4 ms·

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 p

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
      The report states plant decommissioning is 2.7B GBP and ILW disposal is 0.3B GBP. That sort of agrees with https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792 which puts PWR at perhaps 1B USD per plant. Handling and disposing on the used fuel is 4.4B GBP (or 73M GBP per year of running, or 2.6 GBP per MWh of electricity). Cheap!
invalidname 2y ago
Do you mean it's competitive due to the longer lifetime? Is the operation cost of the reactor over such a long duration not significant? Also why are you comparing 8gw to 3.2gw? Is it due to peek output? if so won't this be solved by grid level storage?
- myrmidon 2y ago
  > Do you mean it's competitive due to the longer lifetime? > Is the operation cost of the reactor over such a long duration not significant? Yes. Also because maintenance costs are probably somewhat similar-- offshore turbines are still mechanical systems in a very unpleasant environment, after all. > Also why are you comparing 8gw to 3.2gw? Is it due to peek output? if so won't this be solved by grid level storage? Yes-- the turbines give you 8GW, but only 40% of the time. Reactor gives you its ~3GW basically all the time. This difference would NOT be erased by storage-- you would need the storage on top of the windpower, but it is not trivial to tell how much storage you really need (electrical grid connectivity can also somewhat compensate, or large consumers that only turn on when energy is cheap...).
  - 7952 2y ago
    Nuclear needs for more specialist disciplines than turbine maintenance. The systems are more complex. And you have to deal with a wider range of hazards. All whilst having the worlds most onerous rules.
  - invalidname 2y ago
    Interesting. I've been reading about the much lower costs of grid level storage and the fact that it's now getting into economies of scale. I also assume there's a lot of room for cost reduction in wind over the next decade, while I'm guessing Nuclear won't see the same level of changes. Won't this change the situation significantly over the next decade.
    - chickenbig 2y ago
      > I also assume there's a lot of room for cost reduction in wind over the next decade https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/20/giant-windfarm-norfolk-coast-halted-spiralling-costs-vatttenfall https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/20/giant-windf... What are the reasons behind believing prices will reduce further? > I'm guessing Nuclear won't see the same level of changes Parsons says the second reactor is being built 20% more quickly than the first one. Parsons says he expects that Sizewell will be built between 20% and 30% faster than the second Hinkley reactor. In addition I would think reduced financing costs (risk reduction and sharing) will help bring prices down.
blitzar 2y ago
Dogger Bank will when fully built-out at a cost of some £11bn. Lifetime cost will be much lower - near 0 staff - no anti-terrorism policing operation - no fuel. If it were onshore, cost would be significantly cheaper and would be able to scale onto the grid and generate revenue (nearly) one turbine at a time as they are installed which makes a massive difference for financing and servicing a debt. Cost wise certainly not orders of magnitude difference, and it is competitive. The sensible non partisan thinkers out there know it isn't a choice of building one or the other, you build both.
- myrmidon 2y ago
  £11Bn is just Dogger Bank A, B, C (which is only 3.6GW total nameplate power, not 8GW)-- but this is in fact where my "~£20Bn total cost" estimate came from :P Maintenance cost for offshore wind is NOT negligible. This is possibly as high as the reactor maintenance cost already by itself. Then, for a fair comparison, you would also have to add costs for improving grid connectivity and/or local battery storage... I'm not arguing for more nuclear power btw, just honestly suprised that the expensive reactor is somewhat competitive, still...
  - blitzar 2y ago
    Ahh fair comparison! GE's 170 full-time turbine servicing jobs for Dogger Bank phases A, B and C will be based out of the Port of Tyne. That is more staff than I would have guessed, one worker for every 1.6 turbines!
  - mrspuratic 2y ago
    Definitely not negligible. https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/10/19/very-intense-rain-and-thunderstorms-in-east-of-country-as-orange-weather-warnings-issued/ https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/10/19/very-intense-r...
mpweiher 2y ago
Yeah, that's one point that gets lost in the brouhaha over nuclear cost overruns: Even the most catastrophic nuclear projects are competitive if not better than the best renewable projects. Yeah, I know this sounds like frothing-at-the-mouth nuclear fanboiism, but run the numbers! I did, and once I did I started sounding like a frothing-at-the-mouth nuclear fanboi. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- oezi 2y ago
  Looking at the numbers for this, I don't see how it is better or even competitive at today's cost. Not taking into account the operating costs and decommissioning costs. Off-shore wind is still scaling to become cheaper and cheaper. In 30 years it might cost much less. How can Nuclear compete?
  - blitzar 2y ago
    > How can Nuclear compete? A factory built plant or any economies of scale. Start a company with a mobile workforce and go country to country building 5 or more large scale reactors in parallel in each country. Small scale reactors (again factory built) are the other alternative. They would have to be installed in a 'farm' together for security reasons.
    - chickenbig 2y ago
      Even 4 stick-built reactors in a row is pretty good; look at Barakah in UAE, South Korea, China and Canada (Darlington, Pickering, Bruce).
  - chickenbig 2y ago
    > and decommissioning costs https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792 So perhaps 1B-2B USD a plant. 2,000,000,000/(60 * 1,600 * 365 * 24 * .9) = 2.6 USD/MWh > Off-shore wind is still scaling to become cheaper and cheaper. Why did the UK have to raise the maximum bid price for the Contract For Difference AR6? Wind farm costs have exploded, and turbine manufacturers are having reliability issues. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-are-issues-with-siemens-gamesas-wind-turbines-2023-06-23/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-are-issues-with... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/vineyard-wind-incident-was-not-first-time-ge-vernova-wind-turbine-came-apart-2024-07-18/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/vineyard-wind-incide...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

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
    The report states plant decommissioning is 2.7B GBP and ILW disposal is 0.3B GBP. That sort of agrees with https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792 which puts PWR at perhaps 1B USD per plant. Handling and disposing on the used fuel is 4.4B GBP (or 73M GBP per year of running, or 2.6 GBP per MWh of electricity). Cheap!

invalidname 2y ago

Do you mean it's competitive due to the longer lifetime? Is the operation cost of the reactor over such a long duration not significant? Also why are you comparing 8gw to 3.2gw? Is it due to peek output? if so won't this be solved by grid level storage?

myrmidon 2y ago
> Do you mean it's competitive due to the longer lifetime? > Is the operation cost of the reactor over such a long duration not significant? Yes. Also because maintenance costs are probably somewhat similar-- offshore turbines are still mechanical systems in a very unpleasant environment, after all. > Also why are you comparing 8gw to 3.2gw? Is it due to peek output? if so won't this be solved by grid level storage? Yes-- the turbines give you 8GW, but only 40% of the time. Reactor gives you its ~3GW basically all the time. This difference would NOT be erased by storage-- you would need the storage on top of the windpower, but it is not trivial to tell how much storage you really need (electrical grid connectivity can also somewhat compensate, or large consumers that only turn on when energy is cheap...).
- 7952 2y ago
  Nuclear needs for more specialist disciplines than turbine maintenance. The systems are more complex. And you have to deal with a wider range of hazards. All whilst having the worlds most onerous rules.
- invalidname 2y ago
  Interesting. I've been reading about the much lower costs of grid level storage and the fact that it's now getting into economies of scale. I also assume there's a lot of room for cost reduction in wind over the next decade, while I'm guessing Nuclear won't see the same level of changes. Won't this change the situation significantly over the next decade.
  - chickenbig 2y ago
    > I also assume there's a lot of room for cost reduction in wind over the next decade https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/20/giant-windfarm-norfolk-coast-halted-spiralling-costs-vatttenfall https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/20/giant-windf... What are the reasons behind believing prices will reduce further? > I'm guessing Nuclear won't see the same level of changes Parsons says the second reactor is being built 20% more quickly than the first one. Parsons says he expects that Sizewell will be built between 20% and 30% faster than the second Hinkley reactor. In addition I would think reduced financing costs (risk reduction and sharing) will help bring prices down.

blitzar 2y ago

Dogger Bank will when fully built-out at a cost of some £11bn. Lifetime cost will be much lower - near 0 staff - no anti-terrorism policing operation - no fuel. If it were onshore, cost would be significantly cheaper and would be able to scale onto the grid and generate revenue (nearly) one turbine at a time as they are installed which makes a massive difference for financing and servicing a debt. Cost wise certainly not orders of magnitude difference, and it is competitive. The sensible non partisan thinkers out there know it isn't a choice of building one or the other, you build both.

myrmidon 2y ago
£11Bn is just Dogger Bank A, B, C (which is only 3.6GW total nameplate power, not 8GW)-- but this is in fact where my "~£20Bn total cost" estimate came from :P Maintenance cost for offshore wind is NOT negligible. This is possibly as high as the reactor maintenance cost already by itself. Then, for a fair comparison, you would also have to add costs for improving grid connectivity and/or local battery storage... I'm not arguing for more nuclear power btw, just honestly suprised that the expensive reactor is somewhat competitive, still...
- blitzar 2y ago
  Ahh fair comparison! GE's 170 full-time turbine servicing jobs for Dogger Bank phases A, B and C will be based out of the Port of Tyne. That is more staff than I would have guessed, one worker for every 1.6 turbines!
- mrspuratic 2y ago
  Definitely not negligible. https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/10/19/very-intense-rain-and-thunderstorms-in-east-of-country-as-orange-weather-warnings-issued/ https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/10/19/very-intense-r...

mpweiher 2y ago

Yeah, that's one point that gets lost in the brouhaha over nuclear cost overruns: Even the most catastrophic nuclear projects are competitive if not better than the best renewable projects. Yeah, I know this sounds like frothing-at-the-mouth nuclear fanboiism, but run the numbers! I did, and once I did I started sounding like a frothing-at-the-mouth nuclear fanboi. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

oezi 2y ago
Looking at the numbers for this, I don't see how it is better or even competitive at today's cost. Not taking into account the operating costs and decommissioning costs. Off-shore wind is still scaling to become cheaper and cheaper. In 30 years it might cost much less. How can Nuclear compete?
- blitzar 2y ago
  > How can Nuclear compete? A factory built plant or any economies of scale. Start a company with a mobile workforce and go country to country building 5 or more large scale reactors in parallel in each country. Small scale reactors (again factory built) are the other alternative. They would have to be installed in a 'farm' together for security reasons.
  - chickenbig 2y ago
    Even 4 stick-built reactors in a row is pretty good; look at Barakah in UAE, South Korea, China and Canada (Darlington, Pickering, Bruce).
- chickenbig 2y ago
  > and decommissioning costs https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792 So perhaps 1B-2B USD a plant. 2,000,000,000/(60 * 1,600 * 365 * 24 * .9) = 2.6 USD/MWh > Off-shore wind is still scaling to become cheaper and cheaper. Why did the UK have to raise the maximum bid price for the Contract For Difference AR6? Wind farm costs have exploded, and turbine manufacturers are having reliability issues. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-are-issues-with-siemens-gamesas-wind-turbines-2023-06-23/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/what-are-issues-with... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/vineyard-wind-incident-was-not-first-time-ge-vernova-wind-turbine-came-apart-2024-07-18/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/vineyard-wind-incide...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]