The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
The smaller RR version of Nuclear is certainly the way to go. Hinckley is already a design dinosaur and not what the country will need by the time it is built.
Not to mention horrendously expensive.
Although I can't see the majority of posters admitting that, having forever banged on that Hinckley IS the answer.
Smaller deployable (strategically in location and timescale) is the answer
There is a strong case for having large nuclear at the core (excuse the unavoidable pun) of an energy policy with small nuclear for flexibility and, potentially, speedier planning acceptance and development. Not to mention horrendously expensive.
Although I can't see the majority of posters admitting that, having forever banged on that Hinckley IS the answer.
Smaller deployable (strategically in location and timescale) is the answer
The requirements to support smaller nuclear, reduced coolant volumes and so on, likely make siting somewhat more flexible too. Net running costs ? Don't know but cost of energy numbers mentioned in the press release certainly look competitive.
Hinckley is horribly expensive and despite your claims to the contrary I don't recall anyone here suggesting otherwise.
However for reliable generation in a "kill CO2" political climate it is about the only game in town right now. And then only by the narrowest of margins.
The price and the uncertainty reflect a couple of decades or more of lack of direction and absolutely no decision making by UK governments. One has to wonder why - other than a very poor set of people putting themselves forward to be elected "lawmakers" and an equally poor process for the recruitment of Civil Servants.
There was a time when I worked for a company that had some dealings supplying British Nuclear Fuels with office equipment and services. It was interesting to visit their local offices which were alongside the M1. A decade or so later they were gone and the place had become a booze distribution warehouse.
At the time it seemed like a good metaphor for what was happening in the UK.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
The smaller RR version of Nuclear is certainly the way to go. Hinckley is already a design dinosaur and not what the country will need by the time it is built.
Not to mention horrendously expensive.
Although I can't see the majority of posters admitting that, having forever banged on that Hinckley IS the answer.
Smaller deployable (strategically in location and timescale) is the answer
While smr's have a lot of attractive features they are not a panacea. The number of terrorist targets multiplying across the country and the associated fuel deliveries and spent fuel dispatches becomes more of an issue and therefore cost.Not to mention horrendously expensive.
Although I can't see the majority of posters admitting that, having forever banged on that Hinckley IS the answer.
Smaller deployable (strategically in location and timescale) is the answer
Harder for a regulator to ensure they are all running to acceptable standards too. Our regulation I believe has been the best in the world, but it will cost more to expand to cover a proliferation of little reactors.
I'm not saying they aren't going to be part of the answer but I bet they will still cost more than RR's marketing literature states (just like Hinckley)
Gary C said:
While smr's have a lot of attractive features they are not a panacea. The number of terrorist targets multiplying across the country and the associated fuel deliveries and spent fuel dispatches becomes more of an issue and therefore cost.
Harder for a regulator to ensure they are all running to acceptable standards too. Our regulation I believe has been the best in the world, but it will cost more to expand to cover a proliferation of little reactors.
I'm not saying they aren't going to be part of the answer but I bet they will still cost more than RR's marketing literature states (just like Hinckley)
Good points Gary.Harder for a regulator to ensure they are all running to acceptable standards too. Our regulation I believe has been the best in the world, but it will cost more to expand to cover a proliferation of little reactors.
I'm not saying they aren't going to be part of the answer but I bet they will still cost more than RR's marketing literature states (just like Hinckley)
That said single point of supply cables and pipes must be rather vulnerable too.
Russian gas supply to Europe is being devolved to 3 pipes because of that, at least partly.
The problems with Shell's pipelines in Nigeria are well documented.
The issues with the single pipe supply of fuel to Auckland Airport in NZ is another high visibility challenge currently (or at least it is in NZ!)
In the next few years we will have quite a lot of capacity supplied by Interconnectors. With just the one a few years back the possible loss of service hardly mattered. With 5 or 6 and a firm place in electricity supply policy and capacity the availability of all of them becomes more critical. They principle of an IC is no longer "top up on demand" but much closer to "core supply competency".
I think that means there are a lot of security issues of differing types that may need to be addressed as part of the policy for the future no matter what the source of supply might be.
One could argue that something largely self contained within the country's land area is more easily protected in some way than a supply that starts beyond the borders.
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 21st September 16:31
Gary C said:
While smr's have a lot of attractive features they are not a panacea. The number of terrorist targets multiplying across the country and the associated fuel deliveries and spent fuel dispatches becomes more of an issue and therefore cost.
Harder for a regulator to ensure they are all running to acceptable standards too. Our regulation I believe has been the best in the world, but it will cost more to expand to cover a proliferation of little reactors.
I'm not saying they aren't going to be part of the answer but I bet they will still cost more than RR's marketing literature states (just like Hinckley)
That press release seems pretty unambitious, £60/MWh ought to be easily achievable with large scale factory assembly of modules, but it will require government backing as private finance will not do it. Much as I think water cooled reactors are a technological cul-de-sac it's the only area of nuclear manufacture that exists on any scale in the UK and the only prospect in the short term for increasing the dead slow speed of build exhibited in the case of Hinkley etc.Harder for a regulator to ensure they are all running to acceptable standards too. Our regulation I believe has been the best in the world, but it will cost more to expand to cover a proliferation of little reactors.
I'm not saying they aren't going to be part of the answer but I bet they will still cost more than RR's marketing literature states (just like Hinckley)
As for the security threat, it's more imagined than real; unused fuel assemblies are sod all use for making dirty bombs and would require an enrichment facility to make a fission bomb from. Used fuel assemblies could be made into a dirty bomb, but the harm such a device would actually cause is mostly psychological; the practicalities of separating out the components of used fuel are such that making fission weapons from it is harder than starting with uranium ore and refining and enriching that. As security threats go it's only scary if your world is defined by Daily Mail headlines.
hidetheelephants said:
That press release seems pretty unambitious, £60/MWh ought to be easily achievable with large scale factory assembly of modules, but it will require government backing as private finance will not do it. Much as I think water cooled reactors are a technological cul-de-sac it's the only area of nuclear manufacture that exists on any scale in the UK and the only prospect in the short term for increasing the dead slow speed of build exhibited in the case of Hinkley etc.
There is also the Urenco design, which I think is not water cooled. RR are not the only game in town in the UK.LongQ said:
This appeared in some press reports a few days ago and seems not to have made it here until now.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/y...
It will be interesting to see how the project progresses.
Nobody bats an eye that france has between 50-75% of its power generated via nukes. they ship out shed loads to third parties, like the UK, making several billion revenue from it as well! https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/y...
It will be interesting to see how the project progresses.
s2art said:
There is also the Urenco design, which I think is not water cooled. RR are not the only game in town in the UK.
TRISO fuel and gas cooling is pretty conservative stuff too, if the sums add up it shouldn't take much longer than RR's proposal to appear; the size of the unit makes bugger all sense in the UK though unless they're going to have dozens on one site licence. Experience gained from building and maintaining NPP operating at high temps would be valuable when/if molten salt appears.hidetheelephants said:
That press release seems pretty unambitious, £60/MWh ought to be easily achievable with large scale factory assembly of modules, but it will require government backing as private finance will not do it. Much as I think water cooled reactors are a technological cul-de-sac it's the only area of nuclear manufacture that exists on any scale in the UK and the only prospect in the short term for increasing the dead slow speed of build exhibited in the case of Hinkley etc.
As for the security threat, it's more imagined than real; unused fuel assemblies are sod all use for making dirty bombs and would require an enrichment facility to make a fission bomb from. Used fuel assemblies could be made into a dirty bomb, but the harm such a device would actually cause is mostly psychological; the practicalities of separating out the components of used fuel are such that making fission weapons from it is harder than starting with uranium ore and refining and enriching that. As security threats go it's only scary if your world is defined by Daily Mail headlines.
Spent fuel is as nasty as fAs for the security threat, it's more imagined than real; unused fuel assemblies are sod all use for making dirty bombs and would require an enrichment facility to make a fission bomb from. Used fuel assemblies could be made into a dirty bomb, but the harm such a device would actually cause is mostly psychological; the practicalities of separating out the components of used fuel are such that making fission weapons from it is harder than starting with uranium ore and refining and enriching that. As security threats go it's only scary if your world is defined by Daily Mail headlines.
k, they leave site with a decay heat of about 1kw, but the fission products containe within would easily make a fairly large area uninhabitable if combined with explosives. The difficulty would be that it would probably kill the bomb maker before they could make a device. While it maybe perceived threat more than a realistic one, it's taken seriously. Our police's primary duty is to protect the fuel and we have a lot on site (a small army). There are 8 operating power reactors in the uk, smr's would increase that to ? 50?Not saying smr's are not a/the future, just be wary of thinking they don't have downsides that need to be addressed (we will be saying they produce power 'too cheap to meter'
)As for a fission bomb, spent fuel is useless. The usable pu-239 component is too small as its been irradiated to long. Reactors that make plutonium for bombs have a much shorter dwell time in the reactor. You can however separate enough to make mox fuel.
Slow speed on Hinckley, how do you measure that ?, we have only just started. The time was all taken so far on reaching the final investment decision. Now I'm not saying it won't take time, flamenvile has taken ages, it's to early to point fingers at the construction phase.
Gary C said:
Slow speed on Hinckley, how do you measure that ?, we have only just started. The time was all taken so far on reaching the final investment decision. Now I'm not saying it won't take time, flamenvile has taken ages, it's to early to point fingers at the construction phase.
By some definitions, it hasn't even started. For example, the IAEA defines start of construction as start of installation of the first permanent component (i.e. foundations) of the nuclear building, and that isn't scheduled until 2019. There is about another 18 months or so of prep work to be done, before real construction can start - road and sea infrastructure need to be built, services brought to site, dormitories, etc, built for the workers, etc.
There is potentially some hope for Hinkley - EDF attempted to build Flamanville while Areva was still developing the detailed designs for Olkiluoto and the Flamanville plant itself. The result was that the contractors were having to build to a design that was found to be very difficult. For Hinkley, EDF engaged the contractors back in 2013, so the contractors have been doing detailed design work in the intervening years, and as a result, by the time construction starts, the main construction design engineering has already been done by the contractors who will be building it. They have also engaged the regulator early, and regulatory inspectors have been using the preliminary prep work to practice inspection procedures, just as the contractors have been using it to practice construction to nuclear standards.
Whether this is sufficient to prevent the project from failing or being severely delayed is not clear. Indeed, it is probably far too early to tell.
WatchfulEye said:
Gary C said:
Slow speed on Hinckley, how do you measure that ?, we have only just started. The time was all taken so far on reaching the final investment decision. Now I'm not saying it won't take time, flamenvile has taken ages, it's to early to point fingers at the construction phase.
By some definitions, it hasn't even started. For example, the IAEA defines start of construction as start of installation of the first permanent component (i.e. foundations) of the nuclear building, and that isn't scheduled until 2019. There is about another 18 months or so of prep work to be done, before real construction can start - road and sea infrastructure need to be built, services brought to site, dormitories, etc, built for the workers, etc.
There is potentially some hope for Hinkley - EDF attempted to build Flamanville while Areva was still developing the detailed designs for Olkiluoto and the Flamanville plant itself. The result was that the contractors were having to build to a design that was found to be very difficult. For Hinkley, EDF engaged the contractors back in 2013, so the contractors have been doing detailed design work in the intervening years, and as a result, by the time construction starts, the main construction design engineering has already been done by the contractors who will be building it. They have also engaged the regulator early, and regulatory inspectors have been using the preliminary prep work to practice inspection procedures, just as the contractors have been using it to practice construction to nuclear standards.
Whether this is sufficient to prevent the project from failing or being severely delayed is not clear. Indeed, it is probably far too early to tell.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/09/Of...
Quote
"Spin put on the government’s recently announced strike prices to three large offshore wind farms has misled many into thinking that the costs of offshore wind are falling.
However, no actual capital cost figures have been provided for the three windfarms (Hornsea, Moray East, or Triton Knoll), and the strike prices are a poor guide to underlying costs.
In fact, empirical CAPEX data collated for the first time in a new statistical study published today by GWPF shows that the capital costs for offshore wind remain high. Moreover, as the wind industry moves into deeper water, costs are actually rising offsetting any reduction in costs due to technical progress.
The study’s authors conclude that wind farm companies are probably willing to offer economically non-viable CfD prices because they regard the CfD contract as low cost, no penalty “option” for future development. At the same time, they are securing a market position and inhibiting competition, with actual wind farm construction conditional on obtaining more generous terms in the future.
Should the market price rise above the contracted price, because of rising fossil fuel costs or a further rise in the UK’s carbon tax, companies would simply cancel the CfD contract and go with the higher price. However, if there is no significant probability of that elevated market price, these sites are very unlikely to be built.
Professor Gordon Hughes, the paper’s lead author, said:
“Contrary to gullible media exaggerations, capital costs for offshore wind have not fallen, and the sites are not economic at the recently announced prices. The developers are just gambling on the small chance of very high fossil fuel prices in the near future, or more likely on a high carbon price.”
Professor Hughes added:
“The low CfD prices offered in the auction are just a normal albeit very risky business speculation. They certainly are not the dawn of a new age for offshore wind.”" /quote
Any comments Paddy?
Quote
"Spin put on the government’s recently announced strike prices to three large offshore wind farms has misled many into thinking that the costs of offshore wind are falling.
However, no actual capital cost figures have been provided for the three windfarms (Hornsea, Moray East, or Triton Knoll), and the strike prices are a poor guide to underlying costs.
In fact, empirical CAPEX data collated for the first time in a new statistical study published today by GWPF shows that the capital costs for offshore wind remain high. Moreover, as the wind industry moves into deeper water, costs are actually rising offsetting any reduction in costs due to technical progress.
The study’s authors conclude that wind farm companies are probably willing to offer economically non-viable CfD prices because they regard the CfD contract as low cost, no penalty “option” for future development. At the same time, they are securing a market position and inhibiting competition, with actual wind farm construction conditional on obtaining more generous terms in the future.
Should the market price rise above the contracted price, because of rising fossil fuel costs or a further rise in the UK’s carbon tax, companies would simply cancel the CfD contract and go with the higher price. However, if there is no significant probability of that elevated market price, these sites are very unlikely to be built.
Professor Gordon Hughes, the paper’s lead author, said:
“Contrary to gullible media exaggerations, capital costs for offshore wind have not fallen, and the sites are not economic at the recently announced prices. The developers are just gambling on the small chance of very high fossil fuel prices in the near future, or more likely on a high carbon price.”
Professor Hughes added:
“The low CfD prices offered in the auction are just a normal albeit very risky business speculation. They certainly are not the dawn of a new age for offshore wind.”" /quote
Any comments Paddy?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Time Lord says it all works out in the end though.... 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqtVNvRSIWw&fe...
These two comments sum it up:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqtVNvRSIWw&fe...
seeWemm
1 day ago
"...and much cheaper than nuclear..." Well, investors would have to put in £2.2 billion for a 440 MW Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor [SMR] compared to the £1.8 billion investors are sinking into Moray East Offshore Wind Farm. So that is a little more expensive.
But REAL environmentalists will want to know if it's value for money in terms of how much low-carbon electricity the competing technologies deliver. And, the MPs this campaign was aimed at would like to know that also - they've got mandatory carbon targets to meet.
The answer is, you'd get 3.3X more low-carbon electricity from SMRs for a 22% extra investment.
And for those investors who don't give a you-know-what where the energy comes from, you'd receive 3.3X more income for that 22% extra investment:
https://smart-and-fabb.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/inve...
jsh485
1 day ago
"...a tecnology that generates lots of energy without burning any fuel?" it's carbon-free nuclear power.
Wind turbines need lots of fossil fuels to keep lights on when wind is not blowing and also for manufacturing, mining, transporting, installing, repairing, recycling their components.
Wind looks like cheap because "batteries not included", or not included fossil fuel power plants to compensate intermittencies.
Wind and solar are fossil-addicted parasites, useless placebos unable to produce enough energy on demand, just Trojan horses for the gas(fracking) industry, a huge waste of taxpayers' money, that cause more harm than good for the environment. Ban fossil fuels and wind/solar dies.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
If "The answer is, you'd get 3.3X more low-carbon electricity from SMRs for a 22% extra investment."....
then why isn't anyone doing it ?
Because there isn't a deep enough trough for the renewables swine to bury their snouts in.then why isn't anyone doing it ?
Edited by rolando on Friday 29th September 14:52
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff