EDF - Hinkley Point 'C'

[Scuffers]

at this rate, it's just not going to happen.

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

wonder what plan B is?

Dave?

[Scuffers]

in the mid-term, you just know we are going to have to build some more coal plants...

sure, they will be dressed up as 'clean-coal' are all that bull, but they will be built.

[Scuffers]

v8250 said:

There is no plan B. EDF shares nosedive on the news. This is a ridiculous project that's going to cost UK taxpayers very, very heavily for many decades. The EDF FD has resigned for good reason, most likely knowing the existing agreement will lose too much money...and when the French see they're going to lose money they demand more. It will be UK plc that pays an even greater cost for this project, exactly the same as project SST...Concorde.

you're probably right, the project is doomed to fail on all sides.

they are proposing to build a reactor system that's yet to be proven, the two currently in build are already disasters.

what I don't get (and I await the flack) is why we can't just simply build ones like we already have? - hell we build enough different ones!

based on the experience of running them for 20+ years, pick the one that's done best, and duplicate it, several times.

they have all worked pretty well overall, they may not be cutting edge, but can we as a country afford to be cutting edge when money is tight and the big blackout is coming?

[Scuffers]

speedy_thrills said:

If the unit price required to avoid subsidisation in 2025 is approx. three times the current unit price should the project be going ahead?

Looking at this from EDFs perspective across Europe electricity prices have slumped, delaying a commitment to sink a large chunk of capital on building more capacity (especially when there won't be any return until after 2025, the reactors they are using are still being developed and other projects are running late and over budget) would seem a prudent move. Also Standard & Poor's have already told them they'll be downgraded if they commit to Hinkley.

The economics of this look dubious to me, there isn't much of a market for turning gold into lead.

forget the rest of the EU for a moment.

UK elec price has not slumped at all, have you seen your P/Kwh reduce? Gas has, not electric, in fact, most suppliers seem to be slowly ramping up nigh rate costs too whilst holding day rates high.

Power generation is a long term game, in 10 years half our nucs are out, currently we have nothing to replace them with, not helped by shutting yet more perfectly serviceable coal stations.

[Scuffers]

speedy_thrills said:

Scuffers said:

UK elec price has not slumped at all...

Historic data on wholesale energy prices is available online for free.

Wholesale maybe, retail no chance.

[Scuffers]

I assume that in the non energy costs is running interconnects to wind and solar?

[Scuffers]

louiebaby said:

The other non-energy costs that make up a significant amount of your costs are the transmission and distribution of the energy around the country. The maintenance and upgrading of the aging national grid is not a cheap job.

There are also issues with balancing the network, and making sure that there is enough power to go round at times of peak demand. A few times a year, emergency generators are used to bolster the regularly managed generation, and it costs a lot of money to have this on standby.

understood, but just how much of this work is directly related to the growth of wind and solar as opposed to just maintenance and renewal work on the grid?

for example, just how much does it cost to run an interconnect out to offshore wind?

as for paying for fields of diesel gensets...........

[Scuffers]

hidetheelephants said:

If Brian George, the guy who brought Sizewell B in to commission within a couple of months of the 7 year schedule and underbudget, is still alive, give him a cheque book and set him to it. He can hardly make a bigger arse of it than EDF.

amazing article..

Just how did we f**k it up so badly from then to now?

here we are 21 years later still f**king about over the next one.

[Scuffers]

gazapc said:

The costs for building the connections (whether onshore or offshore) are borne by the project developer, hence in essence some of the subsidy offered pays towards the grid upgrades.

The Government did this based on 2014 bills which provides nice graphic: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/policy-impacts-on-pric...

£36 per year for large scale renewables and £9 for small scale (rooftop FIT). Now this will have increased since last year but gives you an idea of the order of magnitude.

The other thing is that renewables tend to reduce wholesale prices when they are generating. So if a subsidy of say £90/MWh is offered the cost to the consumer isn’t just that but £90/MWh minus X where X is the reduction in wholesale price.
A recent study on this 'merit order effect' found the resultant drop in cost when calculated ‘net’ to be over 50%. This same effect will also apply to subsidies for nuclear.

http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/media/W1siZiIsIjU2MjRk...

hang on a minute!

how the f**k is that right?

I can only assume that the non decc figures include some massive carbon tax or the like?

How can adding costs to cover wind/solar subsidies make it cheaper?

[Scuffers]

still makes no sence, how does the non DECC wholesale price start at more than the DECC price?

I assume they are implying a reduction in usage with all the green tech> (Smart meters etc)?

[Scuffers]

handpaper said:

The reason we won't be building any more Hinkley Point Bs (or Sizewell Bs etc.) is because, in short, they're crap and dangerous.
These are, of course, relative terms. HP B and S B aren't about to blow up, and they do produce useful amounts of power. However, newer designs are safer, more efficient, longer lived, smaller, cheaper, etc. , to the extent that building to an older design would never be permitted. Lessons learned from the construction and operation of Gen II plants have led to these improvements; it would be foolish to ignore them.

not arguing that the newer designed are better, but as they simply do not exist in working form, that's a bit of a stretch.

Sizewell B got built on time and under budget (£2bn) and is still working just fine.

[Scuffers]

to be fair, Hinkley Point B has been working for 40 years and not gone 'Chernobyl' on us.

by the time it's finally taken offline it will have been working for 45 years, so in my books, that's a successful reactor.

[Scuffers]

Mr GrimNasty said:

If you prohibit coal, the only thing that is going to realistically power the world is nuclear or gas, if cost and build speed are a factor, it has to be gas.

Renewables have an appalling capacity factor, intermittent - requiring 100% backup, vast expense, and whilst they are being subsidised/promoted and given preferential supply to the grid, no one will invest in gas.

Our energy supply market and generation infrastructure has been completely fked up by the green nutters, for a problem that doesn't even exist.

and the problem with gas is that we have to import it from Russia.

ie, we need to stop the crazy green st and build coal & nuc's

[Scuffers]

eldar said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

We can import from the US now (& elsewhere no doubt) by sea, and we need to get fracking ourselves, with haste, and we have the new Shetland (2m homes worth) just come on-line.

And in 15 to 20 years time?

start fracking Hampstead Heath.

[Scuffers]

FredClogs said:

I sincerely hope they don't build it, massively expensive, massively risky, massively French and a firkin ridiculous idea from start to finish. Here's hoping EDF pull out, pay the release clause fee on the contract and we can spend that money on some solar, wind or tidal project. Here's hoping the Chinese also have second thoughts on their project.

Are you for real?

Wind solar or tidal?

Really?

Do you not understand how we are already in the poo because of this green obsession?

[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).

[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

[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.

[Scuffers]

V8 Fettler said:

Unless fusion develops in leaps and bounds, the UK will reach the point where the new fission power stations have to be built, irrespective of the cost. The current unknown is whether construction commences before the extended power outages.

well, it's almost certain to go online after blackouts.