The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Condi said:
In a world where inflation is 10%+ and interest rates have gone from 1%< to 5% then of course costs are going to rise, and if the government approve the RAB model for SZC it should find funding. I suspect that is more stuck in the regulatory bodies than the financial department.
This passed me by the other month and I don't think was mentioned on here...
US developer Last Energy have signed a deal to supply 24 small nuclear reactors for customers in the UK "by 2026". They will be installed for industrial customers mainly, and the developer pays for the install and retains ownership of the plant, simply selling the power to the customer. I presume for large users of electricity it makes sense, especially if they can avoid any emissions costs. Seems like RR want to hurry up, because between Last Energy, NuScale, GE are already selling their designs.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/20/us...
These truly are tiny (20MW?) but what's the security arrangements for such a site? I can see the benefits to steel arc, aluminium, hydrogen production etc, but can't understand the safety and security implications.This passed me by the other month and I don't think was mentioned on here...
US developer Last Energy have signed a deal to supply 24 small nuclear reactors for customers in the UK "by 2026". They will be installed for industrial customers mainly, and the developer pays for the install and retains ownership of the plant, simply selling the power to the customer. I presume for large users of electricity it makes sense, especially if they can avoid any emissions costs. Seems like RR want to hurry up, because between Last Energy, NuScale, GE are already selling their designs.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/20/us...
Condi said:
Hill92 said:
In other news, EDF continue to face rising costs on Hinkley Point C, the government are struggling to find investors to fund Sizewell C and Rolls Royce remain several years away from demonstrating a Small Modular Reactor.
In a world where inflation is 10%+ and interest rates have gone from 1%< to 5% then of course costs are going to rise, and if the government approve the RAB model for SZC it should find funding. I suspect that is more stuck in the regulatory bodies than the financial department. This passed me by the other month and I don't think was mentioned on here...
US developer Last Energy have signed a deal to supply 24 small nuclear reactors for customers in the UK "by 2026". They will be installed for industrial customers mainly, and the developer pays for the install and retains ownership of the plant, simply selling the power to the customer. I presume for large users of electricity it makes sense, especially if they can avoid any emissions costs. Seems like RR want to hurry up, because between Last Energy, NuScale, GE are already selling their designs.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/20/us...
He is a true believer and isn't afraid to say stuff in public that other people with senior positions in nuclear companies would never say (let's put high level waste in landfill!). He would also frankly wind up a lot of people in government or the nuclear industry or look "not credible".
On the other hand Last Energy aren't afraid to just do things, they have actually set up a production facility and built some full scale modular mock-ups.
On a pure cost of electricity basis a 20MW plant is going to struggle, but building them on a customer site behind the meter means that they cut about £50-70/MWh off the cost of the electricity which gives them a lot of leeway on the economics front. It means that they don't have to compete directly with RR, GE and Westinghouse.
Where I suspect they strain credibility is on the financial side. The power purchase agreements are more like market research, I doubt anyone has had to put any money down. If the developer can't do it then they have nothing to pay, if the developer can do it then they get a great product, who wouldn't sign up.
The main issue would be even if the company has several nominal billions in PPA's on their books would you lend them the money given that they will need to spend several hundred million just to design the plant and get a site licence with all the things out of their control such as the regulatory process taking longer or stuff like public enquiries before they even get to revenue never mind profit.
Maybe they've found a really tolerant VC who's prepared to pay the money out as their engineering and government relations team prove themselves, maybe it's all BS. I guess we'll find out.
Hill92 said:
Condi said:
Bit of a kick in the butt for anti-wind lobby....
Wind is main source of UK electricity for first time
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-655...
UK sets new record for wind power generation
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/0...
There is actually some genuinely interesting stuff going on, there was a new interconnector announced the other day with a wind farm plugged into the middle of it which will be able to ship the wind power to UK or Europe, and also have spare capacity for moving additional power from country to country. The first of the "offshore grid" expected to criss-cross the North Sea.
We've also seen Ocean Winds' Moray West project reach financial close last month. This is a significant milestone1 the fourth round CfD ot was awarded last summer only covers a third of the 870 MW project. Ocean Winds have a built a revenue with more than 52% of capacity covered by Commercial Power Purchase Agreements and the remaining capacity will be sold into the market on a merchant basis. Another step towards completely subsidy free offshore wind.Wind is main source of UK electricity for first time
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-655...
UK sets new record for wind power generation
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/0...
There is actually some genuinely interesting stuff going on, there was a new interconnector announced the other day with a wind farm plugged into the middle of it which will be able to ship the wind power to UK or Europe, and also have spare capacity for moving additional power from country to country. The first of the "offshore grid" expected to criss-cross the North Sea.
It's also been a good year so far for solar PV. Peak generation exceeded 10 GW for the first time ever last month.
The first transmission system-connect solar farm is now operational.
https://www.nationalgrid.com/uks-first-transmissio...
And construction has started on the first solar farm to be approved under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime.
https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/amp/uks_la...
In other news, EDF continue to face rising costs on Hinkley Point C, the government are struggling to find investors to fund Sizewell C and Rolls Royce remain several years away from demonstrating a Small Modular Reactor.
The only way to do it fairly would be to force all providers to provide firm power and this force wind to pay its costs in back up power and lowered capacity factor for gas plants.
Talksteer said:
Last Energy is an interesting one, it's developer started in the industry as a podcast host with "Titans of Nuclear" (he had previously exited a drone start up with single digit millions).
He is a true believer and isn't afraid to say stuff in public that other people with senior positions in nuclear companies would never say (let's put high level waste in landfill!). He would also frankly wind up a lot of people in government or the nuclear industry or look "not credible".
On the other hand Last Energy aren't afraid to just do things, they have actually set up a production facility and built some full scale modular mock-ups.
On a pure cost of electricity basis a 20MW plant is going to struggle, but building them on a customer site behind the meter means that they cut about £50-70/MWh off the cost of the electricity which gives them a lot of leeway on the economics front. It means that they don't have to compete directly with RR, GE and Westinghouse.
Where I suspect they strain credibility is on the financial side. The power purchase agreements are more like market research, I doubt anyone has had to put any money down. If the developer can't do it then they have nothing to pay, if the developer can do it then they get a great product, who wouldn't sign up.
The main issue would be even if the company has several nominal billions in PPA's on their books would you lend them the money given that they will need to spend several hundred million just to design the plant and get a site licence with all the things out of their control such as the regulatory process taking longer or stuff like public enquiries before they even get to revenue never mind profit.
Maybe they've found a really tolerant VC who's prepared to pay the money out as their engineering and government relations team prove themselves, maybe it's all BS. I guess we'll find out.
Let's face it, a 20MW kettle isn't very big so a full size mock up of it won't break the bank even if it's made of the same materials. Perhaps the higher cost of power will be offset against process heat or something. Are they going to need a public enquiry for something this size? It would be mildly amusing if it were to sail through on the back of the kind of EIA that allows holiday parks etc to be built in SSSIs etc. He is a true believer and isn't afraid to say stuff in public that other people with senior positions in nuclear companies would never say (let's put high level waste in landfill!). He would also frankly wind up a lot of people in government or the nuclear industry or look "not credible".
On the other hand Last Energy aren't afraid to just do things, they have actually set up a production facility and built some full scale modular mock-ups.
On a pure cost of electricity basis a 20MW plant is going to struggle, but building them on a customer site behind the meter means that they cut about £50-70/MWh off the cost of the electricity which gives them a lot of leeway on the economics front. It means that they don't have to compete directly with RR, GE and Westinghouse.
Where I suspect they strain credibility is on the financial side. The power purchase agreements are more like market research, I doubt anyone has had to put any money down. If the developer can't do it then they have nothing to pay, if the developer can do it then they get a great product, who wouldn't sign up.
The main issue would be even if the company has several nominal billions in PPA's on their books would you lend them the money given that they will need to spend several hundred million just to design the plant and get a site licence with all the things out of their control such as the regulatory process taking longer or stuff like public enquiries before they even get to revenue never mind profit.
Maybe they've found a really tolerant VC who's prepared to pay the money out as their engineering and government relations team prove themselves, maybe it's all BS. I guess we'll find out.
The site security would seem in question; do they pay atomic plod to turn out or will rent-a-cop be allowed?hidetheelephants said:
et's face it, a 20MW kettle isn't very big so a full size mock up of it won't break the bank even if it's made of the same materials. Perhaps the higher cost of power will be offset against process heat or something. Are they going to need a public enquiry for something this size? It would be mildly amusing if it were to sail through on the back of the kind of EIA that allows holiday parks etc to be built in SSSIs etc. The site security would seem in question; do they pay atomic plod to turn out or will rent-a-cop be allowed?
Last time I checked, I think it’s a legal requirement under the ONR to have armed protection at Nuclear Licensed Sites. The site security would seem in question; do they pay atomic plod to turn out or will rent-a-cop be allowed?Could be wrong though….
Talksteer said:
There is no such thing as subsidy free wind, it always imposes an externality on the grid and by extension rate payers due to intermittency.
The only way to do it fairly would be to force all providers to provide firm power and this force wind to pay its costs in back up power and lowered capacity factor for gas plants.
ThisThe only way to do it fairly would be to force all providers to provide firm power and this force wind to pay its costs in back up power and lowered capacity factor for gas plants.
The costs often cited for wind ignore costs of connection to grid and back up power generation/storage.
This is even impacting on the proposed SMR development, as some supposedly have an advantage as their output can be scaled up or down quickly. So even Nuclear is supposed to be built around wind power.
V88Dicky said:
hidetheelephants said:
et's face it, a 20MW kettle isn't very big so a full size mock up of it won't break the bank even if it's made of the same materials. Perhaps the higher cost of power will be offset against process heat or something. Are they going to need a public enquiry for something this size? It would be mildly amusing if it were to sail through on the back of the kind of EIA that allows holiday parks etc to be built in SSSIs etc. The site security would seem in question; do they pay atomic plod to turn out or will rent-a-cop be allowed?
Last time I checked, I think it’s a legal requirement under the ONR to have armed protection at Nuclear Licensed Sites. The site security would seem in question; do they pay atomic plod to turn out or will rent-a-cop be allowed?Could be wrong though….
Talksteer said:
Condi said:
Hill92 said:
In other news, EDF continue to face rising costs on Hinkley Point C, the government are struggling to find investors to fund Sizewell C and Rolls Royce remain several years away from demonstrating a Small Modular Reactor.
In a world where inflation is 10%+ and interest rates have gone from 1%< to 5% then of course costs are going to rise, and if the government approve the RAB model for SZC it should find funding. I suspect that is more stuck in the regulatory bodies than the financial department. This passed me by the other month and I don't think was mentioned on here...
US developer Last Energy have signed a deal to supply 24 small nuclear reactors for customers in the UK "by 2026". They will be installed for industrial customers mainly, and the developer pays for the install and retains ownership of the plant, simply selling the power to the customer. I presume for large users of electricity it makes sense, especially if they can avoid any emissions costs. Seems like RR want to hurry up, because between Last Energy, NuScale, GE are already selling their designs.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/20/us...
He is a true believer and isn't afraid to say stuff in public that other people with senior positions in nuclear companies would never say (let's put high level waste in landfill!). He would also frankly wind up a lot of people in government or the nuclear industry or look "not credible".
On the other hand Last Energy aren't afraid to just do things, they have actually set up a production facility and built some full scale modular mock-ups.
On a pure cost of electricity basis a 20MW plant is going to struggle, but building them on a customer site behind the meter means that they cut about £50-70/MWh off the cost of the electricity which gives them a lot of leeway on the economics front. It means that they don't have to compete directly with RR, GE and Westinghouse.
Where I suspect they strain credibility is on the financial side. The power purchase agreements are more like market research, I doubt anyone has had to put any money down. If the developer can't do it then they have nothing to pay, if the developer can do it then they get a great product, who wouldn't sign up.
The main issue would be even if the company has several nominal billions in PPA's on their books would you lend them the money given that they will need to spend several hundred million just to design the plant and get a site licence with all the things out of their control such as the regulatory process taking longer or stuff like public enquiries before they even get to revenue never mind profit.
Maybe they've found a really tolerant VC who's prepared to pay the money out as their engineering and government relations team prove themselves, maybe it's all BS. I guess we'll find out.
Edited to correct date typo
Edited by TGCOTF-dewey on Friday 26th May 12:03
JagLover said:
This is even impacting on the proposed SMR development, as some supposedly have an advantage as their output can be scaled up or down quickly. So even Nuclear is supposed to be built around wind power.
French nuclear plants have been flexible since the 1980s long before wind power came along, and Sizewell B was supposed to be built like that too but it wasn't included in the final design. It's only that the UK has not invested in anything for over 30 years that we don't already have load following plants. TGCOTF-dewey said:
A lot of nonsense in that article. Deployed by 2016... Not a chance. No way is that getting through a GDA and licensing (or even direct to licencing) in two and a half years.
Indeed, but good to see some ambition. They are already building them elsewhere, so the delays are more a paperwork problem than an engineering problem. JagLover said:
Talksteer said:
There is no such thing as subsidy free wind, it always imposes an externality on the grid and by extension rate payers due to intermittency.
The only way to do it fairly would be to force all providers to provide firm power and this force wind to pay its costs in back up power and lowered capacity factor for gas plants.
ThisThe only way to do it fairly would be to force all providers to provide firm power and this force wind to pay its costs in back up power and lowered capacity factor for gas plants.
The costs often cited for wind ignore costs of connection to grid and back up power generation/storage.
This is even impacting on the proposed SMR development, as some supposedly have an advantage as their output can be scaled up or down quickly. So even Nuclear is supposed to be built around wind power.
And grid connections affects almost every new project. National Grid are spending £650m to build a new 57km connection for HPC for example. Transmission Network Use of System Charges (TNUoS) already disincentivises remote location of new generation much to the chagrin of developers. The reality is we need to upgrade and extend the grid on a scale similar to the pre-war creation and post-war expansion to make it fit for purpose for our modern economy.
Edited by Hill92 on Friday 26th May 09:57
Condi said:
French nuclear plants have been flexible since the 1980s long before wind power came along, and Sizewell B was supposed to be built like that too but it wasn't included in the final design. It's only that the UK has not invested in anything for over 30 years that we don't already have load following plants.
Out of interest, with a flexible output nuclear plant, how does that impact the unit cost? I'm guessing that fuel consumption isn't significantly impacted (and probably isn't the major cost driver anyway) but all the other plant costs remain? So reducing the power output actually increases the unit cost?Condi said:
TGCOTF-dewey said:
A lot of nonsense in that article. Deployed by 2016... Not a chance. No way is that getting through a GDA and licensing (or even direct to licencing) in two and a half years.
Indeed, but good to see some ambition. They are already building them elsewhere, so the delays are more a paperwork problem than an engineering problem. I don't think last have started building any.
TheLurker said:
Out of interest, with a flexible output nuclear plant, how does that impact the unit cost? I'm guessing that fuel consumption isn't significantly impacted (and probably isn't the major cost driver anyway) but all the other plant costs remain? So reducing the power output actually increases the unit cost?
Gary may give a better answer if he's around, but the major costs are fixed costs over a longer time frame (yearly, or longer), and that will be costed over X number of running hours. In reality, the fixed costs are sunk from day 1, and the marginal cost of running the unit is quite small (£5/mwh or so), but when power trades to negative prices there are still opportunities to buy back and turn the units down. The output lost from a few hours of reduced load is negligible in the context of yearly output, so really it doesn't make a noticeable difference to the fixed cost per Mwh. In France, where nuclear generation makes up a much larger part of the generation fleet, then the turn down is needed for grid stability and to match supply and demand in the middle of the night without having to take the units off completely.
When costing up the running of a CCGT there is a much bigger difference between the cost per Mwh at full load and low load, for example at full load it might be £65/Mwh but at low load it might be costing £80-85/mwh, hence the whole idea of trying to flatten the demand peaks - it is far cheaper and more efficient to use a station at full load for 6 hours, than run it a low load for 3 hours and full load at 3 hours because the full output isn't needed for the other 3.
TGCOTF-dewey said:
You sure? I'm pretty sure the only modern western Smr to pass full design approval is Nuscale.
I don't think last have started building any.
Sort of, the only SMR under construction is the GE 300Mw boiling water design in Canada as far as I know. Last Energy have signed a lot of contracts though across Europe, with the first ones to be built in Poland although you're right, I don't think they've started yet. I don't think last have started building any.
V88Dicky said:
hidetheelephants said:
et's face it, a 20MW kettle isn't very big so a full size mock up of it won't break the bank even if it's made of the same materials. Perhaps the higher cost of power will be offset against process heat or something. Are they going to need a public enquiry for something this size? It would be mildly amusing if it were to sail through on the back of the kind of EIA that allows holiday parks etc to be built in SSSIs etc. The site security would seem in question; do they pay atomic plod to turn out or will rent-a-cop be allowed?
Last time I checked, I think it’s a legal requirement under the ONR to have armed protection at Nuclear Licensed Sites. The site security would seem in question; do they pay atomic plod to turn out or will rent-a-cop be allowed?Could be wrong though….
Current policy is that you do a risk assessment and provide adequate security.
In the case of last energy you could work back and say "what would be the objectives of said armed attackers?" If the answer is cause a nuclear accident or steal something radioactive you could demonstrate that the time required to achieve either result is substantially longer than it would take armed police to arrive and thus not need armed police.
I'm not going to go through a list of which licenced nuclear sites don't have armed guards but it might surprise you.
Condi said:
TheLurker said:
Out of interest, with a flexible output nuclear plant, how does that impact the unit cost? I'm guessing that fuel consumption isn't significantly impacted (and probably isn't the major cost driver anyway) but all the other plant costs remain? So reducing the power output actually increases the unit cost?
Gary may give a better answer if he's around, but the major costs are fixed costs over a longer time frame (yearly, or longer), and that will be costed over X number of running hours. In reality, the fixed costs are sunk from day 1, and the marginal cost of running the unit is quite small (£5/mwh or so), but when power trades to negative prices there are still opportunities to buy back and turn the units down. The output lost from a few hours of reduced load is negligible in the context of yearly output, so really it doesn't make a noticeable difference to the fixed cost per Mwh. In France, where nuclear generation makes up a much larger part of the generation fleet, then the turn down is needed for grid stability and to match supply and demand in the middle of the night without having to take the units off completely.
When costing up the running of a CCGT there is a much bigger difference between the cost per Mwh at full load and low load, for example at full load it might be £65/Mwh but at low load it might be costing £80-85/mwh, hence the whole idea of trying to flatten the demand peaks - it is far cheaper and more efficient to use a station at full load for 6 hours, than run it a low load for 3 hours and full load at 3 hours because the full output isn't needed for the other 3.
TheLurker said:
Condi said:
French nuclear plants have been flexible since the 1980s long before wind power came along, and Sizewell B was supposed to be built like that too but it wasn't included in the final design. It's only that the UK has not invested in anything for over 30 years that we don't already have load following plants.
Out of interest, with a flexible output nuclear plant, how does that impact the unit cost? I'm guessing that fuel consumption isn't significantly impacted (and probably isn't the major cost driver anyway) but all the other plant costs remain? So reducing the power output actually increases the unit cost?It's basically something to avoid if you can.
Hill92 said:
The biggest risk to the grid at any one time is a nuclear reactor trip given the large scale of the immediate loss from a single source. Should we include the cost of operating reserve for covering this eventuality in the cost of nuclear too?
While its a valid point, a reactor trip at SZB will lose 1200MWe and up to 1600MWe when Hinkley C is on the bars which is a lot, however a windless, cloudy day could in theory result in the loss of much much more if we only had wind/solar generation.Edited by Hill92 on Friday 26th May 09:57
And yes, of course we already do include the cost of replacement generation for a reactor trip, its the way the market works. We have to pay to buy very expensive electricity if we have a shortfall to meet our contracts.
Operational risk management is one of our cornerstones these days (unlike the CEGB when it was 'just one of those things')
Edited by Gary C on Friday 26th May 19:55
TheLurker said:
Out of interest, with a flexible output nuclear plant, how does that impact the unit cost? I'm guessing that fuel consumption isn't significantly impacted (and probably isn't the major cost driver anyway) but all the other plant costs remain? So reducing the power output actually increases the unit cost?
Cost of fuel (manufacture, handling and disposal) is one of our major costs so if being flexible means significantly more income per gram of U235 then its probably worth it as it tends I believe to dominate over our fixed costs. Running at reduced load does indeed mean we have to refuel less often, use less fuel and reduce backend costs. But generally, the gains are outweighed by the income from running at full load unless we were given payments for that flexibility.Heysham 2 was designed to be flexible. We had various control schemes planned including an 'isolated load' mode where Lancaster and the surrounding area could run as an island disconnected from the grid with Heysham 2 controlling the frequency on its own !
However, the advent of a phenomenon called Pellet/Clad interaction where differential expansion and contraction under temperature and irradiation was found to be able to crack the cladding of the fuel, that all went out of the window.
That said, I don't have anything directly to do with the financial side of the business and while we are aware of out requirements under the Remit code, they try to separate operations from finance to stop it from unduly influencing our decision making if we had an event.
Edited by Gary C on Friday 26th May 19:59
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff