6 ms·

> 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

by 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...
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      > 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. France is a perfect example that things can go south with nuclear, too. They operate 56 reactors, of which 17 (!) went unexpectedly offline last winter. Some had deferred maintenance due to the pandemic, others showed micro-fractures in pipes forcing other similar designed plants to go offline as well [1]. Not to mention their EPR projects that have been plagued by cost and time overruns that put Germany's infamous BER airport to shame. To make it worse, France always is proud of their nuclear technology and its supposed "green energy" mix... but the reality is, the nuclear plants are too slow to follow the demands of electric heating and so France imports a shitload of energy from Germany and the UK every winter [2]. To put it blunt: The German CO2 budget is suffering and we can't get rid of our coal stinkers because France can't be arsed to set up a resilient grid on their own. > Sure, uranium has to be shipped. But that's the point: uranium fuel can be shipped. And every time uranium fuel is shipped, you have massive protests from civilians, incurring a lot of side effects - acts of sabotage, blockades, expenses for police and judiciary system. Additionally, Russia is currently used as a dumping ground for French nuclear waste [3] and supplies 26% of the EU's consumption of enriched uranium [4]. tl;dr: France should STFU about their nuclear plants. Nuclear is a dead end unless "fusion is always 50 years in the future" becomes obsolete in the future, the only thing that will help us scraping by regarding CO2 emissions and keep us independent from Russian imperialism, Arabic oil sheiks and a potentially-going-bonkers-again USA is going big on solar and wind. [1]: https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/atomkraft-was-ist-mit-frankreichs-kernreaktoren-los-a-ad1f8a26-5db6-4637-b5b8-52d4e3ecb440 https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/atomkraft-was-is... [2]: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/frankreich-fuerchtet-sich-vor-energie-engpaessen-100.html https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/frankreich-fuerchtet-sich-vor... [3]: https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/umstrittene-transporte-frankreich-laedt-radioaktives-material-in-sibirien-ab-a-654843.html https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/umstrittene-tran... [4]: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/ukraine-krieg-eu-ist-auch-von-russischem-uran-abhaengig-a-d9575895-93da-4274-a5e5-167f4d9d2f0f https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/ukraine-krieg-eu-...

by jhgb 5y ago

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...
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > 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. France is a perfect example that things can go south with nuclear, too. They operate 56 reactors, of which 17 (!) went unexpectedly offline last winter. Some had deferred maintenance due to the pandemic, others showed micro-fractures in pipes forcing other similar designed plants to go offline as well [1]. Not to mention their EPR projects that have been plagued by cost and time overruns that put Germany's infamous BER airport to shame. To make it worse, France always is proud of their nuclear technology and its supposed "green energy" mix... but the reality is, the nuclear plants are too slow to follow the demands of electric heating and so France imports a shitload of energy from Germany and the UK every winter [2]. To put it blunt: The German CO2 budget is suffering and we can't get rid of our coal stinkers because France can't be arsed to set up a resilient grid on their own. > Sure, uranium has to be shipped. But that's the point: uranium fuel can be shipped. And every time uranium fuel is shipped, you have massive protests from civilians, incurring a lot of side effects - acts of sabotage, blockades, expenses for police and judiciary system. Additionally, Russia is currently used as a dumping ground for French nuclear waste [3] and supplies 26% of the EU's consumption of enriched uranium [4]. tl;dr: France should STFU about their nuclear plants. Nuclear is a dead end unless "fusion is always 50 years in the future" becomes obsolete in the future, the only thing that will help us scraping by regarding CO2 emissions and keep us independent from Russian imperialism, Arabic oil sheiks and a potentially-going-bonkers-again USA is going big on solar and wind. [1]: https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/atomkraft-was-ist-mit-frankreichs-kernreaktoren-los-a-ad1f8a26-5db6-4637-b5b8-52d4e3ecb440 https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/atomkraft-was-is... [2]: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/frankreich-fuerchtet-sich-vor-energie-engpaessen-100.html https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/frankreich-fuerchtet-sich-vor... [3]: https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/umstrittene-transporte-frankreich-laedt-radioaktives-material-in-sibirien-ab-a-654843.html https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/umstrittene-tran... [4]: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/ukraine-krieg-eu-ist-auch-von-russischem-uran-abhaengig-a-d9575895-93da-4274-a5e5-167f4d9d2f0f https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/ukraine-krieg-eu-...