8 ms·

What would be equivalent solar/wind installed power?

by dvh 2y ago

blitzar 2y ago
Dogger Bank Wind Farm
- defrost 2y ago
  Each phase will have an installed generation capacity of 1.2GW and represents a multi-billion pound investment. Combined, they will have an installed capacity of 3.6GW and will be capable of powering up to 6 million homes annually. ~ https://doggerbank.com/ https://doggerbank.com/ Sounds about right in scale .. how many homes in the UK in total?
  - lostlogin 2y ago
    > how many homes in the UK in total? About 25 million it seems. https://www.statista.com/statistics/378391/uk-england-housing-dwelling-stock-total/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/378391/uk-england-housin...
  - griffzhowl 2y ago
    Thing is, "capacity" is the maximum generation in ideal conditions, so for wind the actual produced amount will be much lower than this.
    - OtherShrezzing 2y ago
      The UK is a bit of a special case here. Although what you said is literally true, our wind energy has only 5% of the country's capacity, but provides nearly 30% of the consumed energy.
    - defrost 2y ago
      The Dogger Bank Wind site recognises this and bases the number of households serviced on proven reasonable wind conditions (apparently) 6 million homes powered per annum based on Typical Domestic Consumption Values (Medium Electricity Profile Class 1, 2,900kWh per household; OFGEM, January 2021), typical 55% wind load factor, and projected installed capacity of 3.6GW.
      - griffzhowl 2y ago
        Right, but doesn't that mean projected output of 55% of 3.6Gw? i.e., about 2GW
        defrost 2y ago
        There's probably a more detailed report to be found if you go looking, and the same qualifications apply to the nuclear reactors and turbines - it's unlikely they'll always run at peak all the time either.
  - chickenbig 2y ago
    The obligatory "what's the capacity factor" discussion should happen here; 40% to 50% might be reasonable, with highly correlated availability. Additionally the wind farm requires backup (CCGT or OCGT), which cost money to sit there. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6556027d046ed400148b99fe/electricity-generation-costs-2023.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6556027d046ed... (take it with a pinch of salt) gives a figure of £80/kW/year for an H class CCGT; that's £250M/year (2015 prices). Another talking point might be the lifetime of wind farms (20 or 25 years) versus 60 years design lifetime for the EPR. Note that there are lifetime extensions to 80 years being mooted in the US and Switzerland.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      The capex per watt of gas backup is vastly lower than a nuclear plant. Like, by a factor of 10 to 20.
      - chickenbig 2y ago
        > The capex per watt of gas backup is vastly lower than a nuclear plant. Like, by a factor of 10 to 20. https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el... tables Table 3.2a and 3.4a show that Korean CCGT cost 838 USD/kWe and Korean PWRs were 2157 USD/kWhe (all 2018 prices). Anyhow, gas backup fuel costs (and carbon taxes) are where the real big costs are.
        pfdietz 2y ago
        The Korean nuclear numbers are unbelievable. They certainly didn't come anywhere close to that in UAE (more like $6/W, and possibly more if the concurrent military deal was being used as a slush fund to hide overruns.)
        chickenbig 2y ago
        > the concurrent military deal was being used as a slush fund Citation? > The Korean nuclear numbers are unbelievable See https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Contract-awarded-for-construction-of-Shin-Hanul-3 https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Contract-awarded-for... and https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Contract-for-Shin-Hanul-3-and-4-major-components-s https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Contract-for-Shin-Ha... for construction deals relating to their latest reactors in South Korea.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > installed capacity of 3.6GW I'm not aware what the capacity factor for wind is in the north sea, I think it's about 25% globally. > how many homes in the UK in total? About 25 million. (But also: ongoing political issue is that this isn't enough and housing is too exaggerated vs. vested interests in housing being expensive).
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      25% would be for onshore wind. I've seen claims as high as 69% for very large offshore wind turbines.
      - chickenbig 2y ago
        I recall a previous exchange on hacker news https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40336108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40336108 Offshore wind is at the extreme of renewables. It may or may not make sense, but it's not needed to kill nuclear. Hornsea One (1.2GW from 174 × 7 MW turbines) generated 4,862,438 MWh in 2023 and 4,982,624 in 2022. This represents and 45.6% and 46.7% capacity respectively. Triton Knoll (855MW from 90 × 9.5 MW turbines) generated 1,687,138 MWh in 2024H1, giving a capacity of 45.1% for this larger turbine. Source :- https://dp.lowcarboncontracts.uk/dataset/actual-cfd-generation-and-avoided-ghg-emissions https://dp.lowcarboncontracts.uk/dataset/actual-cfd-generati... and doing pivots on the table.
- myrmidon 2y ago
  Thats a very good comparison-- to be fair though, 3.2GW nuclear are comparable to pretty much the whole Dogger Bank (including Sofia/South) at ~8GW (nameplate power), because offshore capacity factor is about ~40% in the UK. Total cost for the wind farm is probably around 20-ish billion $, but the lifetime is likely shorter than the reactor (possibly less than half!). It's surprising to me that the reactor at $35billion is still competitive, cost-wise, with the offshore wind farm.
  - rapnie 2y ago
    Does the $35billion also include decommissioning the nuclear reactor and storing the nuclear waste for the duration at which it is considered harmful? If not, then what amount are we talking approximately if that was accounted for as well?
    - myrmidon 2y ago
      Rough estimate for decomissioning the reactor could be something like £5Bn. Decomissioning the offshore wind turbines could get into the same range though, assuming £400M per installed GW (nameplate), this would be £3.2Bn Numbers need to be taken with a large grain of salt.
      - duckmysick 2y ago
        Pretty good for a rough estimate! The best I could find was a document by the National Audit Office from 2017 (using 2016 estimates); page 18, figure 2 - The expected costs of Hinkley Point C. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Point-C.pdf https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Po... Back then the construction was estimated at £18.2 billion. Ongoing operation costs (including fuel, staffing, and grid charges) were priced at £29.3 billion and decommissioning (without the uplift) at £7.3 billion. Total project cost was put at £54.8 billion. Again, it was from 2017 so things have changed.
        chickenbig 2y ago
defrost 2y ago
Enough wind + solar + storage to deliver > which gives Hinkley Point C a total output of over 3.2GW. at least 3 GW 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 50 weeks a year (allowing for some step down in output for maintainance, etc) for some 30+ (?) years.
- blitzar 2y ago
  The UK’s average nuclear load factor for 1970 to 2017 was 67.4 per cent 3 GW 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 34 weeks a year. or 3 GW 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Interesting, thank you for that. Do you have a source for that and any context (eg: "not power" time being used for "experiments" related to UK military nuclear uses, etc)?
    - blitzar 2y ago
      No context sorry - there are enough experimental reactors in the UK for experimentation without interruption the commercial fleet. What would be interesting is expected vs unexpected downtime, some sort of reliability factor. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c9a5d37ed915d07b20fa2ba/Nuclear_electricity_in_the_UK.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c9a5d37ed915...
      - defrost 2y ago
        No drama, good link, thank you. It appears approx ballpark with Europe reactors and as if they're designed with a 70% of max load operating target to allow for downtime inspections and statutory fettling, etc.
        chickenbig 2y ago
        To be fair the European average (depending on which average that is) is skewed by France where the reactors load-follow.

What would be equivalent solar/wind installed power?

by dvh 2y ago

What would be equivalent solar/wind installed power?

blitzar 2y ago

Dogger Bank Wind Farm

defrost 2y ago
Each phase will have an installed generation capacity of 1.2GW and represents a multi-billion pound investment. Combined, they will have an installed capacity of 3.6GW and will be capable of powering up to 6 million homes annually. ~ https://doggerbank.com/ https://doggerbank.com/ Sounds about right in scale .. how many homes in the UK in total?
- lostlogin 2y ago
  > how many homes in the UK in total? About 25 million it seems. https://www.statista.com/statistics/378391/uk-england-housing-dwelling-stock-total/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/378391/uk-england-housin...
- griffzhowl 2y ago
  Thing is, "capacity" is the maximum generation in ideal conditions, so for wind the actual produced amount will be much lower than this.
  - OtherShrezzing 2y ago
    The UK is a bit of a special case here. Although what you said is literally true, our wind energy has only 5% of the country's capacity, but provides nearly 30% of the consumed energy.
  - defrost 2y ago
    The Dogger Bank Wind site recognises this and bases the number of households serviced on proven reasonable wind conditions (apparently) 6 million homes powered per annum based on Typical Domestic Consumption Values (Medium Electricity Profile Class 1, 2,900kWh per household; OFGEM, January 2021), typical 55% wind load factor, and projected installed capacity of 3.6GW.
    - griffzhowl 2y ago
      Right, but doesn't that mean projected output of 55% of 3.6Gw? i.e., about 2GW
      - defrost 2y ago
        There's probably a more detailed report to be found if you go looking, and the same qualifications apply to the nuclear reactors and turbines - it's unlikely they'll always run at peak all the time either.
- chickenbig 2y ago
  The obligatory "what's the capacity factor" discussion should happen here; 40% to 50% might be reasonable, with highly correlated availability. Additionally the wind farm requires backup (CCGT or OCGT), which cost money to sit there. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6556027d046ed400148b99fe/electricity-generation-costs-2023.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6556027d046ed... (take it with a pinch of salt) gives a figure of £80/kW/year for an H class CCGT; that's £250M/year (2015 prices). Another talking point might be the lifetime of wind farms (20 or 25 years) versus 60 years design lifetime for the EPR. Note that there are lifetime extensions to 80 years being mooted in the US and Switzerland.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    The capex per watt of gas backup is vastly lower than a nuclear plant. Like, by a factor of 10 to 20.
    - chickenbig 2y ago
      > The capex per watt of gas backup is vastly lower than a nuclear plant. Like, by a factor of 10 to 20. https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el... tables Table 3.2a and 3.4a show that Korean CCGT cost 838 USD/kWe and Korean PWRs were 2157 USD/kWhe (all 2018 prices). Anyhow, gas backup fuel costs (and carbon taxes) are where the real big costs are.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        The Korean nuclear numbers are unbelievable. They certainly didn't come anywhere close to that in UAE (more like $6/W, and possibly more if the concurrent military deal was being used as a slush fund to hide overruns.)
        chickenbig 2y ago
        > the concurrent military deal was being used as a slush fund Citation? > The Korean nuclear numbers are unbelievable See https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Contract-awarded-for-construction-of-Shin-Hanul-3 https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Contract-awarded-for... and https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Contract-for-Shin-Hanul-3-and-4-major-components-s https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Contract-for-Shin-Ha... for construction deals relating to their latest reactors in South Korea.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > installed capacity of 3.6GW I'm not aware what the capacity factor for wind is in the north sea, I think it's about 25% globally. > how many homes in the UK in total? About 25 million. (But also: ongoing political issue is that this isn't enough and housing is too exaggerated vs. vested interests in housing being expensive).
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    25% would be for onshore wind. I've seen claims as high as 69% for very large offshore wind turbines.
    - chickenbig 2y ago
      I recall a previous exchange on hacker news https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40336108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40336108 Offshore wind is at the extreme of renewables. It may or may not make sense, but it's not needed to kill nuclear. Hornsea One (1.2GW from 174 × 7 MW turbines) generated 4,862,438 MWh in 2023 and 4,982,624 in 2022. This represents and 45.6% and 46.7% capacity respectively. Triton Knoll (855MW from 90 × 9.5 MW turbines) generated 1,687,138 MWh in 2024H1, giving a capacity of 45.1% for this larger turbine. Source :- https://dp.lowcarboncontracts.uk/dataset/actual-cfd-generation-and-avoided-ghg-emissions https://dp.lowcarboncontracts.uk/dataset/actual-cfd-generati... and doing pivots on the table.
myrmidon 2y ago
Thats a very good comparison-- to be fair though, 3.2GW nuclear are comparable to pretty much the whole Dogger Bank (including Sofia/South) at ~8GW (nameplate power), because offshore capacity factor is about ~40% in the UK. Total cost for the wind farm is probably around 20-ish billion $, but the lifetime is likely shorter than the reactor (possibly less than half!). It's surprising to me that the reactor at $35billion is still competitive, cost-wise, with the offshore wind farm.
- rapnie 2y ago
  Does the $35billion also include decommissioning the nuclear reactor and storing the nuclear waste for the duration at which it is considered harmful? If not, then what amount are we talking approximately if that was accounted for as well?
  - myrmidon 2y ago
    Rough estimate for decomissioning the reactor could be something like £5Bn. Decomissioning the offshore wind turbines could get into the same range though, assuming £400M per installed GW (nameplate), this would be £3.2Bn Numbers need to be taken with a large grain of salt.
    - duckmysick 2y ago
      Pretty good for a rough estimate! The best I could find was a document by the National Audit Office from 2017 (using 2016 estimates); page 18, figure 2 - The expected costs of Hinkley Point C. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Point-C.pdf https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Po... Back then the construction was estimated at £18.2 billion. Ongoing operation costs (including fuel, staffing, and grid charges) were priced at £29.3 billion and decommissioning (without the uplift) at £7.3 billion. Total project cost was put at £54.8 billion. Again, it was from 2017 so things have changed.
      - chickenbig 2y ago

defrost 2y ago

Enough wind + solar + storage to deliver > which gives Hinkley Point C a total output of over 3.2GW. at least 3 GW 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 50 weeks a year (allowing for some step down in output for maintainance, etc) for some 30+ (?) years.

blitzar 2y ago
The UK’s average nuclear load factor for 1970 to 2017 was 67.4 per cent 3 GW 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 34 weeks a year. or 3 GW 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.
- defrost 2y ago
  Interesting, thank you for that. Do you have a source for that and any context (eg: "not power" time being used for "experiments" related to UK military nuclear uses, etc)?
  - blitzar 2y ago
    No context sorry - there are enough experimental reactors in the UK for experimentation without interruption the commercial fleet. What would be interesting is expected vs unexpected downtime, some sort of reliability factor. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c9a5d37ed915d07b20fa2ba/Nuclear_electricity_in_the_UK.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c9a5d37ed915...
    - defrost 2y ago
      No drama, good link, thank you. It appears approx ballpark with Europe reactors and as if they're designed with a 70% of max load operating target to allow for downtime inspections and statutory fettling, etc.
      - chickenbig 2y ago
        To be fair the European average (depending on which average that is) is skewed by France where the reactors load-follow.