The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
wombleh said:
StanleyT said:
Hinkley, the Heysham pair of Siamese twins and the Cod Heads at Hartelepool will probably shut in what the next five or ten years and perhaps, in this century, we may finally see Dungeness finally commissioned? Leaving Sizewell to when 2060? Hinkley C online 2027 is it now?
Heysham B is (debatably) the sister station of Torness so should keep running a fair while longer. The A site sisters with Hartlepool and think they’re aiming for 2024 at the moment. I like your optimism about Dungeness
4000 MW station cost today would be about £3bn, what would the equivalent size of wind farm cost ? about £7bn ?
Coal is about £300m a year, but offset by the capital cost spread over 50 years rather than 25 ?
Then of course the load factor of coal would be about 80% rather than 40%
Condi, what is the O&M cost of a wind farm ?
I can't quite see how wind is 'cheaper than coal' but my figures may be way out of date and missing some costs, All I really know is Nuclear is 'too cheap to meter'
Of course I am looking at how it was with no FGD and Im not trying to make a point that we should go back to coal gen, just find it odd that Wind is being promoted as much cheaper than coal, which I cant quite see how (unless we are including the hidden CEGB premium on top of the costs)
Coal is about £300m a year, but offset by the capital cost spread over 50 years rather than 25 ?
Then of course the load factor of coal would be about 80% rather than 40%
Condi, what is the O&M cost of a wind farm ?
I can't quite see how wind is 'cheaper than coal' but my figures may be way out of date and missing some costs, All I really know is Nuclear is 'too cheap to meter'
Of course I am looking at how it was with no FGD and Im not trying to make a point that we should go back to coal gen, just find it odd that Wind is being promoted as much cheaper than coal, which I cant quite see how (unless we are including the hidden CEGB premium on top of the costs)
Edited by Gary C on Monday 30th December 18:27
Not sure Gary, and like most things I suspect you can make figures say what you want. I'm off out so might reply more later, but until then;
Onshore wind is being build, today, with no subsidy.
Offshore wind CfD cleared at £39 and £41 in the latest auction. That is a strike price to build, and run 5.5GW of power, fully commissioned by end 2024.
By contrast, Hinkly C CfD is £90 something for 3GW, with no generation likely until 2027. Both reactors are unlikely to be running before 2029 I would guess? The HPC CfD is (from memory) 10 years longer than the wind CfD as well (35 vs 25 years).
Coal is simply uneconomic, however you dress it up. Even the existing stations are miles out the money. Baseload coal cost is above the £39 or £41 that we can build new wind turbines for.
Cue argument about unreliable wind vs cost of guaranteed generation from thermal power, but I have no time to discuss that now.
Onshore wind is being build, today, with no subsidy.
Offshore wind CfD cleared at £39 and £41 in the latest auction. That is a strike price to build, and run 5.5GW of power, fully commissioned by end 2024.
By contrast, Hinkly C CfD is £90 something for 3GW, with no generation likely until 2027. Both reactors are unlikely to be running before 2029 I would guess? The HPC CfD is (from memory) 10 years longer than the wind CfD as well (35 vs 25 years).
Coal is simply uneconomic, however you dress it up. Even the existing stations are miles out the money. Baseload coal cost is above the £39 or £41 that we can build new wind turbines for.
Cue argument about unreliable wind vs cost of guaranteed generation from thermal power, but I have no time to discuss that now.
Condi said:
Coal is simply uneconomic, however you dress it up. Even the existing stations are miles out the money. Baseload coal cost is above the £39 or £41 that we can build new wind turbines for.
Crikey. Is that loaded with CO2 costs, Nox and Sox removal ?I was trying to see how much coal gen was un-encimbered by modern costs would be compared to wind, just for my mental model.
I notice from the mott-mcdonald report that coal generation price doubled between 2007 and 2008 and is that down to environmental levies ?
All a bit academic as we are not going to build any more.
Indeed, the CfD model for investment funding is not well suited to nuclear as the figures show. The CfDs were non-competitive until relatively recently, and at the time the Hinkley C CfD was agreed, offshore wind was contracting at £155/MWh.
The problem is that this non-competitive CfD model does not give a helpful indication of cost. Indeed, the approach was to put forward a credible costing for the project, and calculate a price which would deliver you a 8-10% return on capital.
For HPC the issue is compounded, because the construction and decommissioning costs have to be fully amortised over the duration of the contract (35 years), rather than the plant design life (60 years). On top of that, in order to provide a credible decommissioning plan, costs appear to have been estimated extremely pessimistically. On top of that, there are substantial interest costs (loans were financed at a 9% interest rate) borne by EDF, which also have to be included in the CfD strike price.
The project risk is essentially onto the supply chain, which due to the supply chain being poorly developed has resulted in poor competition and sky high prices. On top of this, the UK regulator has required significant re-designs of a number of aspects of the plant, which has also impacted supply chain.
This is one of the reasons why the government has been trying to move away from the CfD model. The preferred model is a regulated asset base, where the government funds the capital cost, allowing a financing cost much close to that of sovereign borrowing (nearer 2%). Indeed, if you model out the cost of HPC with a 2% cost of capital, then this cuts the cost of energy in half.
With some development of the supply chain and design re-use, there is scope to achieve costs in the £30-35/MWh range for future projects- but this depends on a lot of optimistic assumptions, and one of the biggest problems with the RAB model, is that it removes the risk from the vendor and supply chain - potentially opening the door to errors and delays stemming from poor management.
While there might be scope to do this with a series of large plants, it may be that smaller projects are the better option - the smaller scale reduces capital at risk ,reduces project complexity and modular/factory construction of complex plant can reduce project duration.
Ultimately, the high price of HPC has a lot to do with the funding method, which has the side effect of diverting considerable funds into the hands of banks/money lenders.
The problem is that this non-competitive CfD model does not give a helpful indication of cost. Indeed, the approach was to put forward a credible costing for the project, and calculate a price which would deliver you a 8-10% return on capital.
For HPC the issue is compounded, because the construction and decommissioning costs have to be fully amortised over the duration of the contract (35 years), rather than the plant design life (60 years). On top of that, in order to provide a credible decommissioning plan, costs appear to have been estimated extremely pessimistically. On top of that, there are substantial interest costs (loans were financed at a 9% interest rate) borne by EDF, which also have to be included in the CfD strike price.
The project risk is essentially onto the supply chain, which due to the supply chain being poorly developed has resulted in poor competition and sky high prices. On top of this, the UK regulator has required significant re-designs of a number of aspects of the plant, which has also impacted supply chain.
This is one of the reasons why the government has been trying to move away from the CfD model. The preferred model is a regulated asset base, where the government funds the capital cost, allowing a financing cost much close to that of sovereign borrowing (nearer 2%). Indeed, if you model out the cost of HPC with a 2% cost of capital, then this cuts the cost of energy in half.
With some development of the supply chain and design re-use, there is scope to achieve costs in the £30-35/MWh range for future projects- but this depends on a lot of optimistic assumptions, and one of the biggest problems with the RAB model, is that it removes the risk from the vendor and supply chain - potentially opening the door to errors and delays stemming from poor management.
While there might be scope to do this with a series of large plants, it may be that smaller projects are the better option - the smaller scale reduces capital at risk ,reduces project complexity and modular/factory construction of complex plant can reduce project duration.
Ultimately, the high price of HPC has a lot to do with the funding method, which has the side effect of diverting considerable funds into the hands of banks/money lenders.
Gary C said:
wombleh said:
StanleyT said:
Hinkley, the Heysham pair of Siamese twins and the Cod Heads at Hartelepool will probably shut in what the next five or ten years and perhaps, in this century, we may finally see Dungeness finally commissioned? Leaving Sizewell to when 2060? Hinkley C online 2027 is it now?
Heysham B is (debatably) the sister station of Torness so should keep running a fair while longer. The A site sisters with Hartlepool and think they’re aiming for 2024 at the moment. I like your optimism about Dungeness
Anyway, what is all this "Boron chemistry" some of our chaps have been asked to look at. As a amateur Chemical & Process Engineer, I personally think all chemistry is boring.
Apart from Hydrogen deflagrations with invisible flame fronts travelling at sonic velocities. That is cool.
And Sodium chemistry. Who on earth though Sodium was a good way to cool a nuclear reactor? As my Chemistry Teacher said in Lab Safety lesson 0001 "If yee gets Sodium in yer eye Laddie, don't cry, it'll only make things worse".
StanleyT said:
I thought it was Heysham "Stage" 2. Or am I giving away whom I worked for during the commissioning it seemed forever that the Station was No Nearer Completion?
Anyway, what is all this "Boron chemistry" some of our chaps have been asked to look at. As a amateur Chemical & Process Engineer, I personally think all chemistry is boring.
Boron loves neutrons.Anyway, what is all this "Boron chemistry" some of our chaps have been asked to look at. As a amateur Chemical & Process Engineer, I personally think all chemistry is boring.
Gary C said:
Crikey. Is that loaded with CO2 costs, Nox and Sox removal ?
I was trying to see how much coal gen was un-encimbered by modern costs would be compared to wind, just for my mental model.
I notice from the mott-mcdonald report that coal generation price doubled between 2007 and 2008 and is that down to environmental levies ?
All a bit academic as we are not going to build any more.
Yeah thats fully cleaned up. I'll see how much carbon is and work out a dirty dark cost. There isnt a cost without flue scrubbers as they're already installed. I was trying to see how much coal gen was un-encimbered by modern costs would be compared to wind, just for my mental model.
I notice from the mott-mcdonald report that coal generation price doubled between 2007 and 2008 and is that down to environmental levies ?
All a bit academic as we are not going to build any more.
Condi said:
Gary C said:
Crikey. Is that loaded with CO2 costs, Nox and Sox removal ?
I was trying to see how much coal gen was un-encimbered by modern costs would be compared to wind, just for my mental model.
I notice from the mott-mcdonald report that coal generation price doubled between 2007 and 2008 and is that down to environmental levies ?
All a bit academic as we are not going to build any more.
Yeah thats fully cleaned up. I'll see how much carbon is and work out a dirty dark cost. There isnt a cost without flue scrubbers as they're already installed. I was trying to see how much coal gen was un-encimbered by modern costs would be compared to wind, just for my mental model.
I notice from the mott-mcdonald report that coal generation price doubled between 2007 and 2008 and is that down to environmental levies ?
All a bit academic as we are not going to build any more.
Ok, so very rough and ready I get the raw cost of coal today at £21.30/MWh. Cost of carbon is then a further £22/MWh.
However, to caveat this hugely, these are fag packet figures and actual costs will likely be higher. Its using an index price for coal (ie, not a delivered quote) and it is using a very ambitious efficiency rate which the old UK power plants are probably not capable of. Also interesting to note that the coal cost hit a 5 year high in late 2018, but has crashed by 35% since then. Using figures from 12 months ago, the coal cost would have been over £35/MWh.
When looking at 'real life' cost calculators, using known station efficiencies, transmission losses, etc you get a cost of generation at somewhere mid £50's.
However, to caveat this hugely, these are fag packet figures and actual costs will likely be higher. Its using an index price for coal (ie, not a delivered quote) and it is using a very ambitious efficiency rate which the old UK power plants are probably not capable of. Also interesting to note that the coal cost hit a 5 year high in late 2018, but has crashed by 35% since then. Using figures from 12 months ago, the coal cost would have been over £35/MWh.
When looking at 'real life' cost calculators, using known station efficiencies, transmission losses, etc you get a cost of generation at somewhere mid £50's.
Condi said:
Ok, so very rough and ready I get the raw cost of coal today at £21.30/MWh. Cost of carbon is then a further £22/MWh.
However, to caveat this hugely, these are fag packet figures and actual costs will likely be higher. Its using an index price for coal (ie, not a delivered quote) and it is using a very ambitious efficiency rate which the old UK power plants are probably not capable of. Also interesting to note that the coal cost hit a 5 year high in late 2018, but has crashed by 35% since then. Using figures from 12 months ago, the coal cost would have been over £35/MWh.
When looking at 'real life' cost calculators, using known station efficiencies, transmission losses, etc you get a cost of generation at somewhere mid £50's.
Cheers, makes sense (roughly as you say), so even with the carbon cost removed, wind is competitive (ignoring the elephant of backup, which as we all acknowledge is a significant challenge) However, to caveat this hugely, these are fag packet figures and actual costs will likely be higher. Its using an index price for coal (ie, not a delivered quote) and it is using a very ambitious efficiency rate which the old UK power plants are probably not capable of. Also interesting to note that the coal cost hit a 5 year high in late 2018, but has crashed by 35% since then. Using figures from 12 months ago, the coal cost would have been over £35/MWh.
When looking at 'real life' cost calculators, using known station efficiencies, transmission losses, etc you get a cost of generation at somewhere mid £50's.
StanleyT said:
I thought it was Heysham "Stage" 2. Or am I giving away whom I worked for during the commissioning it seemed forever that the Station was No Nearer Completion?
Anyway, what is all this "Boron chemistry" some of our chaps have been asked to look at. As a amateur Chemical & Process Engineer, I personally think all chemistry is boring.
Apart from Hydrogen deflagrations with invisible flame fronts travelling at sonic velocities. That is cool.
And Sodium chemistry. Who on earth though Sodium was a good way to cool a nuclear reactor? As my Chemistry Teacher said in Lab Safety lesson 0001 "If yee gets Sodium in yer eye Laddie, don't cry, it'll only make things worse".
Yep, in construction it was called Stage 2, some still use that term but on (most) station documents its Heysham II.Anyway, what is all this "Boron chemistry" some of our chaps have been asked to look at. As a amateur Chemical & Process Engineer, I personally think all chemistry is boring.
Apart from Hydrogen deflagrations with invisible flame fronts travelling at sonic velocities. That is cool.
And Sodium chemistry. Who on earth though Sodium was a good way to cool a nuclear reactor? As my Chemistry Teacher said in Lab Safety lesson 0001 "If yee gets Sodium in yer eye Laddie, don't cry, it'll only make things worse".
Strachan & Henshaw by any chance ? They had people on site for years, or NNC (or derivatives).
StanleyT said:
And Sodium chemistry. Who on earth though Sodium was a good way to cool a nuclear reactor? As my Chemistry Teacher said in Lab Safety lesson 0001 "If yee gets Sodium in yer eye Laddie, don't cry, it'll only make things worse".
It's manageable as long as all compartments with sodium pipework are inerted, but that does make it all rather expensive and complicated; there aren't many practical cooling options for breeding, sodium or halide salts are it basically, other metals have problems like wrecking the neutron economy or having weird corrosion effects.Gary C said:
StanleyT said:
I thought it was Heysham "Stage" 2. Or am I giving away whom I worked for during the commissioning it seemed forever that the Station was No Nearer Completion?
Anyway, what is all this "Boron chemistry" some of our chaps have been asked to look at. As a amateur Chemical & Process Engineer, I personally think all chemistry is boring.
Apart from Hydrogen deflagrations with invisible flame fronts travelling at sonic velocities. That is cool.
And Sodium chemistry. Who on earth though Sodium was a good way to cool a nuclear reactor? As my Chemistry Teacher said in Lab Safety lesson 0001 "If yee gets Sodium in yer eye Laddie, don't cry, it'll only make things worse".
Yep, in construction it was called Stage 2, some still use that term but on (most) station documents its Heysham II.Anyway, what is all this "Boron chemistry" some of our chaps have been asked to look at. As a amateur Chemical & Process Engineer, I personally think all chemistry is boring.
Apart from Hydrogen deflagrations with invisible flame fronts travelling at sonic velocities. That is cool.
And Sodium chemistry. Who on earth though Sodium was a good way to cool a nuclear reactor? As my Chemistry Teacher said in Lab Safety lesson 0001 "If yee gets Sodium in yer eye Laddie, don't cry, it'll only make things worse".
Strachan & Henshaw by any chance ? They had people on site for years, or NNC (or derivatives).
Should have never left really, things got done there. Then I moved to BNFL Sellafield, though moved on 15 years ago due to boredom. I think the project I started on 30 years ago (the Big Box Plant) is just about to be finished being built!
Now contract in various industry where fluid flow problems arise.
Oh, apologies, earlier on in the thread I called the people of Hartlepool Cod-Heads. Of course they are not. That is Shields peeps. Hartlepool are the Monkey Hangers.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/01/z...
Numbers are in.
Numbers are in.
Guardian said:
National Grid’s latest data shows that wind farms, solar and nuclear energy, alongside energy imported by subsea cables, delivered 48.5% of Britain’s electricity in 2019. This compares to 43% generated by fossil fuels – coal, gas, and other carbon sources such as oil and diesel. The remaining 8.5% was generated by biomass, such as wood pellets.
Weird split, but I there seems to be an assumption that imports are either nuclear or excess renewables.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff