3 ms·

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 comp

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.
    - invalidname 2y ago
      > What are the reasons behind believing prices will reduce further? Economies of scale and room for technological/process innovation. The fact that solar reduced so significantly and battery costs too. This article seems a bit cherry picked about a specific project and not a global trend in costs. Offshore will naturally take time to become competitive since it requires complex installation and processes, but those seem like solvable problems for an admittedly laymen as myself.
      - chickenbig 2y ago
        > Economies of scale and room for technological/process innovation. This applies when going from 1 to 2 to 4 reactors. See https://www.oecd-nea.org/mdep/events/conf-2023/presentations/S2/2.MDEP5thConference_CGN-Final.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/mdep/events/conf-2023/presentations... page 27 for the Chinese approach to HPR1000 (Hualong One) innovation. Plus the linked article mentioned improvements to manufacturing outside the constraints of the containment.

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.
  - invalidname 2y ago
    > What are the reasons behind believing prices will reduce further? Economies of scale and room for technological/process innovation. The fact that solar reduced so significantly and battery costs too. This article seems a bit cherry picked about a specific project and not a global trend in costs. Offshore will naturally take time to become competitive since it requires complex installation and processes, but those seem like solvable problems for an admittedly laymen as myself.
    - chickenbig 2y ago
      > Economies of scale and room for technological/process innovation. This applies when going from 1 to 2 to 4 reactors. See https://www.oecd-nea.org/mdep/events/conf-2023/presentations/S2/2.MDEP5thConference_CGN-Final.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/mdep/events/conf-2023/presentations... page 27 for the Chinese approach to HPR1000 (Hualong One) innovation. Plus the linked article mentioned improvements to manufacturing outside the constraints of the containment.