Forum menu
Classic bad state policy - why debate an idea that produces losers among both the consumers and the producers of power?
At least the xenophobic nonsense has (largely) stopped
Oh..and if you could stop my wife tumble drying towels on breezy summers days we could probably get by with a lot less leccy.
So what's the solution? C'mon big thinkers, you seem to have the answers, how do you replace 8800GW of nigh on 70% capacity?
I thought we got about 20% of our electricity from nuclear, most from gas and coal and the remainder c.10% renewables?
http://www.energy-uk.org.uk/energy-industry/electricity-generation.html
Quick summary of it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom
Total usage in the UK was 2249 TWH in 2014
Not sure of squirelkings numbers there but the point stands where can you find 8800 GWH of stable base load electricity?
So like I said build a few Gas power stations to provide base for renewables until reactors that work come on line.
How many, how much and what is the pollution from them?
Reduce usage (another)10%, increase renewables 10%(as per Scotland) and build 3/4 gas stations or more of the smaller ones.
These would be ready in 10years giving us time to build some actual working nuclear reactors or develop renewable storage.
We are being sold a pup with Hinckley,
If we go gas we go fracking (i've no problem with fracking). We import almost all our gas - alot of it from Qatar. Shipping gas a quarter of the way around the world is hardly the most CO2 friendly way of generating our electricity.
For me nuclear plus renewables is the only way forward. Maybe not Hinckley, I don't know enough about the technicalities of it, but don't like the idea of the Chinese being so invested in it.
Don't the latest LNG carriers use LNG as fuel. Compared to the amount carried/used at the power station an insignificant amount.
2 happy premieres today
[img] 
[/img]
Not sure about happy. Relieved possibly, now old Francois juts has to worry about EDF generating a return well below its cost of capital on the project. Still a grand gesture - merci nos amis
£92.50 per mw/h for 35 years you're going to be trying not to laugh never mind smile.
What do we reckon then, 1.5 x original cost and ten years late?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
What I don't understand is how they government can guarantee EDF will be able to sell electricity at what will probably be above the market value when the station comes on line. How can they force electricity distributors to buy Hinkley's electricity when other lower cost sources are available?
What I don't understand is how they government can guarantee EDF will be able to sell electricity at what will probably be above the market value when the station comes on line. How can they force electricity distributors to buy Hinkley's electricity when other lower cost sources are available?
It works through the Contract for Difference they have with the government, the government basically guarantees them the price for a set time and any difference between that and the market price of electricity is made up by the electricity suppliers ie we all pay for it through our bills, rather than the government paying them and increasing tax. In renewables it's to stimulate investment in low carbon technology and it's development until it becomes cheaper so carbon emission targets can be met, in nuclear, well people will argue about what the real reason for this project is, eg Chinese investments etc etc
The controversial thing with this project is the very high price but in particular for how long they've agreed it for, £92.50 is a lot higher than £45 or whatever the market price is just now and will be so for a very long time on a very high number of units sold. CfD for emerging energy sources like offshore wind also have a high price, but for a much shorter period of time, and many fewer units sold, before dropping to normal market price or nearby for the next 10 years or whatever.
Market price is roughly £32 for next year meaning a lot of generators will be running at a loss.
That said, with present market conditions I don't expect it will be long before the wholesale cost starts coming back up, we're already getting grid shortfalls and it's not even cold yet. Headline news of total renewable generation is all well and good but it's nowhere near consistent enough to be anything other than a soundbite.
The controversial thing with this project is the very high price but in particular for how long they've agreed it for,
They have to make a profit after all since they and not the Government are fronting the cash for it. We will simply have to pay the price for once again Governments both past and present not investing in the infrastructure of this country and leaving all to the private sector.
Privatisation bites us on the ar*e again.
They have to make a profit after all since they and not the Government are fronting the cash for it. We will simply have to pay the price for once again Governments both past and present not investing in the infrastructure of this country and leaving all to the private sector.
Ignoring the fact that the "profit" on this project is so poor only EDF are silly enough to think the prestige is worth it. Most others can see a bad allocation of resources a mile away and are still running.
What do we reckon then, 1.5 x original cost and ten years late?
I think you're being a bit optimistic on the cost.
Can someone who knows about these things tell me why we aren't building molten salt reactors ? It seems like the obvious choice safety wise and is proven already.
Ignoring the fact that the "profit" on this project is so poor only EDF are silly enough to think the prestige is worth it. Most others can see a bad allocation of resources a mile away and are still running.
As mentioned earlier, the price and the cost to us is only going to go one way THM.
It just annoys the hell out of me that the UK has gone down this route when it comes to infrastructure, one of the most important pillars of an economy.
Molten salt isn't even close to being commercially proven. Whilst the EPR is unknown in terms of being a new design its still based on proven PWR technology.
Westinghouse and Hitachi are both actively pursuing their respective new builds, they just aren't as headline worthy as the EPR as they are based upon existing designs and haven't broken ground yet.
After ABWR and AP1000 complete GDA then the new focus will be on small modular reactor designs, the present tranche will be the last large reactor builds for the foreseeable future.
Westinghouse and Hitachi are both actively pursuing their respective new builds, they just aren't as headline worthy as the EPR
As in they'll probably be built on time and on budget. How on earth did EPR get ahead of these other technologies in the UK when ABWR stations in particular appear to be being built on time and operating reliably in other parts of the world such as Japan.
No idea, can only assume EDF got their GDA submission in first. Will see if I can dig anything up.
Well, Horizon started out as a partnership between E.On and RWE and was then sold to Hitachi in 2012. The (inevitable) choice of the ABWR was only made after Hitachi bought Horizon, so it was well behind EPR into the GDA.
NuGen was set up as a joint venture between ENGIE, Iberdrola and SSE. SSE bailed out in 2011 and later Toshiba bought Iberdrola's stake plus some of Engie's to give t a majority hoding. At that point they (inevitably) chose the AP1000 design and started that in GDA.
So EdF are first because they are the only one of the three which hasn't had major comercial upheaval on the way to choosing a design, apart from Centrica, a minor partner, getting out early on. It was also clear from the beginning that Hinkley would be EPR so there was no technology choice to be made.
Aye thats a good rundown, forgot about the whole Horizon debacle for some odd reason. Interesting to see who the CEO of Horizon is, high flier doesnt come close. Not so excited by ABWR but a CANDU would be interesting, moreso given they can be kept online for refuelling like the TNPG/NNC type AGR's.
I think ABWR will be interesting because, of all the different designs, it's one we've not really done in the UK. Boiling brings a lot of interesting engineering problems. It's certainly raising some tricky questions in GDA. But if/when they get it through, then they ought to be able to get it built quickly.
People whose opinion I respect say that they fancy NuGen to be first to generate power because the EPR is so complicated to build and the ABWR will be tough to get through GDA.
Tidal flow turbines are the answer. If this had 1/100 of the investment in nukes then we would need no nukes. If tidal flow had the same fixed price as Hinkley then people would be falling over themselves to build them. Instead tidal flow has to pay huge charges to access the national grid ( the further north you are the more you have to pay to put electricity into the grid) and it gets no subsidy.
fortunately for us scotland is going down a safer cleaner road than England. Last month on one day ALL of scotlands electricity came from alternatives. Last year ALL scotlands [i]domestic[/i] electricity came from alternatives. Scotland now has the worlds first commercial scale tidal flow generator. Multiple tidal flow schemes are going. this provides baseload.
Plans are well underway for the north sea interconnect which will allow scotland to export electricy to Norway where it will be used in huge pump storasge schemes with scotland getting it back when wind is low and exporting surplus to Germany via the low countries.
Scotland met its climate change targets last year - despite all the experts saying they were far too ambitious
Before hinkley provides a single watt of electricityy scotland will be at 100% of all electricity needs from alternatives with the aforementioned interconnect / pump storage for smoothing and fast spin gas turbines for backup. NO nukes.
Everyone said thathe targets scotland set tewn years ago were too ambitious. Every one has now been met.
Hinkley is the wrong answer to the wrong question.
Aye tj, that's all well and good but what about the days the wind doesn't blow? Two stations were told not to drop load because the grid was already running short. And as I said earlier, its not even winter yet.
As for the exporting thing, let's not count our chickens, we lost about 2.4GW with Longannet and the two AGRs are another 2GW. Oh, and we have zero black start capability now meaning if we have a major grid collapse we could be talking days before supplies are restored. Soundbites mean bugger all in reality. And I can guarantee Torness will be running well into the 2030s. Unless an economic case is made for new nuclear (not seen the new memo yet?).
I do agree though that tidal is a viable option and should be encouraged but isn't the single solution.
Oh, and we have zero black start capability now meaning if we have a major grid collapse we could be talking days before supplies are restored.
The Dinorwig station is designed for black starts in the UK.
I think Squirrel was talking about Scotland. I'd be pretty amazed if our large hydro doesn't have black start capability though.
squirrellking - read the post.
At the moment a winter high pressure event we need electricity from other sources ( but nukes no good for this as you can't turn them on and off quickly) so you need a fast spinup reserve but still that ALL domestic electric over the year from alternatives - thats a huge carbon saving.
in the future the interconnect to Norway will allow us to store energy there ( yes I know its inefficient) and tidal flow will produce smooth baseload meaning the two fast spinup gas plants will only be in reserve for those winter high pressure events. ~We also could have more pump storage here but the rigged market makes it uneconomic as scotroutes pointed out
also its rare that the whole country has no wind.
Wind is only a part of the scottish alternatives. Hydro, micro hydro ( lots of this going on) Solar, all play a part. Lots of small huydro plants going in right now.
Longannet was closed to attempt to ensure Scotland could not be completely energy self sufficient - political decision. Longannet paid huge access charges to the national grid. It could and should have been kept open
Hinkley is not the answer to your issues ( and they are real issues especially for England) as it will be 25 years at least until it produces any electricity
Scotland plans will see in 25 years it producing electricty for export in large amounts and only needing fossil fuel generation in occasional circumstances - ie winter high pressure events. Never mind - we will sell you some with much cheapness
edit - sorry - you in Scotland?
OK, let's open the book. Hinkley is due to cost £18bn and to start producing in 2025. What are your predictions?
I think it will have cost about £30bn by the time construction is abandoned completely in about 2027, after ending up in the same sort of spiral of construction failure as Flamanville 3 has
(which, if you want a useful guideline, is 3 times over budget and is [i]currently[/i] scheduled to start producing a mere 11 years into its claimed 4.5 year build time. But the date slips faster than time lapses so right now it's getting further from completion not closer as they try and figure out how to un-**** it)
The last nuke commissioned in europe IIRC was 17 years from the start of the build to producing electricity
I think hinkley will never be built - it will be abandoned in a few years- probably before anything is actually built.
Catching up
Can someone who knows about these things tell me why we aren't building molten salt reactors ? It seems like the obvious choice safety wise and is proven already.
Last time I saw anything on this it was in a lab looking at making the fuel. This was mostly still in the non active phase of the work too so a very long way from commercial. (though I have stepped away from the industry)
What I don't understand is how they government can guarantee EDF will be able to sell electricity at what will probably be above the market value when the station comes on line. How can they force electricity distributors to buy Hinkley's electricity when other lower cost sources are available?
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the price of energy now and in the future. With a mass of generation coming off line and much more being required to be built the cost of energy will all include a substantial investment cost.
tjagain - Member
Tidal flow turbines are the answer.
The only answer or part of the answer?
fortunately for us scotland is going down a safer cleaner road than England. Last month on one day ALL of scotlands electricity came from alternatives.
Lets take a look at Scotland
[img] http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/scpopulationfinal_tcm77-368548.pn g" target="_blank">
Some small things that might help there sod all people and lots of space. I can't be bothered to do the numbers but the Km(coast)/person if probably hugely favourable in Scotland over England. The very nature of Scotland lends itself towards smaller scale local generation as the distance between a lot of users is huge. Probably the exact opposite of England. It's not a one size fits all solution is it.
Hinkley is not the answer to your issues ( and they are real issues especially for England) as it will be 25 years at least until it produces any electricity
It's part of the answer, a large scale Numclear build program would ensure long term stability in the energy markets and allow for new technology to be trialled and built. When you have a base covered you can do the other stuff much easier.
In addition I would say that renewables have a serious place in the mix, no new building should be allowed without some sort of renewable generation attatched. At the very least housing should be equipped with Solar Hot Water and PV, the government should be subsidising this for any socila and low income housing. Reducing the energy costs of low income households should be a priority. Any industrial or commercial property should have Solar covering it's roof and wind trubines across the car park for instance.
micro hydro ( lots of this going on)
...or at least there was until this year, when the government decided they didn't like it so removed all the support... 🙁
micro hydro still being built. I saw three schemes under construction this summer. Well not really micro - sort of mid range - the size of the schemes is the sort of size to power a village.
Mike - how can nuclear be part of the answer when it won't be on line for 25 years?
The deadline for obtaining tax relief etc was last winter. Any schemes you see under construction were approved prior to that deadline.tjagain - Member
micro hydro still being built. I saw three schemes under construction this summer. Well not really micro - sort of mid range - the size of the schemes is the sort of size to power a village.
Ta for that Scotroutes.
I think Squirrel was talking about Scotland. I'd be pretty amazed if our large hydro doesn't have black start capability though.
Yup, was talking about the Scottish portion of the grid, as far as I'm aware there are several black start stations across the UK (diversity of supply) so Dinorwig will just be one of many. To answer your other point, Cruachan is part of the black start plan but can't be sustained long enough to bring another station online on its own. Longannet [i]was[/i] that station but since its closure nothing else has the capability. We will have to rely on interconnects to bring us back on which is not good as far as security of supply goes.
At the moment a winter high pressure event we need electricity from other sources ( but nukes no good for this as you can't turn them on and off quickly) so you need a fast spinup reserve but still that ALL domestic electric over the year from alternatives - thats a huge carbon saving.
No arguments there, I certainly agree that it's achievable albeit with a lot of investment. I should point out though that your figure for domestic might be a nice average but as I said we're still a long way off from having enough diversity. And as far as transmission charges go that's not going to change, putting pylons or ground lines in is expensive, especially if you're talking about Wester-Ross to Glasgow for example.
in the future the interconnect to Norway will allow us to store energy there ( yes I know its inefficient) and tidal flow will produce smooth baseload meaning the two fast spinup gas plants will only be in reserve for those winter high pressure events. ~We also could have more pump storage here but the rigged market makes it uneconomic as scotroutes pointed out
Again, not really a rigged market, it's simple economics - the further you are from source the more expensive it will be to import. It could be tweaked but as we will see from the western DC interconnect (Hunterston to Wirral) the savings on transmission charges will be obliterated by access charges. If you want to blame anything blame privatisation of the grid.
And the fast spinup gas, I take it that's the Cockenzie replacement that seems to have been quietly dropped by SSE and doesn't look like it's happening any time soon? Gas is also an issue in terms of strategic supply, the North Sea is all but dry after we wasted it all on cheap turbines after privatisation and now rely on imports. Not a good place to be IMO.
On pumped storage, large scale hydro is as expensive as nuclear and about the most environmentally destructive renewable source going (aside form the flooding issue you have long term methane release via anaerobic digestion of organic materials). Whilst upgrading reservoirs and existing hydro would allow extra capacity I don't think more hydro is the solution.
also its rare that the whole country has no wind.Wind is only a part of the scottish alternatives. Hydro, micro hydro ( lots of this going on) Solar, all play a part. Lots of small huydro plants going in right now.
Again, no arguments here. Just need to boot a few NIMBY's every so often. What would make a bigger difference is tougher energy efficiency regulations especially in the commercial and industrial sectors.
Longannet was closed to attempt to ensure Scotland could not be completely energy self sufficient - political decision. Longannet paid huge access charges to the national grid. It could and should have been kept open
Not really political, it was going to close in five years anyway as it was never going to meet emissions regs. Carbon capture is a pipe dream and they wasted huge amounts of money on it rather tahn investing in new build. I do agree that it should have been kept for strategic reasons though until such time as we had a viable alternative.
Hinkley is not the answer to your issues ( and they are real issues especially for England) as it will be 25 years at least until it produces any electricityScotland plans will see in 25 years it producing electricty for export in large amounts and only needing fossil fuel generation in occasional circumstances - ie winter high pressure events. Never mind - we will sell you some with much cheapness
edit - sorry - you in Scotland?
Hinkley isn't, no but I don't think nuclear is totally dead in Scotland, as I said the policy seems to have quietly changed to 'no new nuclear - unless there is an economic case'. To that end I think SMR's will be the next step, especially with some of the players being based in Scotland themselves (RR and others already service Faslane).
And yes, you assume correctly.
I think it will have cost about £30bn by the time construction is abandoned completely in about 2027, after ending up in the same sort of spiral of construction failure as Flamanville 3 has
Dunno, it could go either way, if it does get completed I think it will be a Dungeness B scenario where it's first build last on after years of construction and trouble shooting.
Mike - how can nuclear be part of the answer when it won't be on line for 25 years?
According to you. And that's only looking at EPR's, I'd be willing to bet we'll have an AP1000 or ABWR online by 2025.
Not a chance it will be online in 9 years. The last plant built in Europe was 17 years to get online and look at the problems the french have with their new nukes. I'll take that bet!
As for access charges - are these not based on how far you are from london rather than how far the electricity is actually travelling? Thats what killed longgannet - the access charges was it not?
Unfortunately the scottish government does not have the power it needs over electricity generation ( not that I am convinced that the SNP really understand it properly)
Which plant was this? And although the AP1000's are running up to 3 years behind they still have a ~7 year turnaround. Provided they pass GDA next year that's enough time. The ABWR's will already be underway by then as well, reckon it'll be a race between Wylfa and Moorside to see who's going critical first.
(Actually, give a couple of years for testing and commissioning before official opening)
Not so much London specifically but highest population (which amounts to the same thing). IIRC it was because Longannet didn't win a contract to maintain voltage levels for National Grid, it was a purely commercial decision that was later blamed on transmission charges (which for some reason had been fine before that and have been similarly fine for Peterhead who outbid them).
The plant was in one of the scandenavian coutries - Sweden? considering that not a single new nuke has been commissioned in under ten years anwhere in Europe the idea we will have them on line in the UK in less than that is not believable to me. The plant EDF are buildin in France is now predicted to be 12 years - but the estimated commissioining date is still many years off - I doubt they will even get anywhere near the date they have now set
My issue with the whole way the grid is set up is that as you say its all purely commercial decision with no room allowed for strategic decisions - like the shelving of the cockenzie replacement. the scottish government had a nice coherent plan based on strategic thinking but do not have the power to implement it.
Usual gov cock-up
TM lukewarm on Hinkley ar best. But (1) has to pacify the Chinese and the French, (2) pace the dismantling of the Dave/George legacy and (3) not spook industry.
And people want governments interfering in ever increasing aspects of economic life. Bizarre.
Still the French are happy to allocate their resources badly - plus ca change
Some may be unaware the Chinese have also started buying up our renewables projects http://renews.biz/101689/repsol-exits-uk-offshore/ , there may be others since too.
China is a massive exporter. They have massive flows of capital flowing in and need to do something with it. It's natural that they want to invest that money "overseas". If you don't have a cycle of money, the whole system falls apart.
30 years ago it was Japanese investment. Before that US. It's a good thing.
Had a look, definitely not Scandi, might have been the French N4's that took about 15 years after needing a redesign mid-build? But again, that's EPR, Westinghouse AP1000 is just an evolution of a PWR which is designed to be simpler to operate and easier to construct, the last one we build was Sizewell B (about the same time as the french N4's) which took 8 years to build and synchronise. Hitachi ABWR's are already running and take anything from 3-5 years to reach first criticality.
Just for comparison, Dungeness B took 18 years to get running and even then it's run so little I'll be surprised if it's not still running for it's centenary!
And yes, privatising was IMO not the way to go, if we had a monopolised national industry we could share the burden (building, research, operating) whilst keeping strategic assets in place. We are now compleetly toothless hence Hinkley requires so much financial assistance because private backers don't like long term investments. Same reason we'll never see a Severn Barrage without the same sort of deals.