6 ms·

> sure nuclear is very expensive up front, but a nuclear powerplant can run for 100 years while wind and solar had to be completely replaced every 25 years. Hi

> sure nuclear is very expensive up front, but a nuclear powerplant can run for 100 years while wind and solar had to be completely replaced every 25 years. Hinkley Point C is currently expected to cost around $31 billion once finished for a measly 3,000 MW. For that money you could build ~2,300 15MW onshore wind turbines - which would add up to roughly 34,500 MW capacity. So even under the assumptions that - you have to replace the wind turbines 3x to reach 100 years life span and - you always have to build more renewables since they don't run at 100% their capacity throughout their lifespan wind make more sense economically nowadays.

smeagull 4y ago
The cost of the land required is non-trivial.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Onshore wind can overlap with pasture land. Offshore wind pays into the public purse now via the leases and still costs about half what subsidised nuclear does. It's still a very young industry.
  - Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
    seriously.. bring some evidence. onshore wind is just not going to happen it just has too many problems. and offshore wind is more expensive, less reliable and takes roughly the same time to build as nuclear. Denmark is currently planning to build a 3Gw energy island that will cost a whopping 40bn dollars and is planed to be finished in 2033. insane if you ask me
    - crote 4y ago
      Onshore wind has been happening for decades. See for example the 1.5GW farm in California, the 1GW farm in New Mexico, the 1GW one in Oklahoma, the 900MW one in Texas, or the 845MW one in Oregon. Offshore has a rather fast construction time, it turns out. For example, the United Kingdom's Hornsea Wind Farm Project 2 was given planning permission in 2016, and it reached its full capacity of 1.4GW less than six years later. Project 1 at the same wind farm reached 1.2GW in less than five years. And when it comes to cost, Hornsea Project 3 is to start construction next year - with commercial operation scheduled in 2025 - at $12bn for 2.4GW. Not bad when you compare it to Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant unit 3 costing an estimated $11bn for 1.6GW - which took 22 years from first license application to design output power.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      6GW initially with the expensive part done for upto 10GW, €28 billion, and 2030. That is insane. They're building a FOAK project for less than NOAK nuclear reactors like Hinkley C in less time and it will be generating at higher capacity from day one than new nukes manage for their first decade or so of operation. Nice pro wind factoid. More power, sooner, with low enough O&M that you could build another one with the money you saved just during the time it would take for another EPR to be built and come to full power? Sign me up.
Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
Hinkley Point C is a first of its kind project, if you want to be economical you should look to KNGR https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APR-140 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APR-140 they've built several in Korea and one in Saudi Arabia where the cost was $24.4 billion for 5380 MW. it's cute that you are mentioning onshore wind but that will just never happen, takes up way too much space and most places have a capacity factor of below 20% making your 34500 Mw 6900Mw as well as giving you erratic output. so for wind to work you either need fossil fuels, power 2x or some new magical battery that will make the cost of such a solution insane because you'd have to completely overhaul your infrastructure. offshore wind is more realistic, but costs way more than nuclear. wind makes sense of you want to built something fast, but it won't bring down your carbon footprint. og at least it haven't in Germany or Denmark. the only reduction we've seen is because we burn trash and biomass which fair some messed up reason is considered green and renewable.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Have a look at the availability factors of those 'cheap' Korean nukes, there's a lot of overlap with the capacity factor of offshore wind even including curtailment. Then the running cost differences are enough to pay for the wind farm in about 15 years. Then also look at the $20 billion dollar 'service' contract for the Saudi one that doesn't include any labour or running costs. It suddenly costs about the same as Hinkley C even before overruns. Once you look at the total in rather than comparing overnight costs to renewable all in costs, they're the same $8-10 per net watt as nuclear always is anywhere except china - and China's renewables are cheaper by close to the same ratio. The penetration rates at a given cost favour renewables right up until your peaker gas plants are causing less emissions than the Uranium mine.
  - Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
    please stop calling them nukes, it makes you sound like Greenpeace crazy person that actually think that a nuclear power plant has anything to do with nuclear weapons that nuke is normally referring to. could you please provide some evidence that the capacity factor and supply safety is remotely comparable between APR1400 and offshore wind? What do you think service costs are for offshore/onshore wind and hinkley point? having maintenance and an industry is actually a good thing for the economy. where do you get your numbers? you sure make many claims without a shred of evidence. and are you seriously suggesting that we continue using natural gas?
robocat 4y ago
In the US, the average capacity factor for wind turbines is about 33%, so your nameplate 34,500 MW capacity is immediately ~11.5 GW actual. Wind makes sense, but deceptive numbers don’t help your argument.
- fundatus 4y ago
  that is exactly what i am talking about in my second point?! you‘re at 11.5 GW considering the capacity factor, divide that by 3 (first point) and you’re still above whatever you’ll produce with Hinkley Point C!
panick21_ 4y ago
What if Britain would have simply built 20 Hinkley Point C starting a new one every year at first and then after a couple years multiple every year. The same people moving form project to project, on-boarding new people. Just as France did in 1980s. This would result in very cheap competently green grid for the next 100 years. Wind turbines have to be replaced 3x in that time and you don't have to deal with intermittency at all. Just as with everything else, without economics of scale it doesn't work.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Remind me what the lifetime EAF of those 80s French nuclear plants is?
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    If you want to have an argument, then maybe just present your argument.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      You said you don't have to deal with intermittency. That's a lie.
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        Look at real world data. Nuclear power has scheduled down time, something that is totally doable if you have a fleet of reactors. You certainty don't have anything close to the intermittency of wind and solar. And this is clearly evident in the production graphs.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Real world data says that unless you spend insane amounts on it and then pretend the reactors that shut down decades early due to issues or destroyed themseves don't exist, or are China then something goes wrong and forces a shut down or low output about 20% of the time. In most regions you can get a lower forced downtime rate for a lower cost with renewables, and then you also get the curtailed energy to feed dispatchable loads. You need the electrolysers anyway for chemical feed, and you need storage to meet variable loads so it's just a matter of which can be deployed faster. Additionally you get a very long forced downtime when you burn through your Uranium reserves in under a decade by trying to provide current final energy.

smeagull 4y ago

The cost of the land required is non-trivial.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Onshore wind can overlap with pasture land. Offshore wind pays into the public purse now via the leases and still costs about half what subsidised nuclear does. It's still a very young industry.
- Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
  seriously.. bring some evidence. onshore wind is just not going to happen it just has too many problems. and offshore wind is more expensive, less reliable and takes roughly the same time to build as nuclear. Denmark is currently planning to build a 3Gw energy island that will cost a whopping 40bn dollars and is planed to be finished in 2033. insane if you ask me
  - crote 4y ago
    Onshore wind has been happening for decades. See for example the 1.5GW farm in California, the 1GW farm in New Mexico, the 1GW one in Oklahoma, the 900MW one in Texas, or the 845MW one in Oregon. Offshore has a rather fast construction time, it turns out. For example, the United Kingdom's Hornsea Wind Farm Project 2 was given planning permission in 2016, and it reached its full capacity of 1.4GW less than six years later. Project 1 at the same wind farm reached 1.2GW in less than five years. And when it comes to cost, Hornsea Project 3 is to start construction next year - with commercial operation scheduled in 2025 - at $12bn for 2.4GW. Not bad when you compare it to Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant unit 3 costing an estimated $11bn for 1.6GW - which took 22 years from first license application to design output power.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    6GW initially with the expensive part done for upto 10GW, €28 billion, and 2030. That is insane. They're building a FOAK project for less than NOAK nuclear reactors like Hinkley C in less time and it will be generating at higher capacity from day one than new nukes manage for their first decade or so of operation. Nice pro wind factoid. More power, sooner, with low enough O&M that you could build another one with the money you saved just during the time it would take for another EPR to be built and come to full power? Sign me up.

Galaxeblaffer 4y ago

Hinkley Point C is a first of its kind project, if you want to be economical you should look to KNGR https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APR-140 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APR-140 they've built several in Korea and one in Saudi Arabia where the cost was $24.4 billion for 5380 MW. it's cute that you are mentioning onshore wind but that will just never happen, takes up way too much space and most places have a capacity factor of below 20% making your 34500 Mw 6900Mw as well as giving you erratic output. so for wind to work you either need fossil fuels, power 2x or some new magical battery that will make the cost of such a solution insane because you'd have to completely overhaul your infrastructure. offshore wind is more realistic, but costs way more than nuclear. wind makes sense of you want to built something fast, but it won't bring down your carbon footprint. og at least it haven't in Germany or Denmark. the only reduction we've seen is because we burn trash and biomass which fair some messed up reason is considered green and renewable.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Have a look at the availability factors of those 'cheap' Korean nukes, there's a lot of overlap with the capacity factor of offshore wind even including curtailment. Then the running cost differences are enough to pay for the wind farm in about 15 years. Then also look at the $20 billion dollar 'service' contract for the Saudi one that doesn't include any labour or running costs. It suddenly costs about the same as Hinkley C even before overruns. Once you look at the total in rather than comparing overnight costs to renewable all in costs, they're the same $8-10 per net watt as nuclear always is anywhere except china - and China's renewables are cheaper by close to the same ratio. The penetration rates at a given cost favour renewables right up until your peaker gas plants are causing less emissions than the Uranium mine.
- Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
  please stop calling them nukes, it makes you sound like Greenpeace crazy person that actually think that a nuclear power plant has anything to do with nuclear weapons that nuke is normally referring to. could you please provide some evidence that the capacity factor and supply safety is remotely comparable between APR1400 and offshore wind? What do you think service costs are for offshore/onshore wind and hinkley point? having maintenance and an industry is actually a good thing for the economy. where do you get your numbers? you sure make many claims without a shred of evidence. and are you seriously suggesting that we continue using natural gas?

robocat 4y ago

In the US, the average capacity factor for wind turbines is about 33%, so your nameplate 34,500 MW capacity is immediately ~11.5 GW actual. Wind makes sense, but deceptive numbers don’t help your argument.

fundatus 4y ago
that is exactly what i am talking about in my second point?! you‘re at 11.5 GW considering the capacity factor, divide that by 3 (first point) and you’re still above whatever you’ll produce with Hinkley Point C!

panick21_ 4y ago

What if Britain would have simply built 20 Hinkley Point C starting a new one every year at first and then after a couple years multiple every year. The same people moving form project to project, on-boarding new people. Just as France did in 1980s. This would result in very cheap competently green grid for the next 100 years. Wind turbines have to be replaced 3x in that time and you don't have to deal with intermittency at all. Just as with everything else, without economics of scale it doesn't work.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Remind me what the lifetime EAF of those 80s French nuclear plants is?
- panick21_ 4y ago
  If you want to have an argument, then maybe just present your argument.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    You said you don't have to deal with intermittency. That's a lie.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Look at real world data. Nuclear power has scheduled down time, something that is totally doable if you have a fleet of reactors. You certainty don't have anything close to the intermittency of wind and solar. And this is clearly evident in the production graphs.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Real world data says that unless you spend insane amounts on it and then pretend the reactors that shut down decades early due to issues or destroyed themseves don't exist, or are China then something goes wrong and forces a shut down or low output about 20% of the time. In most regions you can get a lower forced downtime rate for a lower cost with renewables, and then you also get the curtailed energy to feed dispatchable loads. You need the electrolysers anyway for chemical feed, and you need storage to meet variable loads so it's just a matter of which can be deployed faster. Additionally you get a very long forced downtime when you burn through your Uranium reserves in under a decade by trying to provide current final energy.