GB's cheap Chinese nuclear plant -v- solar

Impetus

The Hinckley Point nuclear power station 3.2 GW is estimated to cost about 30 billion €. Using cheap Chinese technology.


This solar power plant costs less than 2 billion € for 550 MW output. – ie 12 billion EUR for the same output as the Chinese plant in GB.


Video of the construction site:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K4Ryow4cS_8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station

matrim

And, what's your point?

Even if you could get the same solar output in the UK as in California, where would you get the required 28200 acres of land to install a solar plant that could output 3.5GW (going by the info in your video that the 550MW plant is 4700 acre)

Macha

Energy systems are a bit more complicated than that. You also have to take into account demand-side management options like industrial and residential load-shifting, interconnections to neighbouring capacity and putting in place a good mix of renewables.

All of those solutions together would replace any need for a UK nuclear plant. In fact the European Commission in its original response to the UK government's state aid submission asked them why they weren't looking properly into interconnection. And the UK TSO NationalGrid has released reports showing greater interconnection with the continent would automatically lower UK wholesale power prices (which are pretty high) and increase security of supply.

Belgium has already had two close calls on blackouts/brown outs due to it's nuclear capacity shutting down and it's only because it's so well interconnected with its neighbours that the blackouts didn't happen.

Capt'n Midnight

Nuclear isn't getting cheaper. Solar is.

Comparing costs is a matter of forecasting. Hinkley C won't generate any power until around 2024. And then it will take some time to offset the carbon used in it's construction including ore mining and cement. By then Solar will be a lot cheaper. And who knows how little solar will cost by the time the nuclear power plant was due to pay back it's production costs?

Markcheese

If (and it is a big if ) they get it up and running by 2024 ,give it 40 years lifespan and then the real cost begins in 2064-
Do you know how many decommissioned UK power stations have been dismantled to date - none , they haven't even got a long term storage facility site identified yet -

Capt'n Midnight

solar is a distributed source nuclear is one point of failure on a small grid

solar is somewhat predictable , none at night and less if the clouds on the satellite picture pass you by



Recent news

PLYMOUTH, Mass. (AP) — The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth says federal regulators are sending a special inspection team to the plant related to an unplanned shutdown during last week’s blizzard.
...
An outage related to the blizzard was blamed for shutting down two of the major lines carrying electricity from the generating facility. Plant officials said the shutdown was similar to one in a 2013 snowstorm and wasn’t a safety threat.



Chicago-based Exelon Nuclear has said it will be forced to close its Clinton Power Station, along with shuttering similar plants in Ogle County and Rock Island, if the state doesn't come up with policy changes to make the stations more profitable.


BUCHANAN, N.Y. (AP) — Regulators say the failure of an alarm system that would warn of low levels in a water tank forced workers to begin a shutdown at a reactor at the Indian Point nuclear power plant.

The shutdown was reversed, however, when repairs were made.


EDF Energy, operators of the power plant, said one of the two reactors at Heysham 1 had to be closed down due to a water leak in a turbine in a non-nuclear part of the plant.

A spokesman for EDF said the plant had been taken offline as a precaution, after a “tiny” water leak had been discovered.

It could be days before the reactor is back online.

Heysham Power Station was previously closed in August 2014 following a routine inspection which discovered a fault.

A reactor at the site was also closed in May 2013 after smoke was seen coming from the plant.

SeanW

There are only two problems with the analyses by your good self and Capt'nMidnight. They are a little simplistic at best. Firstly, as for Cap'tnMidnights claims that nuclear power is unreliable, it seems they've had some different experiences in Chicago, according to a leading newspaper in that city. Aparently nuclear power produces almost all of that states clean (i.e. non-fossil) electricity and was a key part of the states' energy supply during a "polar vortex" (probably like Xmas 2010 in Ireland, on steroids) during a recent year. One can certainly imagine that solar panels aren't much use during a polar vortex and if it involved an anti-cyclone, the windmills would have been fairly useless too.

As for Macha, the kind of stuff that has been proposed by that poster has already been tried to a large extent in Germany and it's been a complete disaster. The IEEE highlights the obscene increases in electricity costs in Germany - all to do with renewable subsidies, and highlights the disproportionate effect this has on the poor. It's made all the more regressive because the subsidies come FROM the poor, living in apartments and the like, TO the rich, landowners with windmills, homeowners with solar panels. So much for renewables getting cheaper.

But that's only the start of the cluster**** that is Green energy policy. More is outlined here: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/germanys-green-energy-destabilizing-electric-grids/
TL;DR, Germany has not only driven its electricity costs skyward, but microfluctuations in the power supply have caused serious damage to equipment in the countrys industrial sector, making many firms spend tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands on repairs and power backup systems. But the damage doesn't end there - in a bid to deal with regular unplanned overproduction, German grid controllers have often tried to dump excess power on their Eastern neighbors. Needless to say, the grid operators in these countries don't like unplanned surges in imports so those countries have had to put massive OFF switches on their borders. Far from having more interconnection, Germany has basically turned itself into an electricity island.

There's more. Germany is on a coal burning spree. It's been going on for years and is now rapidly getting worse.

You also have to take into account demand-side management options like industrial and residential load-shifting, interconnections to neighbouring capacity and putting in place a good mix of renewables.

I really don't think you've thought this through, because it poses yet more problems - all the insanity that I've referred to in Germany plus a lot more that you can't explore in a soundbite like the above.

For example, you propose "industrial load shifting" but you do realise that while industy does indeed draw a lot energy, your estimates of its flexibility are grossly overstated to the point of absurdity. Because electricity is not the only time sensitive input into industrial processes, there is also labour (i.e. people to carry out the process) and most importantly orders from customers. Two problems arise:

1. What impact does this have on the workers in the indstrial sector? With a reliable energy supply where power output can be controlled, you can schedule production shifts. But if you force industry to fit itself around the weather, what becomes of the workers? If they're only needed when the wind is blowing, how do they plan their lives if they can predict neither their working hours, (those are dependent on the wind/sunshine) nor their incomes (if they are based on hours worked)? More to the point, what do all the industrial workers do when they're not needed during what would otherwise be a work day? Go home, turn on the heating/air conditioning? Wash/dry the clothes in the washer/dryer? Wash the dishes with the dishwasher? Charge the phones and laptops? Make tea? Watch TV? Turn on the gaming PC and have a monster fragging session? Nope. Can't do any of that because the residential sector is subject to the same problems and they'd pay €2+ a kw/hr for the priviledge of doing any of that.
   
   In summary, you take workers who had the traditional "9-to-5" and now you've put them on-call, totally unable to plan their lives beyond the variability of the weather. When they're not needed at work, for the same reasons they have to just sit at home twiddling their thumbs.
   
   Do you really think this is preferable to using nuclear power?
2. What impact does this have on production planning? Remember, manufacturers presumably like to know in advance how much product they can make, what they will be able to deliver on a particular date and modern businesses like to eliminate any activities that are not part of their core business, things like holding massive inventories, which are a pointless cost but would be required if they needed to guarantee a certain output but had little control over production. This is of course in addition to the other costs of an unplannable workforce, a power supply full of fluctuations that cost a fortune to manage, in addition to the true cost of electricity if fully applied (currently only residential users pay the green subsidies in Germany). How much do you think these companies will bear before they sod off to somewhere that electricity (among other things) is cheaper and more reliable, and where they can hire full time staff and actually plan their production?

Macha

What you saw about Germany has already refuted many, many times in this forum. I'm tired of repeating myself to be honest. The vast majority of German citizens SUPPORT the Energiewende and are happy to pay for it. The only people complaining about the costs of the Energiewende are 1) the utilities, who don't even PAY these costs and are losing market share and 2) heavy industry like BASF who pay FAR below the headline costs. You won't ever know what they actually pay because they sign individual purchase power agreements with their energy providers at insanely low prices.

It would also be nice if you don't refer to other posters as 'that poster'.

Markcheese

I didn't know the German issues had been refuted ??
But isn't the whole thread a bit daft anyway - solar in the uk and nuclear (chinese or otherwise ) aren't really interchangeable - nuclear's about steady (hopefully ) base load - solar is doable in the uk especially in the south but not in large solar farms because the lands too expensive -
Nuclear and coal would be more comparable-
And energy security is all about the mix of generation types -gas might be a clean(ish) ,convenient reasonably priced choice for most of your power generation but it's useless if the Russians turn it off -

Macha

Yes, here, here, here and in most detail with the most references here. Plus the news that Germany is shutting down about 20 coal/lignite mines was posted by me here.

Reliability of the German grid? Never been higher: http://energytransition.de/2014/08/german-grid-more-stable-in-2013/

But y'know, facts...

Also, the idea that solar is only valuable where it gets the highest capacity factors is a nonsense from an energy systems perspective. What's important is the value of the solar power to the grid in the location where and when it's generated, which is a very different thing. There's no point putting loads of PV in parts of Europe where there is no demand and then having to pay to build the grid to transport it up to the demand loads. It's also bonkers from a grid management point of view.

The UK and other EU countries simply cannot keep coal if they want to hit their carbon targets so it's pointless to talk about it. Also, adding CCS, which would be the only way to keep it online, blows the economics out of the water. We're talking silly money.

SeanW

Macha wrote: »

What you saw about Germany has already refuted many, many times in this forum. I'm tired of repeating myself to be honest. The vast majority of German citizens SUPPORT the Energiewende and are happy to pay for it. The only people complaining about the costs of the Energiewende are 1) the utilities, who don't even PAY these costs and are losing market share and 2) heavy industry like BASF who pay FAR below the headline costs. You won't ever know what they actually pay because they sign individual purchase power agreements with their energy providers at insanely low prices.

It would also be nice if you don't refer to other posters as 'that poster'.

Yes, the majority of German citizens may be happy to pay 3 times what Americans pay for electricity (and rising), doesn't mean that will always be the case, especially when another trillion or so in demands come in for grid improvements.

It also doesn't mean that it isn't a regressive policy that disproportionately transfers wealth from the poor to the rich.

Yes the utilities may be annoyed, they've been relegated to providing backup power only (instead of continuous) while their rates have been going down becuase the market has been so fooled around with.

As to the industrial sector I highly doubt they'd be complaining about paying "insanely low" prices, unless either A) They aren't really paying "insanely low" pirces or The levels of fluctuations in the power supply were costing them, as a sector, tens if not hundreds of millions of euro.

I'm also quite sure that the German industrial sector is not so keen on your plan for industrial demand-side management. How do you think a manufacturing or other business can work when their schedules will be literally no more dependable than the weather? Even if the logisitical problems can be worked out, what effect would this have on the people who work in the industrial sector?

You also haven't explained how any of this stuff would help in a Christmas 2010 style scenario, where the solar panels are covered in snow, the wind is dead in an anti-cyclone, the rivers are frozen and because it's Christmas Eve, anyone who has an electric car will be charging it to go somewhere and everyone else will be turning on everything electric to stay alive because the temperature is -17.

If it were true that renewables were all the time getting cheaper, why is it still the case that there is a direct correlation between implementation of Green policies, and increased energy costs. Capt'nMidnight may have been talking about "solar is getting cheaper" for the past number of years, indeed your spiritual ancestors (who doomed us to generations of fossil fuel dependence and were almost single handedly responsible for the construction of Moneypoint) were probably saying the same stuff at Carnsore Point. It's 2015 and nothing has fundamentally changed.

Finally, my apologies if I caused any offense with my "that poster" term, I meant it in a much more polite "in refernece to that particular poster" rather than a dismissive "THAT poster" or however it may have appeared. The pitfalls of written debate I suppose.

Macha

Just to take one of the many, many convenient assumptions that you make in every single one of your posts: prove German industry doesn't pay the lowest energy prices in the EU. Go on.

And why do Germans support the Energiewende, always have and always will? Because it's theirs. They own it. They believe in it. 92% of Germans support it.



Germans have been doing the Energiwende since the 70s. Since 2007, about 170 German municipalities have bought back the grid from private companies. In 2013, the citizens of Hamburg (pop. 1.8 million) voted to buy back its power grid. Why? So they can control the development of the grid and make sure they're moving towards 100% renewables. Germans just simply care about renewables and hate nuclear. Even Merkel, who initially opposed the nuclear phase out, saw the reality of the German debate and is now one of the biggest champions of the Energiewende. She is not a stupid politician.

Your claim that they will suddenly stop supporting it is based on sheer bias and zero fact.

[mod]And if you seriously don't cut the ad hominem crap, you're going to find yourself with an infraction or ban. My 'spiritual ancestors'? Cop yourself on.[/mod]

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

What you saw about Germany has already refuted many, many times in this forum. I'm tired of repeating myself to be honest. The vast majority of German citizens SUPPORT the Energiewende and are happy to pay for it. The only people complaining about the costs of the Energiewende are 1) the utilities, who don't even PAY these costs and are losing market share and 2) heavy industry like BASF who pay FAR below the headline costs. You won't ever know what they actually pay because they sign individual purchase power agreements with their energy providers at insanely low prices.

It would also be nice if you don't refer to other posters as 'that poster'.

:rolleyes:

Meanwhile in the real world

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

I've friends and family in different parts of Germany and they are getting rather sick of high energy bills on the back of greenwash nonsense and vested interests

Macha

And the stats show 92‰ of Germans support the Energiewende.

And, er, vested interests? Did you manage to miss the chart I posted in my previous post showing the utilities only own 6% of renewables capacity & how over 170 municipalities have voted to buy back their local grids? What vested interests are you talking about? The Energiewende is a people-led transition.

Spurious claim + random article link from 2 years ago + policy by anecdote is not a debating style that is particularly convincing.

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

And the stats show 92‰ of Germans support the Energiewende.

And, er, vested interests? Did you manage to miss the chart I posted in my previous post showing the utilities only own 6% of renewables capacity & how over 170 municipalities have voted to buy back their local grids? What vested interests are you talking about? The Energiewende is a people-led transition.

Spurious claim + random article link from 2 years ago + policy by anecdote is not a debating style that is particularly convincing.

92% you say - when was that poll taken and who commissioned it?? The other chart you posted is irrelvant to the issue of fuel poverty and the cost of energy in Germany. Of course the landowners pocketing the fat wind subsidies are all for wind energy and care little for the working poor who have to pay for all this hubris

PS: I don't really care what you think of my debating style. You seem to have a problem with anyone who dares to express an opinion contrary to your own. I have posted on a number of forums on boards for many years and have never encountered such an arrogant and condescending attitude(based on delusions of grandeur it would seem) from mods as I have in this particular part of boards.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

I don't really care what you think of my debating style. You seem to have a problem with anyone who dares to express an opinion contrary to your own.

You're free to express any opinion you want, so long as you back it up with relevant facts. You have not done so on this thread.

Birdnuts wrote: »

I have posted on a number of forums on boards for many years...

In which case you should know better than to criticise moderation in a thread.

Birdnuts wrote: »

...and have never encountered such an arrogant and condescending attitude(based on delusions of grandeur it would seem) from mods as I have in this particular part of boards.

There is nothing arrogant or condescending in anything Macha has posted on this thread. But, as you well know, if you have a problem with a particular post, you can report it and it will be dealt with.

Now, back on topic please.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

There are only two problems with the analyses by your good self and Capt'nMidnight. They are a little simplistic at best. Firstly, as for Cap'tnMidnights claims that nuclear power is unreliable, it seems they've had some different experiences in Chicago, according to a leading newspaper in that city.

There are only two problems with you analysis.

One , you haven't commented on the list of reactor outages.

Two - that piece was written by Former Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) is co-chairman of Nuclear Matters, a campaign designed to engage and inform policymakers and the public about the need to preserve existing nuclear energy plants. in a category labelled "Other Views".


And nuclear still isn't reliable. You need way more spinning reserve to cater for reactor shutdowns than for inaccurate wind predictions. The difference is that nuclear can have no warning before dropping out, whereas the wind predictions are days ahead.

Nine Mile Point 2 nuclear plant shuts down for unexplained rising water

The Vandellos II nuclear power plant, in northeastern Spain, was closed on Tuesday after suffering an electricity failure caused by high winds.





A matter I've raised before is the susceptibility of nuclear plants to Jellyfish mainly to demonstrate that the nuclear industry doesn't seem to be willing to spend money on prevention.
http://thebulletin.org/spineless-attacks-nuclear-power-plants-could-increase8001

The problem is not entirely a new one in the energy industry; the first known jellyfish “attack” on a (coal-fired) power plant happened in 1937, in Australia.

Markcheese

Do they have similar issues with nuclear reliability in a country like France with a state owned generator and 80 odd percent of electricity powered by nuclear ?
I would ask about overall electricity costs but it's probably a bit pointless with a miriade of state subsidies -

SeanW

@Macha. In the first instance, could you please explain how your plans for residential and industrial load shifting would work in practice?

Macha wrote: »

Just to take one of the many, many convenient assumptions that you make in every single one of your posts: prove German industry doesn't pay the lowest energy prices in the EU. Go on.

I never said they didn't, per se. Rather, I suggested that it was not reasonable for a group to be complaining about a policy that they were benefitting from. It is indeed possible that they pay very low rates for energy (for now) but that they're paying for it in terms of damage caused by micro-fluctations costing the German industrial sector likely 10s if not 100s of millions.

And why do Germans support the Energiewende, always have and always will? Because it's theirs. They own it. They believe in it. 92% of Germans support it.

Nice pic. But you do realise that in Germany the lower and middle classes have a much greater tradition of renting apartments than here in our fair isle? So even if all of the renewable power (and subsidies) were owned by individuals, it would still be mainly the rich who benefit.

Your claim that they will suddenly stop supporting it is based on sheer bias and zero fact.

Again, I never said that. Rather I wonder how long they're prepared to go on paying multiples of what they pay in other countries. Especially if the costs only go up with the need to pay for €1trn of grid upgrades.

As to the jibe about your spiritual ancestors, that may have been a bit rough, but only to point out that the same things have been presumably said since the '70s, when environmentalists doomed Ireland to generations of reliance on fossil fuels.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There are only two problems with you analysis.

One , you haven't commented on the list of reactor outages.

Of course nuclear plants can go down like traditional thermal plants, indeed like any kind of power plant. Nothing groundbreaking there I'm afraid.

As for this:

PLYMOUTH, Mass. (AP) — The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth says federal regulators are sending a special inspection team to the plant related to an unplanned shutdown during last week’s blizzard.
...
An outage related to the blizzard was blamed for shutting down two of the major lines carrying electricity from the generating facility. Plant officials said the shutdown was similar to one in a 2013 snowstorm and wasn’t a safety threat.

I'm sorry, I just can't take any of that seriously. You're blaming nuclear technology for the fact that snow brought down some external power lines? Seriously?

Two - that piece was written by Former Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) is co-chairman of Nuclear Matters, a campaign designed to engage and inform policymakers and the public about the need to preserve existing nuclear energy plants. in a category labelled "Other Views".

Couldn't be too far off if the Sun Times printed it though ...

And nuclear still isn't reliable. You need way more spinning reserve to cater for reactor shutdowns than for inaccurate wind predictions. The difference is that nuclear can have no warning before dropping out, whereas the wind predictions are days ahead.

Renewables are literally as reliable as the weather. And some people are talking about 100% renewables reliance in a country that has sod all sunlight, a prolonged winter and could be struck by a long term anti-cyclone at any time, like we were in Xmas 2010.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

I'm sorry, I just can't take any of that seriously. You're blaming nuclear technology for the fact that snow brought down some external power lines? Seriously?

Yes,

and you now have 4 seconds remaining to provide 75% of that missing power from primary operating reserve. 2... 1... 0...

Hint, you need LOTS of spinning reserve to back up nuclear, also you've about 80 seconds left to replace 100% of the power of that offline nuke.
see section 2 on operating reserve requirements in
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/OperationalConstraintsUpdate_v1.8_August2013.pdf

Also because it's a nuke if you can't get it back on line to day you'll have to let it cool off for a few days before you can restart. Of course if you are really lucky you might be offline for months because of design problems, sabotage, fake parts , politics, natural disaster etc. Transformer outages are more common than you'd like.



Meanwhile the weather forecasters have delivered the bad news about wind. Looks like we'll have to use more gas next week.

Markcheese

Does 100% of forecast wind generation need spinning reserve ? Or just a proportion ? ( ie. You'd plan on having spinning reserve for 10 or 20 % of forecast wind power as there no way that all 1200 turbines will go offline at once)
And I assume gas turbines or moneypoint also need spinning reserve - or at least a proportion them do ?

robp

Macha wrote: »

And the stats show 92‰ of Germans support the Energiewende.

And, er, vested interests? Did you manage to miss the chart I posted in my previous post showing the utilities only own 6% of renewables capacity & how over 170 municipalities have voted to buy back their local grids? What vested interests are you talking about? The Energiewende is a people-led transition.

Spurious claim + random article link from 2 years ago + policy by anecdote is not a debating style that is particularly convincing.

Its absurd to imply there is no vested interests simply as ownership is dispersed. It is like saying there is no agri vested interests in Ireland as ownership of farmland is dispersed.

Macha

robp wrote: »

Its absurd to imply there is no vested interests simply as ownership is dispersed. It is like saying there is no agri vested interests in Ireland as ownership of farmland is dispersed.

If you wanted to define something that the majority of people benefit from and support as vested interests, go ahead.

SeanW, I've seen your post and I'll come back to it when I have a bit more time.

For anyone interested, the 87% state-owned nuclear manufacturing company Areva just announced losses of a whopping $4.9 billion in 2014: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/23/areva-loss-idUSL5N0VX0TE20150223. The French government is going to have to get involved and bail out EDF and AREVA by making some sort of arrangements.

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

Does 100% of forecast wind generation need spinning reserve ? Or just a proportion ? ( ie. You'd plan on having spinning reserve for 10 or 20 % of forecast wind power as there no way that all 1200 turbines will go offline at once)
And I assume gas turbines or moneypoint also need spinning reserve - or at least a proportion them do ?

Look at doc I posted earlier
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/OperationalConstraintsUpdate_v1.8_August2013.pdf

Gas turbines provide spinning reserve by running at less than 2/3rd's their max power so there is another 1/3rd available. The big inertia generators are just heavy and act like flywheels.

Figures from here and the UK have shown that wind doesn't use any more spinning reserve than average , the big difference it that with wind individual generating units are much smaller so you don't need to worry about loosing hundreds or even thousands of MW due to network problems http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/renewable-energy-cost-nuclear-reactors

The row over subsidies for the UK's new nuclear power stations has deepened after it emerged that the £160m-a-year cost of accommodating the giant reactors on the national electricity grid will be borne by all generators, including renewable energy providers.
...
But experts said the National Grid's decision to spread the cost of extra standby capacity amounted to a subsidy for the new power stations. "There is no justification for nuclear being exempted from paying the additional costs to the system other than to make nuclear look cheaper than it is relative to other sources of electricity,"

In other news the UK now has 5GW of solar. (4979 MW in December) so no more subsidies for a while, but that's a reflection of the 70% fall in prices, something that nuclear has never delivered and that wind is still low hanging fruit.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31640853

The winners have just been announced in the UK government’s first auction for subsidies on renewable energy.
...
This is the first time the technologies have been forced to bid against each other for government support.

The solar power industry says it has suffered a huge blow from its cut in support.

Offshore wind, still in relative infancy, is the biggest winner with 1,162 megawatts receiving public support to 2019. Onshore wind will get support for 749MW.
...
The subsidy for offshore wind will cost 18% less than previously, and onshore wind 17% less. The idea is for new technologies eventually to stand on their own feet without subsidies when they reach maturity. Critics point out that nuclear power is still being heavily subsidised more than 60 years after it started producing energy.

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

If you wanted to define something that the majority of people benefit from and support as vested interests, go ahead.

SeanW, I've seen your post and I'll come back to it when I have a bit more time.

For anyone interested, the 87% state-owned nuclear manufacturing company Areva just announced losses of a whopping $4.9 billion in 2014: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/23/areva-loss-idUSL5N0VX0TE20150223. The French government is going to have to get involved and bail out EDF and AREVA by making some sort of arrangements.

Most French industries have been undercut by foreign rivals and nuclear is no different as mentioned in that link. Russia has recently signed deals with both Egypt and China. The former is rather interesting given the country's apparent vast solar resources. India is also expanding nuclear

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/russia-build-egypt-nuclear-power-plant-150210185343926.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/India/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/21/china-nuclear-idUSL3N0ND1GS20140421

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

Most French industries have been undercut by foreign rivals and nuclear is no different as mentioned in that link. Russia has recently signed deals with both Egypt and China. The former is rather interesting given the country's apparent vast solar resources. India is also expanding nuclear

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/russia-build-egypt-nuclear-power-plant-150210185343926.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/India/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/21/china-nuclear-idUSL3N0ND1GS20140421

So it's propped up by the French state and still can't compete? But in addition to competition, the reality is that the nuclear Renaissance that the industry has been about for 15 years isn't happening so the market for new reactors is simply smaller.

Moreover AREVA is losing money even in the contracts it has secured. Massive cost overruns and delays are adding up. Those write-downs of $4.9 billion are directly linked to projects like Olkiluoto where the total cost of the project was initially pegged at €3.9 billion. AREVA is already written down €3.9 billion on it!

Plus they are staring into the abyss of major decommissioning costs as Europe retires its ageing fleet of reactors. Costs are estimated at €1 million/MW installed capacity. I sincerely hope they don't come running to the tax payer, cap in hand.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-French-parliament-approves-energy-transition-1310144.html

The lower house of France's parliament has voted in favour of cutting the country's reliance on nuclear energy to 50% of power generation by 2025 as part of the a long-awaited energy policy.

French president Francois Hollande's 2012 election pledge was to limit nuclear's share of French generation at 50% by 2025, and the closure of France's oldest nuclear power plant, Fessenheim, by the end of 2016.

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

So it's propped up by the French state and still can't compete? But in addition to competition, the reality is that the nuclear Renaissance that the industry has been about for 15 years isn't happening so the market for new reactors is simply smaller.

Moreover AREVA is losing money even in the contracts it has secured. Massive cost overruns and delays are adding up. Those write-downs of $4.9 billion are directly linked to projects like Olkiluoto where the total cost of the project was initially pegged at €3.9 billion. AREVA is already written down €3.9 billion on it!

Plus they are staring into the abyss of major decommissioning costs as Europe retires its ageing fleet of reactors. Costs are estimated at €1 million/MW installed capacity. I sincerely hope they don't come running to the tax payer, cap in hand.

Yeah,Yeah - the nuclear industry is evil and we'll all be saved by windmills etc:rolleyes:. As for running to the tax-payer - a bit rich given the escalating amount of "green" taxes and subsidies the EU consumer is getting burdened with on behalf of the wind,solar etc industries. You conveniently ignore the fact that 2 of the biggest(and fastest) growing economies have major nuclear plans.. building new plants that will that have a far superior design to what was built 40+ years ago. Thorium reactors in particular could be a major game changer in the years to come.

Markcheese

Birdnuts wrote: »

Yeah,Yeah - the nuclear industry is evil and we'll all be saved by windmills etc:rolleyes:. As for running to the tax-payer - a bit rich given the escalating amount of "green" taxes and subsidies the EU consumer is getting burdened with on behalf of the wind,solar etc industries. You conveniently ignore the fact that 2 of the biggest(and fastest) growing economies have major nuclear plans.. building new plants that will that have a far superior design to what was built 40+ years ago. Thorium reactors in particular could be a major game changer in the years to come.

I'd bloody well hope that a modern nuclear reactor would be far superior to a 40 year old design - things (and costs) have moved on a lot -
How long now has thorium been the future ? Any real light on the horizon ?

Birdnuts

Markcheese wrote: »

I'd bloody well hope that a modern nuclear reactor would be far superior to a 40 year old design - things (and costs) have moved on a lot -
How long now has thorium been the future ? Any real light on the horizon ?

Good piece on Thorium in the Economist a few months ago . Thorium development has been held back by the fact that Uranium reactors where developed first by governments who where more interested in Uranium for its use as a weapon rather than a fuel source. Thorium has major advantages over Uranium when used as a fuel.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600656-thorium-element-named-after-norse-god-thunder-may-soon-contribute

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Good piece on Thorium in the Economist a few months ago which I will try to dig out by this time tomorrow. Thorium development has been held back by the fact that Uranium reactors where developed first by governments who where more interested in Uranium for its use as a weapon rather than a fuel source. Thorium has major advantages over Uranium when used as a fuel.

Thorium has one major disadvantage. Like other breeder reactors it requires an extra neutron capture. Then there's the problem of U232

We still don't have any breeders that produce a large excess of fuel. And we've been breeding Plutonium in multiple reactors for over 70 years so don't expect this to change any time soon.

It's still cheaper to burn uranium on a single pass than reprocess. So the economics of thorium are still suspect. Anyway it would take ten years to build a reactor and perhaps as long again to breed the thorium into U233 so it would take a very long time to breed enough to power a new generation of reactors.

BTW: There's been at least four full scale reactors built using thorium. It had it's chance , it didn't work and it's not getting cheaper.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Thorium has one major disadvantage. Like other breeder reactors it requires an extra neutron capture. Then there's the problem of U232

We still don't have any breeders that produce a large excess of fuel. And we've been breeding Plutonium in multiple reactors for over 70 years so don't expect this to change any time soon.

It's still cheaper to burn uranium on a single pass than reprocess. So the economics of thorium are still suspect. Anyway it would take ten years to build a reactor and perhaps as long again to breed the thorium into U233 so it would take a very long time to breed enough to power a new generation of reactors.

BTW: There's been at least four full scale reactors built using thorium. It had it's chance , it didn't work and it's not getting cheaper.

Some sweeping statements there - Thorium reactors were shut down in the US in the 70's cos they did not produce by-products that could be used as nuclear weapons which was the main concern of governments then.Ironically that would be considered these days as a major advantage of thorium. As for economics/government support, I think those in the wind/solar glasshouse should be carefull about throwing stones at others on that score. In any case neither India or China have the hangups that some governments have about nuclear and are taking the technology to new levels. Even Japan is now committed to re-starting its nuclear industry. Interesting chart in that link showing Hydro as the main reneweable energy source with wind/solar contributing very little despite a big expansion in support in recent years

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19951

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Some sweeping statements there - Thorium reactors were shut down in the US in the 70's cos they did not produce by-products that could be used as nuclear weapons which was the main concern of governments then.

So nuclear wasn't economic without massive govt support ?

Ironically that would be considered these days as a major advantage of thorium. As for economics/government support, I think those in the wind/solar glasshouse should be carefull about throwing stones at others on that score

Considering how much cheaper solar and wind have gotten over the years, can you imagine how much cheaper they'd be now if the billions spent on failing to develop breeders ( Japan alone has spend something like €20Bn on a plant that was online for just ONE hour, and the billions spent on price support, and the billions earmarked for cleanup ($100Bn for Sellafield) and the billions that need to be spent on safety and climate control , most nukes are at sea level Hinkley C site was devastated back in 1707, had been spent on renewables ?

In any case neither India or China have the hangups that some governments have about nuclear and are taking the technology to new levels. Even Japan is now committed to re-starting its nuclear industry. Interesting chart in that link showing Hydro as the main reneweable energy source with wind/solar contributing very little despite a big expansion in support in recent years

Hydro is a no-brainer if you ignore the environmental impact. AFAIK Nuclear has never caught up to hydro. Also globally nuclear has fallen from a peak of 17% electricity to 11% and is getting left behind by renewables.

Just compare solar and wind plans in India or China to Nuclear. Now do the same except if you count stuff in the pipeline you have to give renewables the same lead time.


Hydro can be great for load balancing. Both Nuclear and renewables need load balance, but at different times.

Here our maximum demand is twice the minimum so nuclear could never supply more than 50% of our power, and given the UK price it would only do that at multiples of the wholesale price. Renewables here are limited to 50% of grid power because of inverters and freqstability. Last winter they averaged 50% of that limit. So if our grid could handle up to 100% renewables then it's possible that we could get half our power from them in winter.

And whether we went nuclear or renewables, we'd still rely on fossil fuel for the other half of our power. The big difference is that to go nuclear would mean throwing money into a pit for 10 years before we got a single watt, then paying off the debt for another 20 years before it broke even. Effectively soaking up any investment in energy storage or new technologies.

Even if you accept the crazy claims that nuclear is economic for base load power production ( £92.50/MWhr , currently €127.50 but will cost more by 2023 when it might start , and a lot more by 2047 because it's index linked - compare to blue line on http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx ) you have to admit that over the next three decades it could be completely undermined by new technology.

A cheap wave machine or cheap energy storage or a new strain of oil rich algae.

Read my recent post where wind will be getting 17% less subsidy in the UK. I've been hearing about nuclear getting too cheap to meter since forever, but all the price drops have been in renewables.

In the renewable world the big question is whether the return on investment in the first few years would match how much the prices are expected to drop in the same time. Nuclear needs 35 years of index linked prices and a guaranteed demand to compete. 35 years ago solar was $27/watt. Today's prices are about 2% of that.


Early days for the 398MW Tidal turbine project in Scotland. Tidal is very predictable.
http://atlantisresourcesltd.com/media-centre/atlantis-annoucements/79-2015-annoucements/345-construction-of-onshore-facilities-starts-today-at-meygen-site.html



Oh yeah , it would be cheaper to upgrade insulation than build a nuclear plant to provide the extra heating. That's how much of a money pit nuclear is.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So nuclear wasn't economic without massive govt support ?


Considering how much cheaper solar and wind have gotten over the years, can you imagine how much cheaper they'd be now if the billions spent on failing to develop breeders ( Japan alone has spend something like €20Bn on a plant that was online for just ONE hour, and the billions spent on price support, and the billions earmarked for cleanup ($100Bn for Sellafield) and the billions that need to be spent on safety and climate control , most nukes are at sea level Hinkley C site was devastated back in 1707, had been spent on renewables ?

Hydro is a no-brainer if you ignore the environmental impact. AFAIK Nuclear has never caught up to hydro. Also globally nuclear has fallen from a peak of 17% electricity to 11% and is getting left behind by renewables.

Just compare solar and wind plans in India or China to Nuclear. Now do the same except if you count stuff in the pipeline you have to give renewables the same lead time.


Hydro can be great for load balancing. Both Nuclear and renewables need load balance, but at different times.

Here our maximum demand is twice the minimum so nuclear could never supply more than 50% of our power, and given the UK price it would only do that at multiples of the wholesale price. Renewables here are limited to 50% of grid power because of inverters and freqstability. Last winter they averaged 50% of that limit. So if our grid could handle up to 100% renewables then it's possible that we could get half our power from them in winter.

And whether we went nuclear or renewables, we'd still rely on fossil fuel for the other half of our power. The big difference is that to go nuclear would mean throwing money into a pit for 10 years before we got a single watt, then paying off the debt for another 20 years before it broke even. Effectively soaking up any investment in energy storage or new technologies.

Even if you accept the crazy claims that nuclear is economic for base load power production ( £92.50/MWhr , currently €127.50 but will cost more by 2023 when it might start , and a lot more by 2047 because it's index linked - compare to blue line on http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx ) you have to admit that over the next three decades it could be completely undermined by new technology.

A cheap wave machine or cheap energy storage or a new strain of oil rich algae.

Read my recent post where wind will be getting 17% less subsidy in the UK. I've been hearing about nuclear getting too cheap to meter since forever, but all the price drops have been in renewables.

In the renewable world the big question is whether the return on investment in the first few years would match how much the prices are expected to drop in the same time. Nuclear needs 35 years of index linked prices and a guaranteed demand to compete. 35 years ago solar was $27/watt. Today's prices are about 2% of that.


Early days for the 398MW Tidal turbine project in Scotland. Tidal is very predictable.
http://atlantisresourcesltd.com/media-centre/atlantis-annoucements/79-2015-annoucements/345-construction-of-onshore-facilities-starts-today-at-meygen-site.html



Oh yeah , it would be cheaper to upgrade insulation than build a nuclear plant to provide the extra heating. That's how much of a money pit nuclear is.

You appear desperate to demonise nuclear on the basis of some of the oldest out of date plants out there. The links I posted describe the new developments in nuclear that are being embraced by the coming new economic super powers in Asia. On top of that you continue to role out the falsehood that wind/solar are cheap and cheerfull based on the "free energy" myth. In the real world grids based on solar/wind are anything put cheap as the likes of Germany are finding this out big time.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602

The MIT study below is also insightful as to how the hidden costs of wind/solar on grids go unnoticed(or ignored in more cases) by policy makers and vested interests

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

You appear desperate to demonise nuclear on the basis of some of the oldest out of date plants out there.

wtf ? Hinkley C hasn't even been built yet. :rolleyes:

Then again neither have Olkiluoto or Flamanville and they have massive cost overruns and delays.

The links I posted describe the new developments in nuclear that are being embraced by the coming new economic super powers in Asia. On top of that you continue to role out the falsehood that wind/solar are cheap and cheerfull based on the "free energy" myth. In the real world grids based on solar/wind are anything put cheap as the likes of Germany are finding this out big time.

Please show me where I ever said wind/solar are cheaper than gas ??

Nuclear also falls in the the fallacy of "free energy" since the costs of construction are so much more than the current price of ore. But the raw costs of wind , wave and sunlight aren't expected to increase as much as uranium ore. And capital costs of renewables are directly comparable to nuclear. When you include the very long payback time and associated financing costs nuclear looses big time.


Also show me where Asia is investing more in Nuclear than in Solar / Wind.

China is getting more than 10 times as much energy from renewables as nuclear.
3785 TWh from coal, 86 TWh from gas, 97 TWh from nuclear, 872 TWh from hydro, and 147 TWh from non-hydro renewables. Yes they more than double the number of nukes from 21 by adding another 26. But they plan to add a lot of solar 15 GW this year and they added 20.7GW of wind last year




[quote[The MIT study below is also insightful as to how the hidden costs of wind/solar on grids go unnoticed(or ignored in more cases) by policy makers and vested interests[/QUOTE]Nothing new. It's the old wind doesn't blow 24/7 argument rehashed. Thing is solar produces power at peak demand when electricity is worth a lot more. Nuclear will be many times the wholesale price on windy summer nights.

And after me posting that renewables in the UK have their subsidies reduced by 17% while Olkiluoto is now three times it's original price and has been pushed back to late 2018

Capt'n Midnight

Oh dear. Tidal Lagoons are back on the menu.
The first could be delivering power before Hinkley C
The others could deliver power cheaper than Nuclear.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31682529

If approved, it could be generating power by 2022.
...
It wants £168 per MWh for electricity in Swansea, reducing to £90-£95 per MWh from a second, more efficient lagoon in Cardiff.
...
The £90 figure compares favourably with the £92.50 price for power from the planned Hinkley nuclear station, especially as the lagoon is designed to last 120 years - at a much lower risk than nuclear.

Then again you could stick a few wind turbines on the breakwaters and get offshore wind at close to onshore prices. Possibly opportunities for fish farms ? And of course they could be designed to provide some channelling for tidal turbines. And of course it there's the possibility of pumped storage.

Other benefits are water sports / amenities and coastal protection and fish nurseries.

Macha

These guys are on the PR offensive. They are doing the rounds in Brussels and London trying to gain support for their projects.

Capt'n Midnight

Here we go again. Nuclear power isn't reliable.

Wylfa nuclear power plant to shutdown for four weeks after problem found in reactor

Fire alarm prompts unscheduled shutdown of Prairie Island nuclear unit

Pennsylvania nuclear reactor returns to full power after 'hot shutdown' Limerick

Faulty pipe forces French nuke plant to shut down



Exelon officials have reported that Byron Generating Station Unit 1 automatically shut down Tuesday at 11:01 a.m., probably due to ice.

Sequoyah nuclear reactor unexpectedly shuts down


And hammering home the point that with the nuclear industry it's the same old same old where know problems crop up time and time again.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/blog/bal-report-faults-handling-of-near-miss-at-calvert-cliffs-nuclear-plantn-20150309-story.html

"Twice within the past five years, precipitation leaked into the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant and shorted out electrical power supplies," the report says, "causing one reactor to automatically shut down and components to malfunction that should have protected the second reactor from automatically shutting down."l

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Here we go again. Nuclear power isn't reliable.

Note they had "budgeted" for two months down time over the year.

Point Lepreau reactor hit by unexpected shutdown

NB Power confirms reactor will be down for likely 2 weeks because of a new refuelling problem
...
The refuelling issue is the latest in a series of problems at Point Lepreau, both large and small, that have caused it to miss budgeted production targets in each of its first three fiscal years since it was refurbished.

This year, the utility had budgeted for 67 down days, including 45 days for maintenance activities last spring and 22 days for unexpected problems, but those were all used last summer when the maintenance shut down went two weeks over schedule.

'Chunk of ice' shuts down Unit 1 at Byron nuclear power plant


Angra 1, one of Brazil's two nuclear reactors, has begun operating normally again nearly a month after being disconnected due to a cooling system failure, officials said.




Nuclear power can't be done on the cheap. Korea’s nuclear power plants had almost twelve times more industrial accidents than other kinds of power plants largely due to a shortage of manpower, the government said.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Here we go again. Nuclear power isn't reliable.

PSEG Nuclear took its 1,150 megawatt Salem Unit 1 reactor offline Sunday after workers were unable meet a deadline for restarting one of five fan units used to cool the plant's containment atmosphere.



Meanwhile in the world of Solar


you can now get 1,500V panels. so you extend the array 50% without loosing power, or use less copper than existing ones.

Jackie Chan Blu-ray disc boosts solar panel efficiency by a massive 22% nanopatterns increase efficiency


Can't find the link but you can buy 22% efficient panels now. The trick with bifacial panels is to make the backing transparent so they can collect extra light from the back or underside too.

Cree SiC MOSFET and Diode Technologies Achieve Higher Efficiency and up to 15 Percent Lower Cost

Cree, Inc. (Nasdaq: CREE), a market leader in silicon carbide (SiC) power products, has demonstrated that its best-in-class SiC MOSFET and diode technologies enable previously unattainable levels of power density in string solar inverter products, yielding ultra-high efficiencies (greater than 99.1 percent at peak) at one-fifth the average size and weight of today’s silicon-based inverter units.

So Solar costs are still dropping. Ancillary costs are dropping too. Efficiency of cells and converters is still increasing.

The same can't be said of Nuclear. Construction of EDF's EPR for Olkiluoto 3 in Finland started 10 years ago. The one in China has been pushed back to the end of the year. And let's not forget that there may be teething problems even then.

Some of these solar cell industry prices are less than 30c per watt for lower grade cells. Yes you have to integrate them into panels but still
From €0.258 / Wp :eek:

Capt'n Midnight

Another update, longer lasting PV panels. Another step to reducing the lifetime cost of solar.

http://www.solitek.eu/en/technology/innovation/

Glass/Glass modules are produced by laminating PV cells between two sheets of glass and insulating the module around its perimeter by using edge-sealing technology. The insulation material Butyl ensures better resistance to atmospheric conditions (in comparison to all other PV modules in the market) and a longer lifespan of 30-40 years. This innovation was brought in from the edge-sealing technology used in the time-tested car glass industry.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Here we go again. Nuclear power isn't reliable.

FRENCHTOWN TOWNSHIP, Michigan — DTE Energy Co. says it has shut down the Fermi 2 nuclear power plant after a water leak was detected within the dry well that encloses its reactor.


Just in case there are still apologists out there the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014 makes for depressing reading. Unreal waste of money on nuclear, and then consider the plants that have closed or had incidents or construction delays since then.
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-2014-.html

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

PSEG Nuclear took its 1,150 megawatt Salem Unit 1 reactor offline Sunday after workers were unable meet a deadline for restarting one of five fan units used to cool the plant's containment atmosphere.

All you've proven with any of these stories is that power plants sometimes fail. I'm sure that coal and gas plants have burst steam pipes and other maladies from time to time indeed I recall our own peat fired power plants having been plagued with many of the same kinds of issues as what you've posted, corroding aluminium and stuff like that.

Meanwhile in the world of Solar


you can now get 1,500V panels. so you extend the array 50% without loosing power, or use less copper than existing ones.

Jackie Chan Blu-ray disc boosts solar panel efficiency by a massive 22% nanopatterns increase efficiency

Yet the cost keeps rising. And rising. And you still haven't identified a solar panel that can produce power on a winters night - when power is most needed. Fact is and remains that only nuclear power can produce CO2 free electricity just about any time it is required, e.g. when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. Fact is and remains that not using nuclear power inevitably means using more fossil fuels.

And you still haven't explained why countries that embrace green technology end up paying through the nose while countries with nuclear have cheaper power.

Please go to this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing sort the list by electricity price per country, then explain to us all why the countries in the Top 10 for expensive electricity are all either small remote island countries in the middle of some ocean, or countries that have embranced an Environmental-Left policy on electricity.

Macha

One enormous caveat on retail prices is they hide subsidies so they're not a good way of judging technology costs. Actually they're probably one of the worst ways to be honest.

Prices and costs, people. They're different things and it helps to understand the difference, especially when it comes to energy.

Still people keep trying to use then to prove a point, mostly around French nuclear which receives monster subsidies, allowing retail prices to be kept artificially low. I'd find it funny if it weren't so tiring.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

All you've proven with any of these stories is that power plants sometimes fail. I'm sure that coal and gas plants have burst steam pipes and other maladies from time to time indeed I recall

recall ?
My point is that nuclear drops out regularly. Even I was surprised by how many went off line since my original post.

The big problem with nuclear is that concerns about safety mean they are required to shutdown at the drop of a hat. And unlike thermal plants you can't simply restart when you like. Xenon poisoning means if you can't restart in a few hours you'll have to wait a few days.

Yet the cost keeps rising. And rising. And you still haven't identified a solar panel that can produce power on a winters night - when power is most needed. Fact is and remains that only nuclear power can produce CO2 free electricity just about any time it is required, e.g. when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. Fact is and remains that not using nuclear power inevitably means using more fossil fuels.

In the Nuclear world Investment cost estimates have increased in the past decade or so from US$1,000 to around US$8,000 per installed kilowatt.


No solar at night ?
If only we had some way to predict when this was likely to happen then perhaps maybe we could have some sort of contingency plan.


Instead with nuclear you can have unplanned outages lasting weeks. Or even years. Not to mention the political dimension. Or construction delays.

Cost keeps rising ?? Solar is getting cheaper, I posted links to 25.8c a watt cells. Efficiency is creeping up so the amount of space needed is dropping too. Thing about solar is that all the capital costs are falling, it's constant nibble, nibble

And you still haven't explained why countries that embrace green technology end up paying through the nose while countries with nuclear have cheaper power.

In what universe is £92.5/MWh index linked for decades cheap ? Not to mention guarantees and loans and having other power suppliers subsidise the spinning reserve level only needed by nuclear.


You keep going on about how solar and wind require gas for load balancing. The thing is that Nuclear absolutely requires another generation source for load balancing. In France they do that by using lots of inefficient electrical heating and exporting and importing the stuff to and from Germany and even then because of shale gas the price of coal has dropped enough that France is a nett importer of power from Germany but you don't hear much about the extra CO2 caused by French Nuclear. And France has about 20GW of hydro on tap.


Very roughly our base load is 2GW. In winter it's 1GW more. During office hours or early evening it's another GW more. Record demand was another 1GW more. And for redundancy and downtime it's worth having 1GW more on the system.

So we need 6GW of dispatchable power on the grid and Nuclear can only provide 2GW of that unless we run it at low capacity and given the capital costs that's not remotely economic. We already have enough wind to provide that 2GW when the conditions are right. So wind can replace as much fossil fuel as nuclear, it just does it at different times.


Argentina's third Nuclear Plant came on line last summer. It started construction in 1981. The amount of capital tied up in the project and the interest costs defy logic. How much solar did the UK have in 1981 ? How much solar did the UK have four years ago ? They now have 5GW

There is a HUGE disconnect between what nuclear promises and what is delivered. Until the nuclear industry can consistently deliver what it promises everything said should be taken with a grain of salt. Or taken as blatant lies since no nuclear plant currently under construction has reached an important milestone on budget and on time. Seriously. Name one. The best that can be said is that they aren't late or over budget yet.


Nuclear is a one trick pony. It can provide base load power at twice the wholesale rate. With smart grids we don't need as much base load power as before because renewables, pumped storage, interconnectors and demand shedding can step in.

It also requires long transmission lines. It's thermally inefficient because radiation damage to materials and the usual dual heat exchange means you can't run reactors as hot as other thermal plants.

Old coal plants are maybe 27% efficient, the latest gas plants are up to 60% efficient. Gas also emits half the CO2 of coal per unit of heat. So overall we can get three or four times as much electricity for the same CO2 emissions than we used to be able to. The switch to gas has removed more CO2 than nuclear. Actually moving from Incandescent to CFL / LED would save more power than nuclear provides globally.

Our grid runs at 50Hz. When demand goes up this changes. Smart appliances could shed demand based on this. Things with thermal inertial like fridges, the heating cycle in washing machine and dishwashers and immersions and even well insulated ovens and air con and room heaters. Demand shedding would benefit nuclear but like pumped storage it also benefits renewables. Pretty much any investment in the grid needed to cater for nuclear also benefits renewables.


Please do me a favour and read this
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-2014-.html

Impetus

The French nuclear industry pretends that it delivers electricity at around 2c per kWh into the wholesale market. As a result electricity is sold at retail for about 10,5c per kWh by a state controlled 99% monopoly into the ejit retail market.

No account in their costings has been taken into consideration for disposal costs, and the real depreciation/replacement cost. The typical 1GW nuclear plant now costs 22 billion EUR for supply and installation of the hardware. This excludes "fuel" and the little issue of lifespan. eg if a plant lasts for 50 years, and costs 20 billion, that is 400 million a year capital write-off. Add to that the storage until they are "dead" costs of waste (ie almost zero half-live status). 500 years in a cave in a zero quake zone with no water table or similar risks. Which is close to extremely difficult.

I'm alright Jack. Down here on the Med, where one is heavily solar dependant, there was an eclipse. Not a trivial event either. And there wasn't a blip on the power supply.

We need to be engineering the supply/storage platform to take advantage of local stuff - such as sun, wind, wave, tidal and developing storage systems (be they storing sea water in a peninsula in Kerry or using ultra-capacitors or making use of the most promising battery technologies) and connecting everything over multi-continent-wide grid networks to balance the load.

Markcheese

I suppose what it comes down to is the only cheap continous cleanish power supply at the moment is natural gas ... And as to its future price, future supply or even availability it's not great to be too reliant on it .
Everything else has it's issues too - renewables are intermittent -but their down times can be predicted to some degree-
Coal is duurrtty - and not as easy to handle -distribute as piped gas -
Wave doesn't really exist anywhere yet -
Nuclear is politically and financially impossible in Ireland -
So a more dependable gas network ( which would cost more ) ? Backing up more wind ( solar in Ireland ?) - better grid and storage and more interconnectors - all means more capital though .

Impetus

Markcheese wrote: »

I suppose what it comes down to is the only cheap continous cleanish power supply at the moment is natural gas ... And as to its future price, future supply or even availability it's not great to be too reliant on it .
Everything else has it's issues too - renewables are intermittent -but their down times can be predicted to some degree-
Coal is duurrtty - and not as easy to handle -distribute as piped gas -
Wave doesn't really exist anywhere yet -
Nuclear is politically and financially impossible in Ireland -
So a more dependable gas network ( which would cost more ) ? Backing up more wind ( solar in Ireland ?) - better grid and storage and more interconnectors - all means more capital though .

Near zero interest rates have been the norm for the last decade or so and likely continue for some time. Especially for gov borrowing - even IRL government "bills" are now neg interest rate (-0,01% of late). Let the private sector manage and the gov invest in infrastructure, because private entities have to pay higher % interest on big iron investments. The same goes for electricity interconnectors with mainland Europe, and grid infrastructure generally. By all means use privately incentivized management. But maximise gov investment in fixed assets - to control ownership and minimise financial costs. The alternative is eircom-like disasters with the highest phone subscriptions in the world and a national phone company that goes through multiple hedge fund rip-off exercises, leaving it with high debt levels, replete with corrupt employee incentives.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

All you've proven with any of these stories is that power plants sometimes fail. I'm sure that coal and gas plants have burst steam pipes and other maladies from time to time indeed I recall our own peat fired power plants having been plagued with many of the same kinds of issues as what you've posted, corroding aluminium and stuff like that.

No , what I've shown is that out of just 388 nuclear plants in operation a good % have failed in the last month.

Also regarding corrosion look up the cumulative problems with corrosion in steam generators in US reactors. Or Belgian.

Nuclear reactors are much larger than steam / gas / hydro turbines so each one that goes off line means a bigger hit to the grid.

http://www.dw.de/cracks-belgian-nuclear-reactors/a-18271456 Looks like the cracks in the Belgian reactors are from Hydrogen embrittlement and the effects of radiation itself ,the energy will distort structure in the metal. So it's likely that other reactors will have the same issues if he nuclear industry were to delve into them.


Oh and another one. You just can't rely on nuclear.
http://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/2015/03/lacey_nuclear_power_plant_shut_down_after_electric.html

The nation's oldest nuclear power plant has shut down temporarily after an electrical issue occurred in a system that controls steam pressure.

A spokeswoman of the Oyster Creek plant in Ocean County says staffers will troubleshoot the problem and make necessary repairs to bring it back online. She says all systems operated as designed during the automatic shutdown on Sunday afternoon.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Yet the cost keeps rising. And rising.

What are you talking about? The cost of solar is plummeting. Grid-scale solar in the US can deliver electricity for about 7 – 9 cents per kWh – that’s competitive versus gas:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/topaz-turns-on-9-million-solar-panels

SeanW wrote: »

And you still haven't identified a solar panel that can produce power on a winters night - when power is most needed.

Nobody is suggesting we should be 100% reliant on solar electricity, are they?

SeanW wrote: »

Fact is and remains that only nuclear power can produce CO2 free electricity…

Nothing can produce 100% CO2-free electricity.

SeanW wrote: »

And you still haven't explained why countries that embrace green technology end up paying through the nose while countries with nuclear have cheaper power.

How many times has it been pointed out to you now that nuclear is anything but cheap? Yet you keep overlooking the fact. You’re telling us that nuclear is cheap, yet Hinkley Point C is going to be phenomenally expensive. Construction costs are estimated at £24.5 billion and EDF have been guaranteed a massive strike price of £92.5 per MWh.

Markcheese

Solar costs are plummeting and 7 to 9 cent per kW may be comparable to gas except it's the system costs that counts-
A solar system needs other components to balance out peaks and something to provide power at night -
A gas based system doesn't - ( but who wants all their eggs in one basket )
So if you had a lot of solar on the grid ( Germany / southern USA ) you really want smart meters as well . So day time around noon would be off peak - 2 or 3 am would be expensive -
I'd also argue that payment for solar / renewable should be based on peaks as well - lowest payment around mid -day highest payment in morning and evening -