EDF - Hinkley Point 'C'

[louiebaby]

In the BBC article, it mentions a guaranteed price of £92.50 /MWh for Hinkley, for 35 years. (I assume it is inflation linked too, but may not be. (Remember that if the wholesale price is below this, then it will be topped up, if it is above, then the excess will be paid back.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35741772

If you look at other Contract for Difference levels also being managed on the same basis, you can see what other technologies are attracting, some of the offshore wind technologies are on £157.93 /MWh.

https://lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds

Now start to look at what the energy mix is in the UK right now. This handy tool is as close to real time as possible:

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

As I look at it, at about 10pm, we're coming off the peak of the evening as businesses are all closing for the night and people are going to bed. Yet still 46% of our load is coming from CCGT (Combined Cycle Gas Turbines.) I thought these were meant to be the quick-start power that provided the peakload we need during the day.

We're almost into the part of the day that is just baseload. This is where Nuclear should be providing a huge chunk of it. Yet it provides only 17%. (Right now.) Coal is a little more at around 18%.

We need a diversified fleet across the country, to reduce our risk to fuel shortages, but we also need to find the right fuel choice for the use. Nothing is perfect, but Nuclear provides good baseload power, with almost zero carbon released. Despite using reactors, it's not very reactive, so a bit rubbish for peakload, but to a greater extent, this can be planned for.

Look at what the French are doing, as I look at this, they've got 76% of the load from Nuclear.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/

We need Hinkley C, and we need Sizewell C to keep the lights on. And we need to hope the price of natural gas stays low until we get them finished. (Not sure of the best way to finance them though.)

(All just my opinion, and I'm not looking to cause arguments, only considered debate.)

[speedy_thrills]

Welshbeef said:

Personally I don't get why the UK govt don't finance it for them or even pay them directly to deliver the working plant.

Financing the plant would add to the deficit, guarantee the price however and they make this a future liability allowing them to claim they are closer to balancing the current budget. It's just good politics.

[Welshbeef]

speedy_thrills said:

Welshbeef said:

Personally I don't get why the UK govt don't finance it for them or even pay them directly to deliver the working plant.

Financing the plant would add to the deficit, guarantee the price however and they make this a future liability allowing them to claim they are closer to balancing the current budget. It's just good politics.

But assuming all spent in one year it's a one off deficit and thereafter the debt interest would be the prevailing deficit less the payments back from the EDF as the widget goes live.



Also why only 1 reactor why not 6-10? Size wise isn't drastically different but output is hugely more. This would likely cover the issue of other plants coming off line in the next few decades and in the mean time possibly allow us to turn coal off totally drastically cutting out horribly CO2 output and making EVs much cleaner.

[Megaflow]

louiebaby said:

In the BBC article, it mentions a guaranteed price of £92.50 /MWh for Hinkley, for 35 years. (I assume it is inflation linked too, but may not be. (Remember that if the wholesale price is below this, then it will be topped up, if it is above, then the excess will be paid back.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35741772

If you look at other Contract for Difference levels also being managed on the same basis, you can see what other technologies are attracting, some of the offshore wind technologies are on £157.93 /MWh.

https://lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds

Now start to look at what the energy mix is in the UK right now. This handy tool is as close to real time as possible:

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

As I look at it, at about 10pm, we're coming off the peak of the evening as businesses are all closing for the night and people are going to bed. Yet still 46% of our load is coming from CCGT (Combined Cycle Gas Turbines.) I thought these were meant to be the quick-start power that provided the peakload we need during the day.

We're almost into the part of the day that is just baseload. This is where Nuclear should be providing a huge chunk of it. Yet it provides only 17%. (Right now.) Coal is a little more at around 18%.

We need a diversified fleet across the country, to reduce our risk to fuel shortages, but we also need to find the right fuel choice for the use. Nothing is perfect, but Nuclear provides good baseload power, with almost zero carbon released. Despite using reactors, it's not very reactive, so a bit rubbish for peakload, but to a greater extent, this can be planned for.

Look at what the French are doing, as I look at this, they've got 76% of the load from Nuclear.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/

We need Hinkley C, and we need Sizewell C to keep the lights on. And we need to hope the price of natural gas stays low until we get them finished. (Not sure of the best way to finance them though.)

(All just my opinion, and I'm not looking to cause arguments, only considered debate.)

^ What they said.

Sadly the tree huggers won't be happy with anything until they return us to the dark ages.

[MYOB]

louiebaby said:

Yet still 46% of our load is coming from CCGT (Combined Cycle Gas Turbines.) I thought these were meant to be the quick-start power that provided the peakload we need during the day.

You're getting confused with Open Cycle Gas Turbines (OCGT) which are smaller and installed as "peaking capacity", i.e., they run infrequently and provide extra capacity and respond to intermittency from renewables.

CCGT are larger capacity and tend to operate full-time and/or during peak times.

[louiebaby]

MYOB said:

You're getting confused with Open Cycle Gas Turbines (OCGT) which are smaller and installed as "peaking capacity", i.e., they run infrequently and provide extra capacity and respond to intermittency from renewables.

CCGT are larger capacity and tend to operate full-time and/or during peak times.

Fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up.

[xjay1337]

Megaflow said:

^ What they said.

Sadly the tree huggers won't be happy with anything until they return us to the dark ages.

I agree.

I also agree RE the tree huggers!
No nuclear etc. Nuclear is the way forward IMO.

[louiebaby]

For what it's worth, I'm not against any particular technology for getting the power the country needs.

I like the idea of Hydro power, whether it be in big lakes like in Jock-land or tidal related, but the environmental cost of these can be huge. (I wouldn't like to try and build across an estuary and make the working of the turbines deal with the silt that comes down either.)

Solar at least coincides with hours of peak use, and especially in the summer with peak air conditioning use. It may also be part of a long term solution, with "desert" countries harvesting their massive solar energy, converting it into some kind of storage medium, and shipping it round the world. Can they work out how to use electricity to make synthetic oil?

Wind is a tricky one in my mind, as it's volatile, but doesn't necessarily coincide with any usage. Unlike solar, we don't really change our usage patterns when it is windy.

Coal, Gas and Oil have their place, but I see why we need to reduce our reliance on them. They make the price of electricity too highly correlated with other energy sources, which I see as undesirable. I'm steering the conversation away from CO2 emissions, as there are countless other threads about that.

Biomass may be a good answer, but I'm not convinced there is enough land area that we can devote to growing the fuel for it, and still feed the world's growing population. (It would at least solve the CO2 question though, since it would just cycle it.)

I don't like the idea of being wholly reliant on Nuclear either. The countries selling Uranium can be "undesirable trade partners", and the question of what happens to the waste hasn't ever been properly answered.

---

There is no easy answer. We need a diversified fuel mix, at a cost effective rate. And more of it. Soon.

(Again, all my opinion, not trying to incite anger, just intelligent, polite and respectful debate.)

[Scuffers]

louiebaby said:

Coal, Gas and Oil have their place, but I see why we need to reduce our reliance on them. They make the price of electricity too highly correlated with other energy sources,

based on what?

coal/Gas are the cheapest by some way, even when you factor in the levels of tax added to them.

THE most expencive so far is offshore wind, then onshore, etc etc.

Nuc is actually pretty cheap, until you do stupid st to it like dragging every decision out over many years, meaning that nobody will touch it with a barge pole.

Take Sizewell B, been operating for 21 years, costs some £2Bn and 7 years to build, will run for at least another 19 years, by which time it would have generated some 440,000 TWh of electricity.

even if you then assume it will cost another £2Bn to dismantle and clean up, that's still very cheap power (even if you use stupidly high annual running costs).

[The Don of Croy]

Can anyone help with the economics of Hinkley C?

Capital cost = £18 billion. 35 year working life. 1.65GigaWatt output (?) £92.50 per MW hour guaranteed price.

If it runs for 90% of the time (allowing a generous margin for maintenance, green protests etc etc) then I come to a figure of £3.66 million per day x 328 days = £1.2 billion per year, x 35 = £42 billion over 35 years.

If the agreed strike price is already double the current rate (as commented on by the press) then if rates do decline it becomes less attractive?

But is it enough? And what have I forgotten/cocked up in my man-maths that prevents me from running one of the World's largest corporations?

[s2art]

[quote=louiebaby]

Solar at least coincides with hours of peak use, and especially in the summer with peak air conditioning use. It may also be part of a long term solution, with "desert" countries harvesting their massive solar energy, converting it into some kind of storage medium, and shipping it round the world. Can they work out how to use electricity to make synthetic oil?

/quote]
Peak use in the UK is mid-winter. Solar produces feck all during that period.

[Scuffers]

The Don of Croy said:

Can anyone help with the economics of Hinkley C?

Capital cost = £18 billion. 35 year working life. 1.65GigaWatt output (?) £92.50 per MW hour guaranteed price.

If it runs for 90% of the time (allowing a generous margin for maintenance, green protests etc etc) then I come to a figure of £3.66 million per day x 328 days = £1.2 billion per year, x 35 = £42 billion over 35 years.

If the agreed strike price is already double the current rate (as commented on by the press) then if rates do decline it becomes less attractive?

But is it enough? And what have I forgotten/cocked up in my man-maths that prevents me from running one of the World's largest corporations?

basic problem with your figures is that it's rated at 3,200MW, not 1,650MW.

Nucs run 24/7/365, actual downtime is bugger all for them, until they start to get old and need parts replacing, UK old ones seem to manage 11 months a year even with issues.

so, 11 months is ~335 days @ 76.8Gwh a day = 25.7Twh a year
x 35 years = ~900Twh

if you believe the £18Bn includes clean up costs, and say add in £1Bn a year operating costs, 35 years comes to £53Bn (at today's money), that works out at 5.8p/Kw

That leaves return on investment to be added in (assuming the £1Bn/pa does not include that).

the real issue is that although it's pretty cheap over time, the initial costs are not small and it's 10 years of building before you get anything.

then consider that the 35 year life will likely be more like 50+..

Edited by Scuffers on Tuesday 8th March 12:30

[MYOB]

The Don of Croy said:

35 year working life. 1.65GigaWatt output (?)

Should operate for 60 years and max generating capacity will be 3.26GW.

That's why you're not running one of the world's largest corporation

PS - the strike price will only apply during the CfD subsidy period of 35 years, and the latest estimates for the projects is £25n, and is likely to increase even further.

Are you beginning to see the "uneconomics" of the project now?!

Edited by MYOB on Tuesday 8th March 12:32

[louiebaby]

Scuffers said:

louiebaby said:

Coal, Gas and Oil have their place, but I see why we need to reduce our reliance on them. They make the price of electricity too highly correlated with other energy sources,

based on what?

coal/Gas are the cheapest by some way, even when you factor in the levels of tax added to them.

The point I was trying to make, but may not have been clear about is the correlation between fossil fuel prices and electricity prices. Most fossil fuels, (especially oil and gas,) have highly correlated prices. If they are the main feedstock for electricity as well, then we are in what I consider an undesirable situation. (Again only my opinion.)

I don't think as a country we want to be in a position where all the sources of energy we have are very highly correlated to the price of oil. If the oil price goes back to £140 a barrel, everything becomes expensive again. I personally would prefer that the degree of correlation was much less, so that at least if oil goes through the roof, electricity is still affordable.

s2art said:

louiebaby said:

Solar at least coincides with hours of peak use, and especially in the summer with peak air conditioning use. It may also be part of a long term solution, with "desert" countries harvesting their massive solar energy, converting it into some kind of storage medium, and shipping it round the world. Can they work out how to use electricity to make synthetic oil?

Peak use in the UK is mid-winter. Solar produces feck all during that period.

I agree with what you say, but the point I was trying to make is that at least with solar, when it's generating, it coincides with increased use. Right then. (Kind of like when Audi put a solar panel on the roof of their A8, which powered mild air conditioning, meaning if you left it out in the sun, you came back to a cooler car than the sauna you would without it.)

Although agreed, it doesn't help the times of absolute peak, which tend to be 16:00 to 19:00 in Nov to Feb, give or take.

[saaby93]

Whats the price of uranium or whatever the fuel is including transport?
How much do yo need?

[ewenm]

saaby93 said:

Whats the price of uranium or whatever the fuel is including transport?
How much do yo need?

How much yo got bro?

[Scuffers]

louiebaby said:

I agree with what you say, but the point I was trying to make is that at least with solar, when it's generating, it coincides with increased use. Right then. (Kind of like when Audi put a solar panel on the roof of their A8, which powered mild air conditioning, meaning if you left it out in the sun, you came back to a cooler car than the sauna you would without it.)

Although agreed, it doesn't help the times of absolute peak, which tend to be 16:00 to 19:00 in Nov to Feb, give or take.

that argument falls apart in the winter months though as demand is much higher and solar panel output is minimal.

realistically, solar in the UK has only 3 months worth of decent output and also 4 months of next to nothing.

I'm not against solar, but it's not THE solution, and we would need a hell of a lot more of it to make a significant difference, then we get to the problem of storage, and batteries are not the answer.
Coal is cheap, it's price is not linked to oil either.

As for Gas, until we start fracking hard, it;s an unknown in terms of price stability, although it has to go up a lot to become a massive problem, supply integrity is a bigger issue IMHO.

Nuc is the answer to a chunk of the UK's demands, but it;s at least 10 years away with a fair wind.

[saaby93]

ewenm said:

saaby93 said:

Whats the price of uranium or whatever the fuel is including transport?
How much do yo need?

How much yo got bro?

[handpaper]

hidetheelephants said:

The RBMK is a pretty scary design, the lack of a containment and a positive void coefficient being my particular favourites.

Nah, they're just ordinary daftness.
Tipping the control rods with graphite, so that the first result of inserting them is a local power _increase_ was a kind of perverse genius

[Mr GrimNasty]

Scuffers said:

louiebaby said:

Coal, Gas and Oil have their place, but I see why we need to reduce our reliance on them. They make the price of electricity too highly correlated with other energy sources,

based on what?

coal/Gas are the cheapest by some way, even when you factor in the levels of tax added to them.

THE most expencive so far is offshore wind, then onshore, etc etc.

Nuc is actually pretty cheap, until you do stupid st to it like dragging every decision out over many years, meaning that nobody will touch it with a barge pole.

Take Sizewell B, been operating for 21 years, costs some £2Bn and 7 years to build, will run for at least another 19 years, by which time it would have generated some 440,000 TWh of electricity.

even if you then assume it will cost another £2Bn to dismantle and clean up, that's still very cheap power (even if you use stupidly high annual running costs).

Oh dear God Louiebaby, it's renewables that make electricity expensive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/renewable-energy-t...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/06/win...