EDF - Hinkley Point 'C'

[wombleh]

saaby93 said:

Without reading the last 7 pages - why is this thing so expensive?
If its a prototype of a new plant why is it going in at Hinkley where prevailing winds take out Bristol and Birmingham?
And if it is a prototype - why are the two follow on plants at Sizewell and somewhere different designs?
Is this only for England and a separate bidding process for the two plants in north west Wales?

Sizewell C would be another EPR. The others are different because it's different companies funding then who aren't as invested in the EPR as EDF is and have chosen different solutions.

The reason the EPR has been approved is just because EDF are first to build so are just ahead of the other organisations in their discussions with the ONR. No reason to think the others won't get approval too.

[markcoznottz]

mondeoman said:

Biker 1 said:

Cyder said:

Jesus Christ I do wish this country would just grow a spine and bash on a build st rather than spend years fannying and pissing even more money up the wall. See Heathrow runway 3, HS2 and all new road network projects.

This
Why the fk can't we just go ahead & do stuff FFS????
The only people to 'gain' out of this are the lawyers

Because this is a £40b white elephant.

Yep. Watch yes minister and then watch again, and try to imagine getting Whitehall to actually commit or make desicions. Hmm.

[hidetheelephants]

barryrs said:

IrateNinja said:

barryrs said:

How about scrapping Hinkley C altogether considering the likely costs and unproven reactors and switch to the proposed Bridgwater Bay Tidal Lagoon.

Costs appear to now be comparable, the expected output of the Lagoon at 3.6GW exceeds that of Hinkley C and its proven turbine technology.

It's not a proven concept at all given there's precisely zero large scale tidal lagoon projects in the world, so that power output is slightly optimistic!

Sorry I was merely suggesting the technologies eg water driven turbines is a proven not the concept; the ones proposed currently being Kaplan bulb turbines.

They can produce circa 200MW so a figure of 3.6GW seems realistic taking into consideration the tidal range of up to 15m creating a generating window of 14 hours per day

Edited by barryrs on Friday 29th July 12:51

The strike price the lagoon chappies originally wanted was nearly double what EDF want and they also wanted it for 35 years, or the more recent proposal which asked for about 5% more than Hinkley but for a whopping 90 year guarantee period. Add on the cyclic nature of tidal power and the additional losses and costs of filling the gap by storage and/or back-up power. Bear in mind the EPR is very much the most expensive reactor option going, Westinghouse, Hitachi, etc are much cheaper.

Effjay said:

The ABWR design is well on it's way to approval with the ONR. It's a General Electric/Hitatchi product.

Horizon Nuclear Power, owned by Hitachi (Japanese) are hoping to build these at Wylfa.

I worked on the initial constructability studies (in relation to the UK regulations, safety culture etc) for Horizon a couple of years ago. They're a proven design which is already in operation in Japan. From what I remember they even managed to complete the construction on time and under budget!

They're an older design, but they're a good chunk cheaper.

The korean APR1400 looks cheap too, although whether it would remain so after travelling through the Generic Design Approval sausage machine at the Office of Nuclear Safety is another question, and one that has not yet even been asked.

Gandahar said:

aeropilot said:

Gandahar said:

"It helps that Norway is also the biggest oil producer in Western Europe and the world's third largest exporter of natural gas. In other words, Norway is rich enough to subsidise its electric car lifestyle."

oil, gas and renewables against our overpriced carbon fecking free French Chinese Nuclear plant.

WE HAVE GONE WRONG.

Norway is also rather significantly helped in its Hydro power generation by the very nature of it's geography and remoteness of it as well

Well the geography helps but then again the UK could do the same for wave power and tidal using gas and oil as a backstop if the will was there, like it was in Norway for hydro. We are an island nation after all.

Wave power has repeatedly proved to be a good way to tip money into the sea and tidal power is still multiples more expensive than offshore wind. Norway has a tiny population, tiny population density and lots of mountainous terrain with high precipitation and glaciers to feed their many hydropower installations. The UK largely does not have these things, although there are areas of Wales and Scotland which could have further hydro installed and existing hydro could be fruitfully converted to pumped storage, increasing versatility.

markcoznottz said:

Yep. Watch yes minister and then watch again, and try to imagine getting Whitehall to actually commit or make desicions. Hmm.

'That's a very courageous decision, Minister, bold and courageous; is it wise?'

Listening to Any Questions and there's a lot of nonsense being talked about Hinkley and the tidal lagoon, apples being compared with oranges.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Friday 29th July 20:40

[Mr GrimNasty]

At the last CfD auction some windmills secured a price 60% higher than even Hinkley & the Lagoon!

That is how messed up things have become.

A massive fracking push and gas generation at half the cost of Hinkley is the inevitable answer.

Just that no one is prepared to admit it yet!

Edit to add, obviously Norway is a unique situation, but all is not as rosy as some think, grid instability and power shortages are not that rare, any period of low rainfall soon causes problems.

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Friday 29th July 21:24

[wc98]

Mr GrimNasty said:

At the last CfD auction some windmills secured a price 60% higher than even Hinkley & the Lagoon!

That is how messed up things have become.

A massive fracking push and gas generation at half the cost of Hinkley is the inevitable answer.

Just that no one is prepared to admit it just yet!

every chance one bad winter in the near future will force their hand meaning the gas generation will likely cost us more than it should .

[Sylvaforever]

Nationalise shale gas extraction [ ] build [quickly as their easier no mantle deep concrete] and bob's your uncle.

Phase two: regenerate the UK's coal mines using state of the art technology, build coal powered power stations using state of the art emission correction [but who cares about any EU climate st] and gain energy independence.

[Trabi601]

pim said:

Why always the comparison with Norway?

There is enough coal in the ground for the next god knows how many years.

Maybe open the mines again there is hope yet for a Island nation.

It's very difficult, potentially very dangerous and hugely expensive to re-open abandoned mines.

That's if it's possible at all, as many have been built upon, meaning you'd have to try and get to the workings from miles away.

Such incredibly short-sighted thinking back in the 80s, privatisation of energy utilities, closing mines because the Eastern Bloc were subsidising their coal exports, and the hand-wringing over building nuclear plants have nearly crippled us.

[surveyor]

markcoznottz said:

mondeoman said:

Biker 1 said:

Cyder said:

Jesus Christ I do wish this country would just grow a spine and bash on a build st rather than spend years fannying and pissing even more money up the wall. See Heathrow runway 3, HS2 and all new road network projects.

This
Why the fk can't we just go ahead & do stuff FFS????
The only people to 'gain' out of this are the lawyers

Because this is a £40b white elephant.

Yep. Watch yes minister and then watch again, and try to imagine getting Whitehall to actually commit or make desicions. Hmm.

Funnily enough I was thinking of Sir Humphrey after today's announcement....

[Luther Blisset]

Sylvaforever said:

Nationalise shale gas extraction [ ] build [quickly as their easier no mantle deep concrete] and bob's your uncle.

Phase two: regenerate the UK's coal mines using state of the art technology, build coal powered power stations using state of the art emission correction [but who cares about any EU climate st] and gain energy independence.

Wouldn't we be better off drilling for geothermal energy?

We could have a small unit in every town with none of the security risks of things like nuclear.

I think we'd be better off preserving natural gas for other things than power generation though. Either way we shouldn't *have* to rely on imports.

Also sinking water pipes under roads to extract heat, works less well in the winter mind

Dunno, just thinking out loud.

[hidetheelephants]

Nothing wrong with geothermal apart from cost; sinking the wells is very spendy and depending on what the geology is you can end up with more radioactive waste per kWh than from nuclear power. Burning hydrocarbons and coal for power is, apart from the air pollution, a bloody waste; both are excellent chemical feedstocks and we should endevour to preserve them for that rather than blithely burning them for cheap leccy.

[Talksteer]

Gandahar said:

Blue Oval84 said:

And what do we do for the times of day when the lagoon isn't generating? Build yet more plant that sits idle for half the time?

The whole point is we need the base load surely? And that's what nuclear is very good at providing.

But nuclear plants need downtime also. When they need a refresh it's not just a couple of hours job with some duct tape and No More Nails Considering that, when this plant, which will provide 7% of our electricity needs goes off line, how do we compensate for it?

We still have not figured out the total cost of decommissioning plants we did 50 years back, so it makes me chuckle now we are arguing costs before we take into account the decommissioning costs, indeed before it even turns over one iota of electricity. Cost before you start before costs after you finish...

Nuclear plants have capacity factors of around 95%. The refueling outages take place in summer when demand is lowest and there are two plants at Hinkley so only one need refuel at once.

On decommissioning, firstly don't conflate Sellafield with the power stations. Secondly the UK power stations are of a completely different design which cost 10x the cost to decommission.

Finally the decommissioning takes place at the end of a sixty year life time. Paying for it is less than 1% of the cost of the power.

[loafer123]

To what extent would modular reactors be a flexible and scalable alternative to Hinckley C?

They are mentioned in the Torygraph today, but I am not clear how far the tech has come?

[legzr1]

Esseesse said:

Have we got any mothballed coal power stations that haven't been demolished yet? Just re-open them again, the 90's seemed clean enough to me. Since we ought to be leaving the EU, presumably we'll be allowed to use them again.

Most would be clean enough to be up and running now even abiding by the latest Euro green legislation.

Unfortunately, a Conservative government led by Cameron decided UK legislation should be quite a bit tighter - goodbye coal powered generation in the UK.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

loafer123 said:

To what extent would modular reactors be a flexible and scalable alternative to Hinckley C?

They are mentioned in the Torygraph today, but I am not clear how far the tech has come?

Pebble Bed modular is a viable Gen IV option, for both Thorium or Uranium fuel, mentioned it earlier in the thread. Passive fail-safe, China should have a commercial size reactor running in 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTR-10

[Sylvaforever]

legzr1 said:

Most would be clean enough to be up and running now even abiding by the latest Euro green legislation.

Unfortunately, a Conservative government led by Cameron decided UK legislation should be quite a bit tighter - goodbye coal powered generation in the UK.

But it kept samsam happy though...

[loafer123]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

loafer123 said:

To what extent would modular reactors be a flexible and scalable alternative to Hinckley C?

They are mentioned in the Torygraph today, but I am not clear how far the tech has come?

Pebble Bed modular is a viable Gen IV option, for both Thorium or Uranium fuel, mentioned it earlier in the thread. Passive fail-safe, China should have a commercial size reactor running in 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTR-10

Thanks...very interesting.

Would you consider them a viable alternative or too far off?

[hidetheelephants]

loafer123 said:

To what extent would modular reactors be a flexible and scalable alternative to Hinckley C?

They are mentioned in the Torygraph today, but I am not clear how far the tech has come?

It depends; modular is just a generic term for a reactor small enough to be used in multiples according to need, arguably physically small enough that the largest indivisible components or modules can be built in a factory and shipped to the site rather than fabricated on-site, although that's a rather vague criteria. NuScale is probably the most notable 'modular' reactor and likely the nearest to being built, although there are numerous others in contention, mostly waiting for the stars of investment capital and industrial process heat needs to align and get things going.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

loafer123 said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

loafer123 said:

To what extent would modular reactors be a flexible and scalable alternative to Hinckley C?

They are mentioned in the Torygraph today, but I am not clear how far the tech has come?

Pebble Bed modular is a viable Gen IV option, for both Thorium or Uranium fuel, mentioned it earlier in the thread. Passive fail-safe, China should have a commercial size reactor running in 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTR-10

Thanks...very interesting.

Would you consider them a viable alternative or too far off?

It is a viable technology, that scales well. You do not need the behemoth reactors, with huge containment buildings etc. Or if you do want a large installation, add modules.

A large commercial size reactor is needed, and the Chinese are building it. Which is a pity, as the UK was involved previously in developing the technology.

[Gary C]

I can't quite understand how the gov have grounds to delay.

Strike price agreed, ONR agreed, fortune spent preparing ground works then this ?

EDF might have grounds to sue?

[Talksteer]

loafer123 said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

loafer123 said:

To what extent would modular reactors be a flexible and scalable alternative to Hinckley C?

They are mentioned in the Torygraph today, but I am not clear how far the tech has come?

Pebble Bed modular is a viable Gen IV option, for both Thorium or Uranium fuel, mentioned it earlier in the thread. Passive fail-safe, China should have a commercial size reactor running in 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTR-10

Thanks...very interesting.

Would you consider them a viable alternative or too far off?

Or more accurately never viable, even China's own economic modelling never has a gas graphite reactor beating a PWR for levelised cost of electricity.

Fundamentally they are much larger than a PWR of equivalent size.

Nuclear economics isn't a physics question it is a practical engineering and energy policy question.