3 ms·

You do know that Hinkley Point C will require €170/MWh 24/7 excluding transmission costs for 35 years. Forcing new built nuclear power on the ratepayers would

You do know that Hinkley Point C will require €170/MWh 24/7 excluding transmission costs for 35 years. Forcing new built nuclear power on the ratepayers would today lead to a self inflicted energy crisis. The question is also how do you match said nuclear plant with the grid load? In California it swings between 15 GW and 50 GW over a year. Or do you suggest that we build peaking nuclear plants?

chickenbig 2y ago
> You do know that Hinkley Point C will require €170/MWh 24/7 excluding transmission costs for 35 years. £92.50/MWh 2012 prices = 153 EUR/MWh in 2024 prices and current GBP/EUR exchange rate. If Sizewell C goes ahead then this reduces to under 150 EUR/MWh. Transmission costs will be less than for renewables given the line's higher utilisation and proximity to load, unlike offshore wind up in Scotland. > The question is also how do you match said nuclear plant with the grid load? The UK wholesale market, BETTA, allows bilateral trades. EDF will sell the electricity to their retail arm and will just bypass the wholesale market. A similar arrangement will probably be made for Sizewell C and British Gas, for instance. > Or do you suggest that we build peaking nuclear plants? Perhaps the cheap renewables can be curtailed instead.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Sorry. $170/MWh. In the end so horrifically expensive that it doesn’t really matter. I see a whole lot of talk about how to force the consumers to pat for it. Why do you want everyone’s energy bills to massively rise to fund horrifically expensive nuclear power? It will simply become a race where everyone tries to the utmost degree to decouple themselves from your nuclear grid and you leave the poor to shoulder the cost. It seems like you are working backwards from having decided that we must build horrifically expensive new built nuclear power and now are diving into one more insane argument steer the other trying to justify it. Rather than starting from the problem: we need cheap power to decarbonize society.
  - chickenbig 2y ago
    > I see a whole lot of talk about how to force the consumers to pat for it. I don't see a whole lot of talk about how consumers are being forced to pay for solar and wind. For instance, Hornsea is attracting £194.31/MWh = $252.70/MWh. https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/INV-HOR-001/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/INV-HOR-001/ > It will simply become a race where everyone tries to the utmost degree to decouple themselves from your nuclear grid and you leave the poor to shoulder the cost. Strangely that is the game being played with solar panels on houses. Self consume and then feed into the grid as much as possible on sunny days to try and offset the expense of long winter nights. Let the poor who don't own their own house or can not afford panels shoulder the cost. > we need cheap power to decarbonize society Agreed, but where is the evidence that wind and solar leads to cheap power in the winter? When times are easy prices may be low, but when wind and solar don't produce the system falls back on natural gas.
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      I love when the nukebro squad brings 10 year old off shore wind to the table like it has any bearing today. Why didn’t you bring the most recent allocation from the same area? Because you would have to accept £47/MWh as the viable price in 2025? https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR4-HRN-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR4-HRN-010/ I love that instead of having cheap prices almost all year around and falling back to backups a few days or weeks a year we should instead have horrifically expensive nuclear power filling the grid at the height of summer. Logic or prices be dammed. Pure insanity.
      - chickenbig 2y ago
        > Because you would have to accept £47/MWh as the viable price in 2025? > https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR4-HRN-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR4-HRN-010/ This is the same Hornsea 3 which got a price increase for 3 * 360MW chunks of this power station up to £54.23/MWh 2012 = £75.46/MWh = 97.84 USD/MWh. These are due to be delivered in another 3 years. https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR6-HPT-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR6-HPT-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR6-HPR-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR6-HPR-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR6-HOP-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR6-HOP-010/ The AR6 strike price for new wind farms is £58.87/MWh (2012 prices) or £81.92/MWh or 106.24 USD/MWh current prices, which are due to be connected in 2030. > falling back to backups a few days or weeks a year ... Logic or prices be dammed. The devil is in the details. How much backup is needed depends on how much the wind/solar is overbuilt ... overbuilding leads to cannibalisation and eventually curtailment. Out-of-wholesale-market capacity payments are needed to keep the backup gas plants from shutting down.
mpweiher 2y ago
Gosh, German solar got € 500/MWh for 20 years, and some providers are still getting that today. The average fixed reimbursement was well over €200 just a few years ago. And UK off-shore wind projects are being offered at £150/MWh even now. And of course you don't prioritize the variable/random suppliers over the ones that can provide stable base load. Speaking of California: highest electricity prices in the continental United States. Georgia, where those "catastrophic" Vogtle-3/4 reactors were built has less than half that. Including the rate increase for the Vogtles. Same story in Europe: Germany has the highest electricity prices in the EU. And that's without the extra subsidy that used to be paid for via the electricity price and is now paid for via taxation. (Fun exercise: form the intersection of the set of taxpayers and the set of electricity users) Note: the absolutely worst, most catastrophic nuclear power builds (which for some reason the only ones anti-nuclear lobbyists ever cite) are more effective than the best renewables.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  I love when the nukebro squad brings 10-15 year old data to the table like it has any bearing today. Is it because you know the 2025 prices and can’t bring yourself to accept them? Because you would have to accept £47/MWh as the viable price for offshore wind in 2025? https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR4-HRN-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR4-HRN-010/ And there we are seeing solar contracts at $10-30/MWh depending on labor costs. But of course. The solution is of course horrifically expensive nuclear power coming online in the 2040s to fix this massive problems you say we have today. Logic be damned.

chickenbig 2y ago

> You do know that Hinkley Point C will require €170/MWh 24/7 excluding transmission costs for 35 years. £92.50/MWh 2012 prices = 153 EUR/MWh in 2024 prices and current GBP/EUR exchange rate. If Sizewell C goes ahead then this reduces to under 150 EUR/MWh. Transmission costs will be less than for renewables given the line's higher utilisation and proximity to load, unlike offshore wind up in Scotland. > The question is also how do you match said nuclear plant with the grid load? The UK wholesale market, BETTA, allows bilateral trades. EDF will sell the electricity to their retail arm and will just bypass the wholesale market. A similar arrangement will probably be made for Sizewell C and British Gas, for instance. > Or do you suggest that we build peaking nuclear plants? Perhaps the cheap renewables can be curtailed instead.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
Sorry. $170/MWh. In the end so horrifically expensive that it doesn’t really matter. I see a whole lot of talk about how to force the consumers to pat for it. Why do you want everyone’s energy bills to massively rise to fund horrifically expensive nuclear power? It will simply become a race where everyone tries to the utmost degree to decouple themselves from your nuclear grid and you leave the poor to shoulder the cost. It seems like you are working backwards from having decided that we must build horrifically expensive new built nuclear power and now are diving into one more insane argument steer the other trying to justify it. Rather than starting from the problem: we need cheap power to decarbonize society.
- chickenbig 2y ago
  > I see a whole lot of talk about how to force the consumers to pat for it. I don't see a whole lot of talk about how consumers are being forced to pay for solar and wind. For instance, Hornsea is attracting £194.31/MWh = $252.70/MWh. https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/INV-HOR-001/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/INV-HOR-001/ > It will simply become a race where everyone tries to the utmost degree to decouple themselves from your nuclear grid and you leave the poor to shoulder the cost. Strangely that is the game being played with solar panels on houses. Self consume and then feed into the grid as much as possible on sunny days to try and offset the expense of long winter nights. Let the poor who don't own their own house or can not afford panels shoulder the cost. > we need cheap power to decarbonize society Agreed, but where is the evidence that wind and solar leads to cheap power in the winter? When times are easy prices may be low, but when wind and solar don't produce the system falls back on natural gas.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    I love when the nukebro squad brings 10 year old off shore wind to the table like it has any bearing today. Why didn’t you bring the most recent allocation from the same area? Because you would have to accept £47/MWh as the viable price in 2025? https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR4-HRN-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR4-HRN-010/ I love that instead of having cheap prices almost all year around and falling back to backups a few days or weeks a year we should instead have horrifically expensive nuclear power filling the grid at the height of summer. Logic or prices be dammed. Pure insanity.
    - chickenbig 2y ago
      > Because you would have to accept £47/MWh as the viable price in 2025? > https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR4-HRN-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR4-HRN-010/ This is the same Hornsea 3 which got a price increase for 3 * 360MW chunks of this power station up to £54.23/MWh 2012 = £75.46/MWh = 97.84 USD/MWh. These are due to be delivered in another 3 years. https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR6-HPT-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR6-HPT-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR6-HPR-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR6-HPR-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR6-HOP-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR6-HOP-010/ The AR6 strike price for new wind farms is £58.87/MWh (2012 prices) or £81.92/MWh or 106.24 USD/MWh current prices, which are due to be connected in 2030. > falling back to backups a few days or weeks a year ... Logic or prices be dammed. The devil is in the details. How much backup is needed depends on how much the wind/solar is overbuilt ... overbuilding leads to cannibalisation and eventually curtailment. Out-of-wholesale-market capacity payments are needed to keep the backup gas plants from shutting down.

mpweiher 2y ago

Gosh, German solar got € 500/MWh for 20 years, and some providers are still getting that today. The average fixed reimbursement was well over €200 just a few years ago. And UK off-shore wind projects are being offered at £150/MWh even now. And of course you don't prioritize the variable/random suppliers over the ones that can provide stable base load. Speaking of California: highest electricity prices in the continental United States. Georgia, where those "catastrophic" Vogtle-3/4 reactors were built has less than half that. Including the rate increase for the Vogtles. Same story in Europe: Germany has the highest electricity prices in the EU. And that's without the extra subsidy that used to be paid for via the electricity price and is now paid for via taxation. (Fun exercise: form the intersection of the set of taxpayers and the set of electricity users) Note: the absolutely worst, most catastrophic nuclear power builds (which for some reason the only ones anti-nuclear lobbyists ever cite) are more effective than the best renewables.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
I love when the nukebro squad brings 10-15 year old data to the table like it has any bearing today. Is it because you know the 2025 prices and can’t bring yourself to accept them? Because you would have to accept £47/MWh as the viable price for offshore wind in 2025? https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR4-HRN-010/ https://register.lowcarboncontracts.uk/AR4-HRN-010/ And there we are seeing solar contracts at $10-30/MWh depending on labor costs. But of course. The solution is of course horrifically expensive nuclear power coming online in the 2040s to fix this massive problems you say we have today. Logic be damned.