Nuwclear delays and projections

[Urbandreamer]

For some reason a number post whenever there is a thread about wind investment claiming that we should go nuclear instead.

As if there need be a choice.

Anyway, I note with some surprise that the current nuclear plants being built have had the date that they go online delayed until after the windfall tax ends.
It is also somewhat surprising that EDF couldn't find private investors to help out, back before the current delay.

As I said, there does not need to be a choice. It can be neither instead!

You know I often think that "the law of unintended consequences" should be renamed "the law of the bloody obvious".

Just possibly investors will forget and decide that they can trust the UK government. That needs to happen if claimed government intentions are to come to pass.

Roadmap sets out how UK will increase nuclear generation by up to 4 times to 24GW by 2050

The government is also today publishing 2 consultations, one on a new approach to siting future nuclear power stations and another on supporting the sector and encouraging private investment to roll out advanced nuclear projects. The proposals will attract investment in the UK nuclear sector by empowering developers to find suitable sites rather than focusing on 8 designated by government.

[Hallucigenia]

Meanwhile, the one data point for actual nuclear costs in the real world just gets worse :
https://www.ft.com/content/1157591c-d51 ... 8349203abd

Hinkley Point C nuclear plant has been delayed until 2029 at the earliest, with the cost spiralling to as much as £46bn, in the latest blow to a project at the heart of the country’s long-term energy plans....

Under EDF’s latest scenario, one of the two planned reactors at Hinkley Point C could be ready in 2029, a two-year hold-up compared with the company’s previous estimate of 2027. But it could be further delayed to 2031 in adverse conditions, EDF said. It did not give an estimate for the second reactor. 

EDF said the cost would now be between £31bn-£35bn based on 2015 prices, depending on when Hinkley Point C was completed. In today’s prices, the cost would balloon to as much as £46bn. The initial budget was £18bn, with a scheduled completion date of 2025...
The then chief executive of EDF, Vincent de Rivaz, had boasted in 2007 that by 2017 Britons would be able to cook their Christmas turkeys using electricity from Hinkley....

CGN of China, had agreed to finance 33.5 per cent of the original cost. But after paying its contracted share, the Chinese group is refusing to make further contributions related to cost overruns at Hinkley after it was in effect pushed out of other UK nuclear schemes


£46bn for 3.2GW works out at £14.375bn per GW. The Dogger Bank windfarm is costing around £10bn for 3.6GW, so £2.8bn/GW. Even if you adjust for capacity, the windfarm will cost ~£5bn per GW - that leaves nearly £10bn/GW to pay for storage.

[daveh]

Meanwhile, the one data point for actual nuclear costs in the real world just gets worse :
https://www.ft.com/content/1157591c-d51 ... 8349203abd



£46bn for 3.2GW works out at £14.375bn per GW. The Dogger Bank windfarm is costing around £10bn for 3.6GW, so £2.8bn/GW. Even if you adjust for capacity, the windfarm will cost ~£5bn per GW - that leaves nearly £10bn/GW to pay for storage.

Plus the fuel for Dogger Bank is free, Hinckley point requires a supply of uranium which will have a cost (how much?) plus ongoing costs for securely dealing with the spent fuel, which will further add to Hinckley Points costs. The one advantage is that, bar planned and unplanned maintenance, Hinckley's power will be available continuously.

[Hallucigenia]

The one advantage is that, bar planned and unplanned maintenance, Hinckley's power will be available continuously.

So not continuously then.

The British nuclear fleet averages something like 78% availability, EDF's fleet in France has been more like 50% and touched ~35% at one point - in the real world, nuclear can be less "reliable" than wind...

[daveh]

The one advantage is that, bar planned and unplanned maintenance, Hinckley's power will be available continuously.

So not continuously then.

The British nuclear fleet averages something like 78% availability, EDF's fleet in France has been more like 50% and touched ~35% at one point - in the real world, nuclear can be less "reliable" than wind...

You would hope with Hinckley Point being new that it would be able to better that average 78% availability for the rather elderly and well past its designed lifespan UK nuclear fleet. (Though I'm not holding my breath for that to turn out to be true if and when it finally comes online).

[Hallucigenia]

You would hope with Hinckley Point being new that it would be able to better that average 78% availability for the rather elderly and well past its designed lifespan UK nuclear fleet.

You've got to look at lifetime availability rather than the special case of when it's brand new, but even when new the need for refuelling means they never get above 90% or so. And Sizewell B started having major unexpected interruptions 13-18 years after it started generating in 1995.

[DrFfybes]

The one advantage is that, bar planned and unplanned maintenance, Hinckley's power will be available continuously.

So not continuously then.

The British nuclear fleet averages something like 78% availability, EDF's fleet in France has been more like 50% and touched ~35% at one point - in the real world, nuclear can be less "reliable" than wind...

Less reliable perhaps, but hopefully more predicatable.

The costs and delays are ludicrous, EDF blaming UK regs that forced them to use more materials (steel and concrete) that apparently should have been identified before work started, and blaming Covid for pushing up costs of things that should have been built before the pandemic is really their own making.

Why do large scale projects always go massively over time and budget? They could probably have saved a couple of million on QS, costing consultants, planners and project strategists and just done it on a beermat down the pub and not been any further out.

[daveh]

Less reliable perhaps, but hopefully more predicatable.

Not necessarily. Wind power is pretty predictable - basically as accurate as the weather forecast, so should be very good out to 24 hrs and then steadily becoming less reliable. But with nuclear if something goes wrong* and a plant needs to be taken off grid rapidly that's 3.2GW dropping off the grid with little or no notice. Which I'm told is not easy to cope with.

* and that doesn't have to be the nuclear side it could be a problem with the steam plant which IIRC is what has taken some of the present nuclear plant off line for unplanned maintenance.

[scotview]

Even at 46 £billion each, we could have got:

9 Hinkley's for the Covid spend and 3 Hinkley's for HS2 spend to date.

Think of all the future angst that would have removed and created good quality, future proofed jobs, as well as a REAL boost to GDP and productivity .....funny old world.

We could maybe even have created our own UK nuclear industry, including fuel hedging. It would have nullified the storage debate, to a greater extent, also. To say nothing of helping achieve a relatively painless net zero target.

Boris eh ?

[Hallucigenia]

Even at 46 £billion each, we could have got:

9 Hinkley's for the Covid spend and 3 Hinkley's for HS2 spend to date.

Think of all the future angst that would have removed and created good quality, future proofed jobs, as well as a REAL boost to GDP and productivity .

Spend to date on HS2 is £27bn, so half a Hinkley Point.

And energy costing 3x the alternative does not boost productivity, it closes down industry (qv Port Talbot).