6 ms·

Yes, Hinkley and Sizewell may be expensive - but they're unlikely to be that much more expensive than wind/PV plus enough storage to provide reliable 24/7/365 p

Yes, Hinkley and Sizewell may be expensive - but they're unlikely to be that much more expensive than wind/PV plus enough storage to provide reliable 24/7/365 power. In the end, I'd much rather have some diversity in the system. If the choice was 100% nuclear vs 100% wind/PV, the answer would probably be different, but for 15% of the UK's capacity to come from a reliable (but expensive) source that is uncorrelated with wind or PV downtime, that extra cost seems to be a good investment to me.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
Why hold wind to a higher standard than a nuclear plant? A nuclear plant typically has 95% uptime. Wind/PV/storage can hit 95% or 99% or 99.9% a lot cheaper than Hinkley can hit 95%.
- mhandley 2y ago
  I'm not holding wind to a higher standard - I'd rather have two pretty reliable sources whose downtime is uncorrelated.
- throw0101b 2y ago
  > Wind/PV/storage can hit 95% or 99% or 99.9% a lot cheaper than Hinkley can hit 95%. I think the geography of the UK helps with offshore wind getting good capacity factors, but the general averages aren't great, often peaking at ~40%: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor As someone who lives in Ontario, Canada, I can see in real-time how wind goes up and down, while nuclear just keeps chugging along: * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply And nuclear is cheaper (CA$0.101/kWh) than wind ($0.147) or solar ($0.474); see Table 2: * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20231019.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2023... Of course our infrastructure and/or geography may not be as well-suited for wind.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Nuclear is only 10 cents / kWh after the OEB has off-loaded all the costs for building and decommissioning to the federal and provincial governments.
    - throw0101b 2y ago
      > decommissioning Bruce Power is responsible for decommissioning costs: > Bruce Power receives a fixed price for its electricity generation that is inclusive of all its current costs and funding of future decommissioning liabilities in the Bruce Facility. As previously noted, the average price over the life of the contract was estimated by the IESO to be $77/ MWh (in 2015$). * https://www.brucepower.com/who-we-are/delivering-transparency-and-trust/ https://www.brucepower.com/who-we-are/delivering-transparenc... As is OPG (Pickering, Darlington): > From the earliest days of each project, OPG is required by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to have a Financial Guarantee in place to ensure it can cover the costs of the eventual decommissioning of its nuclear facilities. * https://www.opg.com/power-generation/our-power/nuclear/decommissioning/ https://www.opg.com/power-generation/our-power/nuclear/decom... Federally, the generation companies are also responsible for handling waste: > The Act required Canadian electricity generating companies which produce used nuclear fuel to establish a waste management organization to provide recommendations to the Government of Canada on the long-term management of used nuclear fuel. The legislation also required the waste owners to establish segregated trust funds to finance the long-term management of the used fuel. The Act further authorized the Government of Canada to decide on the approach. The government's choice will then be implemented by the NWMO, subject to all of the necessary regulatory approvals. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Management_Organization_(Canada) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Management_Organ... Do you have references that say otherwise?
      - crote 2y ago
        How many of their plants have already been fully decommissioned? What's going to happen when the reserved funds run out halfway through the decommissioning process? Who's going to pay for it when Bruce Power goes bankrupt? Are they going to claw back dividends decades after payout, or will the taxpayers end up with the bill?
crote 2y ago
The problem is that you can't use nuclear to compensate for low wind/PV supply. The cost of nuclear energy is dominated by the need to pay back the massive construction loan. Nobody is willing to take that risk on an open electricity market, so they've signed a contract with the government to guarantee price and demand. If the price on the open market is less than the "strike price" the government will pay for the difference, and if the plant wants to supply power to the grid but the grid doesn't want it due to technical reasons the government will pay them for every kWh it could have supplied. This in turn means nuclear power plants operate at 100% capacity 100% of the time - minus forced maintenance downtime. It can be used to supply a base load, but not to handle peak load. When there's an excess of supply, the grid is forced to turn off cheap wind/PV capacity to make space for expensive nuclear capacity. I agree that it would indeed be nice if we could use nuclear to fill in the gaps left by a renewable grid, but the economics simply doesn't allow for it.
- 7952 2y ago
  In an open market nuclear (and wind/solar) would still operate 100% of the time. That is because the marginal cost of one extra unit of energy is trivial. They would sell energy even if it was not enough to cover the capital costs. Because that is more revenue than turning the piywer station off. We have strike prices so that generators can cover the capital costs. But it will also hold prices down when the wholesale cost exceeds the strike price. I agree that Hinckley may increase peaks and excess generation. But that will be a feature of the grid anyway. We will need storage/interconnector exports either way. And it will also help a lot with the valleys in production. That is less electricity that needs to be stored or generated using gas and diesel. Adding a couple extra GW's is useful.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Nuclear plants are already being forced to shut down across Europe because no one wants their expensive energy. That is old paid off plants, not insanely expensive new builds. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/energy-prices-negative-france-solar-panel-wind-renewable-nuclear-green-2024-6 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/energy-... For every passing year renewable penetration deepens and we end up with situations like this: > On 100 out of the 144 days since 8 March, California’s electricity demand was 100% supplied by renewable energy for at least part of the day. Solar, wind and hydroelectric energy technologies fully powered the state’s grid for at least a few minutes and for as long as ten hours for 100 days. https://www.power-technology.com/news/california-achieves-100-renewable-energy-for-100-days/ https://www.power-technology.com/news/california-achieves-10... That is an incredibly hostile economical environment for a nuclear power plant, and the only thing the CFD accomplishes is higher power bills for the ratepayers.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

Why hold wind to a higher standard than a nuclear plant? A nuclear plant typically has 95% uptime. Wind/PV/storage can hit 95% or 99% or 99.9% a lot cheaper than Hinkley can hit 95%.

mhandley 2y ago
I'm not holding wind to a higher standard - I'd rather have two pretty reliable sources whose downtime is uncorrelated.
throw0101b 2y ago
> Wind/PV/storage can hit 95% or 99% or 99.9% a lot cheaper than Hinkley can hit 95%. I think the geography of the UK helps with offshore wind getting good capacity factors, but the general averages aren't great, often peaking at ~40%: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor As someone who lives in Ontario, Canada, I can see in real-time how wind goes up and down, while nuclear just keeps chugging along: * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply And nuclear is cheaper (CA$0.101/kWh) than wind ($0.147) or solar ($0.474); see Table 2: * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20231019.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2023... Of course our infrastructure and/or geography may not be as well-suited for wind.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Nuclear is only 10 cents / kWh after the OEB has off-loaded all the costs for building and decommissioning to the federal and provincial governments.
  - throw0101b 2y ago
    > decommissioning Bruce Power is responsible for decommissioning costs: > Bruce Power receives a fixed price for its electricity generation that is inclusive of all its current costs and funding of future decommissioning liabilities in the Bruce Facility. As previously noted, the average price over the life of the contract was estimated by the IESO to be $77/ MWh (in 2015$). * https://www.brucepower.com/who-we-are/delivering-transparency-and-trust/ https://www.brucepower.com/who-we-are/delivering-transparenc... As is OPG (Pickering, Darlington): > From the earliest days of each project, OPG is required by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to have a Financial Guarantee in place to ensure it can cover the costs of the eventual decommissioning of its nuclear facilities. * https://www.opg.com/power-generation/our-power/nuclear/decommissioning/ https://www.opg.com/power-generation/our-power/nuclear/decom... Federally, the generation companies are also responsible for handling waste: > The Act required Canadian electricity generating companies which produce used nuclear fuel to establish a waste management organization to provide recommendations to the Government of Canada on the long-term management of used nuclear fuel. The legislation also required the waste owners to establish segregated trust funds to finance the long-term management of the used fuel. The Act further authorized the Government of Canada to decide on the approach. The government's choice will then be implemented by the NWMO, subject to all of the necessary regulatory approvals. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Management_Organization_(Canada) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Management_Organ... Do you have references that say otherwise?
    - crote 2y ago
      How many of their plants have already been fully decommissioned? What's going to happen when the reserved funds run out halfway through the decommissioning process? Who's going to pay for it when Bruce Power goes bankrupt? Are they going to claw back dividends decades after payout, or will the taxpayers end up with the bill?

crote 2y ago

The problem is that you can't use nuclear to compensate for low wind/PV supply. The cost of nuclear energy is dominated by the need to pay back the massive construction loan. Nobody is willing to take that risk on an open electricity market, so they've signed a contract with the government to guarantee price and demand. If the price on the open market is less than the "strike price" the government will pay for the difference, and if the plant wants to supply power to the grid but the grid doesn't want it due to technical reasons the government will pay them for every kWh it could have supplied. This in turn means nuclear power plants operate at 100% capacity 100% of the time - minus forced maintenance downtime. It can be used to supply a base load, but not to handle peak load. When there's an excess of supply, the grid is forced to turn off cheap wind/PV capacity to make space for expensive nuclear capacity. I agree that it would indeed be nice if we could use nuclear to fill in the gaps left by a renewable grid, but the economics simply doesn't allow for it.

7952 2y ago
In an open market nuclear (and wind/solar) would still operate 100% of the time. That is because the marginal cost of one extra unit of energy is trivial. They would sell energy even if it was not enough to cover the capital costs. Because that is more revenue than turning the piywer station off. We have strike prices so that generators can cover the capital costs. But it will also hold prices down when the wholesale cost exceeds the strike price. I agree that Hinckley may increase peaks and excess generation. But that will be a feature of the grid anyway. We will need storage/interconnector exports either way. And it will also help a lot with the valleys in production. That is less electricity that needs to be stored or generated using gas and diesel. Adding a couple extra GW's is useful.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Nuclear plants are already being forced to shut down across Europe because no one wants their expensive energy. That is old paid off plants, not insanely expensive new builds. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/energy-prices-negative-france-solar-panel-wind-renewable-nuclear-green-2024-6 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/energy-... For every passing year renewable penetration deepens and we end up with situations like this: > On 100 out of the 144 days since 8 March, California’s electricity demand was 100% supplied by renewable energy for at least part of the day. Solar, wind and hydroelectric energy technologies fully powered the state’s grid for at least a few minutes and for as long as ten hours for 100 days. https://www.power-technology.com/news/california-achieves-100-renewable-energy-for-100-days/ https://www.power-technology.com/news/california-achieves-10... That is an incredibly hostile economical environment for a nuclear power plant, and the only thing the CFD accomplishes is higher power bills for the ratepayers.