of the reactor and problems with commissioning. If all your doing is hooking up pipes to heat exchangers then that simplifies significantly the building of a plant.

jhgb 5y ago
> at £120(current price is £240) £120/MWh is a rather terrible price. That's basically Hinkley Point C level rate, which is something many grid operators would never accept. So much for "export potential"?
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  You're damn right its shit. Hinkley was bollocks because the strike price was that high. If we don't agree to stupid strike prices (ie £60 per mwh) then its not a disaster. Even at £60 profitability is inside 12 years. Unless we start building generation capacity, then the wholesale price will go up as time goes on. Or as new renewable come on line, we'll get even more price fluctuations. it doesn't take many of these to even out pricing.
  - pydry 5y ago
    If the strike price wasnt that high it never would have been financed.
    - KaiserPro 5y ago
      Because of the way that the finance was structured. from my understanding it was because the government didn't want to shoulder any risk (or reward) from this.
      - pydry 5y ago
        Someone has to subsidize nuclear or it never gets built. In the UK ended up being ratepayers. In a way it's better that the costs arent disguised.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  A high price, but it's for non-intermittent, geographically independent carbon-free generation. Nothing else offers that capability. Hydro and geothermal are great, but not geographically independent. Renewables are cheaper, but are intermittent and still geographically dependent. To fairly compare them to nuclear you have to take in the cost of storage, which is immense unless you are lucky to have an alpine lake next door.
  - Joeri 5y ago
    I think you may have to recheck those facts. All power sources are intermittent, and nuclear is no exception. Nuclear power plants go offline unexpectedly all the time. Every energy grid needs a mix of sources to deal with intermittent production, preferably ones that are controllable and can follow loads. Nuclear power is not quick to follow loads. This makes it good for base load, somewhat able to do load following, and unable to handle peak loads. Currently peak loads are handled using fossil fuel plants. Even if a country embraces nuclear power wholesale they will still have to invest in storage as well if they want a green energy grid, to be able to fully handle peaks. Hydro (dam) storage is not what is being looked at in most places because of cost and climate impact (concrete), the current plans involve a mix of batteries and hydrogen. And finally, current nuclear power depends on uranium, and many countries have to import that, so it’s not quite geographically independent. There are approaches for nuclear power technologies that reduce the need for uranium, but all attempts to build those and run them at reasonable cost have failed.
    - Manuel_D 5y ago
      No, nuclear plants go offline very rarely. The have the highest capacity factor of any source [1]. And more importantly, this downtime is scheduled. Where's your source for your claim that "nuclear power plants go offline unexpectedly all the time"? Nuclear power can be modulated by more aggressively cooling reactors. France has been able to operate a grid over 70% nuclear (over 80% at its peak) without issue, so these concerns about nuclear's inability to match shifting loads are demonstrably false. Nuclear plants are geographically independent. Sure, uranium has to be shipped. But that's the point: uranium fuel can be shipped. Rivers and valleys cannot be put in shipping containers and moved to where they're needed. Geothermal vents cannot either. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183680/us-average-capacity-factors-by-selected-energy-source-since-1998/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183680/us-average-capaci...

jhgb 5y ago

> at £120(current price is £240) £120/MWh is a rather terrible price. That's basically Hinkley Point C level rate, which is something many grid operators would never accept. So much for "export potential"?

KaiserPro 5y ago
You're damn right its shit. Hinkley was bollocks because the strike price was that high. If we don't agree to stupid strike prices (ie £60 per mwh) then its not a disaster. Even at £60 profitability is inside 12 years. Unless we start building generation capacity, then the wholesale price will go up as time goes on. Or as new renewable come on line, we'll get even more price fluctuations. it doesn't take many of these to even out pricing.
- pydry 5y ago
  If the strike price wasnt that high it never would have been financed.
  - KaiserPro 5y ago
    Because of the way that the finance was structured. from my understanding it was because the government didn't want to shoulder any risk (or reward) from this.
    - pydry 5y ago
      Someone has to subsidize nuclear or it never gets built. In the UK ended up being ratepayers. In a way it's better that the costs arent disguised.
Manuel_D 5y ago
A high price, but it's for non-intermittent, geographically independent carbon-free generation. Nothing else offers that capability. Hydro and geothermal are great, but not geographically independent. Renewables are cheaper, but are intermittent and still geographically dependent. To fairly compare them to nuclear you have to take in the cost of storage, which is immense unless you are lucky to have an alpine lake next door.
- Joeri 5y ago
  I think you may have to recheck those facts. All power sources are intermittent, and nuclear is no exception. Nuclear power plants go offline unexpectedly all the time. Every energy grid needs a mix of sources to deal with intermittent production, preferably ones that are controllable and can follow loads. Nuclear power is not quick to follow loads. This makes it good for base load, somewhat able to do load following, and unable to handle peak loads. Currently peak loads are handled using fossil fuel plants. Even if a country embraces nuclear power wholesale they will still have to invest in storage as well if they want a green energy grid, to be able to fully handle peaks. Hydro (dam) storage is not what is being looked at in most places because of cost and climate impact (concrete), the current plans involve a mix of batteries and hydrogen. And finally, current nuclear power depends on uranium, and many countries have to import that, so it’s not quite geographically independent. There are approaches for nuclear power technologies that reduce the need for uranium, but all attempts to build those and run them at reasonable cost have failed.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    No, nuclear plants go offline very rarely. The have the highest capacity factor of any source [1]. And more importantly, this downtime is scheduled. Where's your source for your claim that "nuclear power plants go offline unexpectedly all the time"? Nuclear power can be modulated by more aggressively cooling reactors. France has been able to operate a grid over 70% nuclear (over 80% at its peak) without issue, so these concerns about nuclear's inability to match shifting loads are demonstrably false. Nuclear plants are geographically independent. Sure, uranium has to be shipped. But that's the point: uranium fuel can be shipped. Rivers and valleys cannot be put in shipping containers and moved to where they're needed. Geothermal vents cannot either. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183680/us-average-capacity-factors-by-selected-energy-source-since-1998/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183680/us-average-capaci...