UKC

Hinkley C ( what the **** is going on ?)

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Jim C 28 Jul 2016

Finally EDF say oui , but we now say peut-etre.

What IS going on?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36903904
Post edited at 22:35
KevinD 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Finally EDF say oui , but we now say peut-etre.

I think someone is going to get screwed and the government have realised if EDF are saying yes then they are pretty confident it will be us.
 MonkeyPuzzle 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:
EU negotiating chip? Otherwise bollocksed if I know. Great for my job security if it goes ahead, but probably less good as a bill payer.
Post edited at 22:40
 SenzuBean 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

A rebrand will sort that out. Hinckley point to be renamed 'Power Britain'.
Jim C 28 Jul 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> I think someone is going to get screwed and the government have realised if EDF are saying yes then they are pretty confident it will be us.

I'm not so sure.
My guess is that they are reassessing EDF and Areva's capability to ever deliver this design when it has not managed any as yet with already 7 year delays , design flaws, falsification of documentation, and billions overspends .

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/17/edf-senior-managers-hinkle...
Post edited at 22:44
Jim C 28 Jul 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> EU negotiating chip? Otherwise bollocksed if I know. Great for my job security if it goes ahead, but probably less good as a bill payer.

If it is a Brexit negotiating ploy , it is misplaced I think, they might just call our governments bluff and pull out.

It seems to me that EDF are having their arms twisted by the politicians to take on this contract. ( and even the unions in France are against it)
The French Government having an 85% share may be forcing the EDF board to agree to this.
 wintertree 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

I don't know what's going on, and if the governments experts are even half as wrong as the "experts" on the radio this morning, the government won't know what's going on.

Or perhaps someone spoke to our naval reactor people and realised that the skills and technology to build reactors do still exist within the UK. It'd be interesting to see what a power station using a series of land based PWR3s would look like.

Still, no rush, it's not like we are running out of contingency capacity on the grid and planning to move from fossil fueled cars to electric cars whilst also facing pressure to reduce fossil use in generation and increased uncertainty over the security of imported energy...
1
In reply to Jim C:
Kryten sums it up fairly well...

youtube.com/watch?v=E5lg73SDYUw&
Post edited at 23:08
 DancingOnRock 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

£18bn is a lot of money for them to find.
Removed User 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

Nationalise electric generation. Bring back the CEGB. I know it wasn't perfect but we never had prospect of the grid running out of elecy.
Jim C 28 Jul 2016
In reply to George Killaspy:

Very good, it might have overstated the TMI incident a tad , but otherwise the numbers( and risks) just don't add up.
 MonkeyPuzzle 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:

If only. More likely to be broken up further if anything.
Jim C 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:
> Nationalise electric generation.
Bring back the CEGB. I know it wasn't perfect but we never had prospect of the grid running out of elecy.

I liked the CEGB, they used to order a power station, give you a few million to get it started, and then had standard part numbers right across the fleet in the country, and you could make large quantities (with the economies of scale) , knowing they could be used on any of the stations .
The multitude of new , mostly foreign owners, appear to me to have little concern of the national interest to keep all the stations properly maintained and running efficiently for the good if the country as a whole. They just run on short term contracts, maximising profits.
As soon as the profit margins drop, as maintenance costs rise, they close the stations, and the jobs, and capacity to generate electricity, go with them. ( and what do the owners care?)
Post edited at 23:38
Jim C 28 Jul 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

<. More likely to be broken up further if anything.

The remaining coal stations ( no matter who owns them) that are not converted to biomass, will be closed by 2025, according to the previous energy 'strategy '.
Carbon capture and storage was abandoned , and renewables have not found government favour either.
New nuclear generation is a similar mess.( as we know)
Gas stations were supposed to be a short term answer, great , but no one is building them, certainly not the government.

Who would want to invest in any of this , especially if it meant it was broken up even more than it is?

 birdie num num 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

If Hinkley goes ahead, it's going to be touch and go regarding sucking back the gas meter with a vacuum cleaner.
I think Gov.Uk have realised this and are now hedging.
 MonkeyPuzzle 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

There's more than just generation in the chain. Most likely split would be between transmission system operator (responsible for ensuring moment-to-moment system stability/balancing) and transmission system owner (responsible for maintenance and asset health replacements), which both currently sit with National Grid.
 digby 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

Hopefully they'll decide that a few smaller installations with a tried and tested technology producing power at a competitive rate is a better idea.
In reply to wintertree:

> Or perhaps someone spoke to our naval reactor people and realised that the skills and technology to build reactors do still exist within the UK. It'd be interesting to see what a power station using a series of land based PWR3s would look like.

interesting thought. I'm currently rolling out a scoping programme with a company with a 'naval reactor people' division looking at small modular reactors. This will be for distributed applications, but as you point out could be built up for monolithic applications. I'm expecting a large funded R&D programme to be announced soon too. However, you can imagine the time to delivery of these programmes.
Prob best to ask Siemens for a bulk deal on CHP units and get them distributed around the country in the interim.
 rallymania 29 Jul 2016
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

I've been asking about this for years... on these documentaries about nuclear powered subs / aircraft carriers they keep saying things like " each reactor could produce enough power for 150,000 homes".... well, why aren't we doing that then?
 Phil1919 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

Do we know how easy it will be to decommission something like Hinkley point? I realise technology has moved on but I've seen myself how expensive and time consuming decommissioning Trawsfynydd is.
 dread-i 29 Jul 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

>£18bn is a lot of money for them to find.

Most expensive object on earth?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36160368

I can't help wondering if it would be better value to put solar panels on every house, turbines out at sea and to pump water up hill each night to act as a power storage facility.
But, it doesn't have that big willy waving factor, that a huge reactor has.
5
 MonkeyPuzzle 29 Jul 2016
In reply to dread-i:

If they invest a fraction of the Hinckley money in developing large scale power storage, then we can make better use of renewables. The issue is about base load, which we need even when the sun's not shining and the wind not blowing. Until then, I think small embedded nuclear generation should be something looked at much closer, but, again, it doesn't have the willy waving satisfaction of a Hinckley Point.
1
In reply to rallymania:
It's do-able, and would obvs. Need a re-design to allow re-fuelling rather than core swap, plus the design horizon for a civil installation is much longer than time between re-fits for a sub or aircraft carrier. The business case for that is outside my expertise.
If we binned HS2, we could afford to upgrade rail and buy shed loads of nuclear, plus support tidal lagoon development in S Wales.
I did suggest using naval units to a manufacturer, but got an unoquicocal message that a new modular design would be required
Post edited at 09:32
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> If they invest a fraction of the Hinckley money in developing large scale power storage, then we can make better use of renewables. The issue is about base load, which we need even when the sun's not shining and the wind not blowing. Until then, I think small embedded nuclear generation should be something looked at much closer, but, again, it doesn't have the willy waving satisfaction of a Hinckley Point.

I've lost contact with the project at the moment because of other stuff on my desk, but sat on the steering committee of a really large funded project on cryogenic energy storage at Brum Uni which was going well and has huge potential. I'll see if I can check on progress.
 wintertree 29 Jul 2016
In reply to dread-i:

> I can't help wondering if it would be better value to put solar panels on every house, turbines out at sea and to pump water up hill each night to act as a power storage facility.
But, it doesn't have that big willy waving factor, that a huge reactor has.

If you run the numbers on total roof area and solar illumination this works for domestic energy use for perhaps 9 months of the year. Winter however is another matter. It's not enough for industry. It won't be enough for cars switching from fossil fuels to electricity.

I'd like to see all new roofs and all replacement roofs being made with integrated solar - "solar slates" in conservation areas - and electric cars playing a large part in the buffering. However it isn't enough unless we abandon industry and motility.
 wintertree 29 Jul 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Until then, I think small embedded nuclear generation should be something looked at much closer, but, again

Agreed - however your "but" is perhaps a bit unfair as a distributed small reactor system has significantly worse issues in terms of safety, both internal to the plant (many more systems is many more failure points) and also in terms of maintaining the security of fissile material.

Combine distributed systems with a sub-critical "energy amplifier" system using thorium isotopes and you're combating this. However it produces no useful weapons-grade isotopes. Is this why such systems never get any traction?? Answers on a postcode...
1
 MonkeyPuzzle 29 Jul 2016
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

> I've lost contact with the project at the moment because of other stuff on my desk, but sat on the steering committee of a really large funded project on cryogenic energy storage at Brum Uni which was going well and has huge potential. I'll see if I can check on progress.

Interesting. One of my colleagues is Project Engineer for the first (to my knowledge) large battery bank connection to the transmission network near Culham. There may already be some connected at a distribution level, but again I'm not aware of it.

It'd be an amazing thing to crack, as it makes most of the arguments against renewables go away.
 DancingOnRock 29 Jul 2016
In reply to wintertree:

Security is a big issue in several modular systems.

Also cooling. A nuclear sub is surrounded by cold water that you can dump excess heat into. A similar reactor on land would presumably not be quite as 'small'.
 neilh 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

It does seem as though alot of EDF's top team cannot agree as to whether it is a good idea judging from the press.There have been a couple of resignations - the Group FD resigned a few months ago - saying it was not a good idea.

Also Osborme liked the idea of Chinese money being involved, maybe May has always been against this.
 MonkeyPuzzle 29 Jul 2016
In reply to wintertree:

Sorry, yes; thorium, for the reasons you mentioned.

Why? It's now well known that the first nuclear plants were primarily bomb factories, with the power they generated as a cherry on top, but now I have no idea why thorium hasn't had more of a push.
 ByEek 29 Jul 2016
In reply to neilh:

> It does seem as though alot of EDF's top team cannot agree as to whether it is a good idea judging from the press.There have been a couple of resignations - the Group FD resigned a few months ago - saying it was not a good idea.

Agreed. This is one of those deals that works for no one. EDF are up to the elbows in risk and the government are in it up to their elbows in paying for electricity whether it is delivered or not at a price way too high. After all the hugely expensive (to the public purse) private public finance deals of past, this is the most sensible thing the Tory government have ever done.
 rallymania 29 Jul 2016
open question

if we, as in the UK, spent the 40 old billion pounds on replacing the trident submarine fleet with SERIOUS investment in nuclear fusion, does anyone think we might actually get it to work in a semi reasonable time frame?

Last i heard Lochheed (among others) have thrown their hats into the fusion ring and claim, with proper investment, there's nothing that can't be solved...




 wintertree 29 Jul 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Security is a big issue in several modular systems.

Definitely, especially if distributed.

> Also cooling. A nuclear sub is surrounded by cold water that you can dump excess heat into. A similar reactor on land would presumably not be quite as 'small'.

The at-sea reactor isn't that much closer to the sea than one on land which is typically coastal. It's not like you can just let the sea flood into the reactor compartment - far from it. The cooling systems at sea have far more constraints than those on land, as they have to be much quieter to evade detection, they have to deal with an unstable gravity vector when the sub dives/climbs or crashes/sinks.

The problem with cooling is when things go wrong. Lots can go wrong on a sub. On the other hand I suspect they're less vulnurable to weather and perhaps tsunami!
 jkarran 29 Jul 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> It'd be an amazing thing to crack, as it makes most of the arguments against renewables go away.

Widespread adoption of grid charged electric transport coupled with smarter metering/billing will diminish many of the technical issues associated with renewable power. The problem is the problems we face currently aren't predominantly technical they're political and seemingly getting worse, not better.
jk
Post edited at 10:30
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Interesting. One of my colleagues is Project Engineer for the first (to my knowledge) large battery bank connection to the transmission network near Culham. There may already be some connected at a distribution level, but again I'm not aware of it.

> It'd be an amazing thing to crack, as it makes most of the arguments against renewables go away.

The take up of BEVs and vehicle to grid connection will make a significant contribution. However, there's no free lunch ever. Even with advances in battery tech, there is a cost with cycling and deep discharge degradation of batteries, so you need a much larger capacity then the base capacity you're trying to provide. I guess the battery degradation compensation would be built into the lease terms of EV battery packs. Needs proper smart grid to roll it out too.
I worked on Mega-Joule flywheel energy storage years ago with what used to be URENCO. They are certainly installed as transient energy storage in transit systems in the States to buffer decelerating/accelerating trains at stations. The plan was to build banks of them into substations in the UK. Got buried and never happened.
I lost track of that as (as usual) it just kind of disappeared.
 DancingOnRock 29 Jul 2016
In reply to wintertree:

Ha. That'll be why it's at the coast then. Good point.

Although with sea levels due to rise that could present another issue.
 MonkeyPuzzle 29 Jul 2016
In reply to jkarran:

5-year governments, one after another, have been shown that they cannot be trusted with energy policy for which "short-term" should mean 50-100 years. There should be an independent body, like a Bank of England for energy, which should take it out of their hands. We don't even have to make the perfect decision for energy policy - we just have to make *a* decision and see it through.
 DancingOnRock 29 Jul 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Hmmm. Almost like the CEGB then?
Post edited at 10:55
 MonkeyPuzzle 29 Jul 2016
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Communist!
 wintertree 29 Jul 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> It'd be an amazing thing to crack, as it makes most of the arguments against renewables go away.

It doesn't really. If you specify any storage system for a week long lull in wind and sun during a cold, still winter period (even if sunny there's little power over a day in the sun then), it will be 15x over specified for the rest of the year, so it'll offer very poor return on investment or be unaffordable expensive depending on how you look at it.

A possible exception is using the gas grid for storage using renewable powered methane synthesis. That leverages existing infrastructure more than most, and given the compressibility and high energy density of such has has an exceptional storage capacity.
 GrahamD 29 Jul 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> 5-year governments, one after another, have been shown that they cannot be trusted with energy policy for which "short-term" should mean 50-100 years.

Not just energy, but environment / fisheries and infrastructure.

I agree to an extent that any energy policy based on rolling renewal of generating resources is likely to be better than the stop / start we get from party politics.

 Jack B 29 Jul 2016
In reply to dread-i:

> I can't help wondering if it would be better value to put solar panels on every house, turbines out at sea and to pump water up hill each night to act as a power storage facility.

Don't "wonder", calculate. It'll only take you a couple of minutes to look up the figures and doodle on the back of an envelope, then you'll know.

A 3MW turbine costs about $10m. It'll produce 3MW under ideal wind conditions, but it'll average about 1MW. Hinkley point is a 3200MW installation, and it'll produce that pretty much 24/7. So to replace it you'll need 3200 big tubines at $10m each - $32bn or £24bn.

A 1kW solar panel can be had for £1-2k on ebay. It's dark half the time, and cloudy a lot of the time, so it might average 200W. To replace Hinkley you'll need 16 million of them - not far off one per household. Cost £16-32bn, so about the same as the wind turbines.

Cruachan stores about 10000MWh. To store enough energy to provide 3200MW for 1 week requires 537600MWh, so 54 new Cruachan-sized plants (if we can find space for them). Cruachan cost £25m to build in the fifties, that's about £500m in today's money, so 54 of them costs £27bn.

Total cost about £50bn. These are very rough numbers, but even if I'm off by a factor of two Hinkley doesn't look awful by comparison. The truth is that low-carbon energy is expensive, and Hinkley would produce a lot of it.
 MonkeyPuzzle 29 Jul 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> It doesn't really. If you specify any storage system for a week long lull in wind and sun during a cold, still winter period (even if sunny there's little power over a day in the sun then), it will be 15x over specified for the rest of the year, so it'll offer very poor return on investment or be unaffordable expensive depending on how you look at it.

Coupled with the increasing number of HVDC interconnectors - France, NI, ROI, Netherlands, Norway, and possibly a whole North Sea 'grid' - it doesn't necessarily have to be windy or sunny *here*.
 galpinos 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Jack B:
Hinkley Point C is estimated at £18billion. Flamanville was estimated at 3.3billion Euro and will come in at about 11billion, can we expect Hinkley C to be £54billion?

Edit: Olkiluoto 3 is also 3 times over budget and nine years late so there is a precedent......
Post edited at 12:05
 jkarran 29 Jul 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
We are almost uniquely positioned to exploit tidal power too being an island with several big tidal runs that are well out of phase with each other.

There are also big savings to be had still on the demand side and it's potentially much cheaper than building new generating/storage capacity. I look around work here and we're using probably 3 times the energy we need but nobody in charge of the purse strings cares (or more to the point is incentivised/pressured/compelled... chose your method) to tackle it. Then there are the 'smart consumption' possibilities brought about by ever better electronics and data networks, choosing when energy is consumed to dampen out the spikes in supply and demand, this allows say the thermal mass of a fridge or building to behave quite like grid connected storage. The problem is it needs some real leadership and on a large scale, just the sort of thing we're rapidly retreating from with our EU exit to make it happen, market forces alone won't, there are too many players who all have to be brought together in one place at one time. Implementing it on a large scale in a piecemeal fashion won't work.
jk
Post edited at 12:04
 wintertree 29 Jul 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Coupled with the increasing number of HVDC interconnectors - France, NI, ROI, Netherlands, Norway, and possibly a whole North Sea 'grid' - it doesn't necessarily have to be windy or sunny *here*.

True, but current grids load balance over much smaller physical scales. As the physical scale increases, losses increase. This improved with superconducting DC grids but they're pretty infant at the moment.

Also, much of Europe is less windy than the UK. Sunnier though . Problem is, deep winter happens everywhere in Europe in the same period.
Post edited at 12:10
 MonkeyPuzzle 29 Jul 2016
In reply to jkarran:
I was appointed as Project Engineer for the substation connection for the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, but that keeps on being kicked down the road, presumably because you would've had to have been mad to invest your money in renewables under this and the previous government. I hope it'll land again on my desk in the near future, because it would be a cool thing to be even a small part of, but I'll not hold my breath.

Agree with all your second paragraph. Unless there's an as-yet-unseen grasping of the problem by those at the top we'll still be having this debate by the time the people of the Maldives are up to their knees.
Post edited at 12:10
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Like you I've been in discussions and have done preliminary design work and budget costings for the concrete formwork for a lot of big infrastructure projects that may or may not come to fruition. (Swansea Bay, Hinkley etc). The Hinkley saga ( and that's just the sea wall and cooling outfall tunnels) has been rumbling on for around 10 years. Those items have to be built before any real work starts on the reactors themselves.

We're currently just seeing the fruits of our efforts with involvement in the base structures for the next generation of very large offshore wind turbines ( blades the size of Jumbo Jet wings) that can be sited in water depths of up to 50 metres - but it's been 5 years since our initial tender work and in all that time we've received 'diddly squat'.

Since selling off our strategic utilities to the highest bidders, as a nation we've been unable to plan ahead and make long term decisions in the national interest. With the exception of the USA, I think we're the only major developed nation where government is impotent to influence the construction of major infrastructure without having to get overseas concerns (who are often majority owned by foreign governments) to do our work for us.

Who's to say that if we seriously fall out with the French post Bexit, or if EDF goes tits up due to cost overruns and unforseen delays, that we end up with a half built white elephant, that costs us a kings ransom to put right. Whatever happens, few politicians will suffer.


 wintertree 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Lord of Starkness:

> Whatever happens, few politicians will suffer.

Could your firm start building concrete lamp posts outside parliament? They won't actually need electricity for their main purpose come the revolution...

The disconnect between government and long term planning is hard to fathom.
In reply to Jim C:

OK, so as someone else has said, and hear me out as I may be way off mark here.

Why not put solar panels on each home now. We arent sunny all the time but somewhere in the UK is sunny at most times and therefore this could offset other cloudy places (I also understand that power can be generated whilst there's full cloud cover.

Add to this some kind of scaled down windmill on each roof. Were a windy country and when we arent sunny, we are often windy. Sometimes both. Most homes have at least an aerial on the roof so to extend this to a small fan-like device wouldnt be too much different. Do this on commercial properties as well.

Ive no idea of the cost of these but with subsidy and removing the cost of decommissioning nuclear plants plus economies of scale as manufacturers gear up to mass produce and surely this has to be less than the overall TCO of this mega plant they are discussing.

My final green plan is to retrofit teach home with some kind of rain collecting mechanism so that we dont flush drinking water down the drain every time we pee. Ill say that again, we flush expensively produced perfectly drinkable water down the bog at every flush, and not small amounts.

Am I living in cloud cuckoo land>
4
 Jack B 29 Jul 2016
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Why not do the maths? I'm sure you're capable of it.

Number of households in the UK: google says 26 million.
Reasonable panel size: How does 2x3 meters sound? people in detached houses get more, high rises much less
Found on ebay: 1kW panel, 6 square meters, £1200. Lets give each household one of them. Cost: £30bn
How much energy? On a really sunny day at noon 26GW, but what on average? DECC says 9.7%, so 2.6GW
So the solar panels are good for about 3/4 of what hinkley can do, at a bit under double the price.

How about the wind turbines? Found a 1kW design on ebay for £1000. In the UK wind turbines average 25% of their nameplate capacity, but that's for wind farms built in windy places. Homes are usually in sheltered places. Lets use 15%, so you get 3.9GW for 26bn. So a better than the panels but still more expensive than nuclear. Those cheapo turbines are really noisy, I wouldn't want one on my roof; double the price for a car-engine-loud one with a 20 year life. But lets assume we use the cheap ones.

But what about when it's night, and not windy? You'll need to shell out for some pumped storage power stations too, or some big battery banks. Since we're talking small installations, lets look at battery banks. The average output of the turbine and panels together is 250W. To cover that for 24 hours will need 16 12V/125Ah deep discharge lead acid batteries at £50 each is £800 per household, or £20bn total.

So lets add that up. We have a total average of 2.6+3.9=6.5GW and a cost of £30+26+20=76bn. Twice the powerof Hinkley, four times the cost. And that's just to build it - a nuclear plant lasts 40-50 years, but those batteries will need replacing after 5 and you'll be lucky if the panels and turbine are serviceable after 20 - so more like 8 times the cost. And I wouldn't put too much hope in economy of scale dropping prices - enough wind turbines are made to get most of the gain already, but using half the worlds annual lead production in batteries might push prices up.
 gethin_allen 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

The thing that confuses me about the hinkley point reactors is why we are trying to build something so ground breaking at a time when we are just desperate for electricity, why don't we pick a proven design and use it?

The current proven technology is a long way away from the designs that have caused problems in the past so it's not like we'd be setting ourselves up for another chernobyl or fukushima

 Ridge 29 Jul 2016
In reply to gethin_allen

> The current proven technology is a long way away from the designs that have caused problems in the past so it's not like we'd be setting ourselves up for another chernobyl or fukushima

Fukushima was a relatively modern plant, and survived the earthquake and tsunami, it was loss of power and cooling that did the damage. The new stuff incorporates all that learning into the design.

Also there's ease of decommissioning, reduced waste and improved performance to include. We knocked up Calder Hall in 4 years and it ran safety for nearly 50 years. However it cost the equivalent of £0.5 billion in todays money and only ran at about 50MWe of electricity production (althogh it was a plutonium factory rather than a real power station). Hinkley C is mega value in comparison.

That said, EPR seems a flawed design that is incredibly difficult to build. At least the Chinese can knock up the alternative design, the AP1000 fairly easily in comparison. (Not sure about the hole in the roof for passive cooling though).
In reply to Jack B:

> Why not do the maths? I'm sure you're capable of it.

> Number of households in the UK: google says 26 million.

> Reasonable panel size: How does 2x3 meters sound? people in detached houses get more, high rises much less

> Found on ebay: 1kW panel, 6 square meters, £1200. Lets give each household one of them. Cost: £30bn

> How much energy? On a really sunny day at noon 26GW, but what on average? DECC says 9.7%, so 2.6GW

> So the solar panels are good for about 3/4 of what hinkley can do, at a bit under double the price.

> How about the wind turbines? Found a 1kW design on ebay for £1000. In the UK wind turbines average 25% of their nameplate capacity, but that's for wind farms built in windy places. Homes are usually in sheltered places. Lets use 15%, so you get 3.9GW for 26bn. So a better than the panels but still more expensive than nuclear. Those cheapo turbines are really noisy, I wouldn't want one on my roof; double the price for a car-engine-loud one with a 20 year life. But lets assume we use the cheap ones.

> But what about when it's night, and not windy? You'll need to shell out for some pumped storage power stations too, or some big battery banks. Since we're talking small installations, lets look at battery banks. The average output of the turbine and panels together is 250W. To cover that for 24 hours will need 16 12V/125Ah deep discharge lead acid batteries at £50 each is £800 per household, or £20bn total.

> So lets add that up. We have a total average of 2.6+3.9=6.5GW and a cost of £30+26+20=76bn. Twice the powerof Hinkley, four times the cost. And that's just to build it - a nuclear plant lasts 40-50 years, but those batteries will need replacing after 5 and you'll be lucky if the panels and turbine are serviceable after 20 - so more like 8 times the cost. And I wouldn't put too much hope in economy of scale dropping prices - enough wind turbines are made to get most of the gain already, but using half the worlds annual lead production in batteries might push prices up.

Thats fascinating and proves my argument wrong.

Not overly keen on your original sentence. That's kinda why I asked, because I didnt know but hey, nothing like a bit of acid to make your mark.

Anyway, genuinely interested in your response so thanks.
 dread-i 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Jack B:

>Total cost about £50bn. These are very rough numbers, but even if I'm off by a factor of two Hinkley doesn't look awful by comparison. The truth is that low-carbon energy is expensive, and Hinkley would produce a lot of it.

I won't quibble with your numbers, they serve as a good set of ball park figures.

The point that I and others are making is that we should have a mixed generation capacity. The problem with a big project like this is that, assuming it all goes to plan and within budget, it will take a decade or so to come on stream. With renewables we could be making an impact tomorrow. Until it comes online, we are left with a gap in generating capacity, rather than capacity increasing each year.

1
 wintertree 29 Jul 2016
In reply to dread-i:

> The point that I and others are making is that we should have a mixed generation capacity.

Which we do have. Replacing old nuclear fission plants with new ones like Hinckley C is a key part of maintaining that mixed generation capacity.
 Jack B 29 Jul 2016
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Not overly keen on your original sentence. That's kinda why I asked, because I didnt know but hey, nothing like a bit of acid to make your mark.

Sorry, meaning is sometimes lost when writing on the internet. It wasn't meant to be acidic, it was meant to be genuine. I was sure that 95% of the population, you included, could do the calculation. But you might not realise that you have all the tools and knowledge you need. I got all the numbers (prices, number of households, output of panels/turbines) from google, Wikipedia and eBay, then it's just case of converting the units and multiplying together to get the totals. If that's actually not something you can do, then it probably says more about me and my crappy memory of when I learned various job-related skills than it does about you. But at the very least you should be able to follow through my calculations and check my numbers - don't trust me to have got them right, I'm just another voice on the internet who may have a vested interest!
 gethin_allen 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Ridge:
> In reply to gethin_allen

> Fukushima was a relatively modern plant, and survived the earthquake and tsunami, it was loss of power and cooling that did the damage. The new stuff incorporates all that learning into the design.

Fukushima's reactors were built in 1967-1970 so not really very modern.

Modern reactors are self cooling and will continue to circulate the coolant and shut the reactor down if power is cut from the cooling system
Post edited at 19:14
 Ridge 30 Jul 2016
In reply to gethin_allen:

> Fukushima's reactors were built in 1967-1970 so not really very modern.

> Modern reactors are self cooling and will continue to circulate the coolant and shut the reactor down if power is cut from the cooling system

The more modern ones don't have the required amount of redundancy in the cooling systems. Also (IIRC, but happy to be corrected), many use the primary coolant as a moderator, so need some other means of shutting down, as the coolant maintains the reaction. Hence more resilient back up power is needed. Following chernobyl and fukushima the new designs also have a 'catcher' to retain the core if it melts.

IMHO thats is probably OTT, but it's driven by public fear. To date there have been no measurable radiological health effects to the public from Fukushima. The evacuation killed over a hundred, there were many unnecessary abortions and there was major psychological trauma to thousands. The radiation, (even if you ignore the context of tens of thousand dead from the tsunami), did jack shit.

On the various terrorist related threads people quoted a facebook post from a 'safety expert' who gave a purely probabilistic explanation that you were more likely to die by all sorts of mundane things than a terrorist. Mathematically correct, but completely ignores the fact that humans aren't logical creatures. Societal concerns massively affect safety arguments, as do the societal benefits. Unfortunately nuclear power is inextricably linked with Hiroshima, Godzilla and deformed babies. Hence the massive cost and ever increasing complexity to meet probabilistic safety criteria.

It should be more than feasible to build relatively low cost, tolerably safe nuclear reactors, but to an extent public pressure forces the industry down the expensive white elephant route.
 Timmd 30 Jul 2016
In reply to Ridge:

I'm not sure if I'd call an (estimated) increase of certain cancers jack shit?

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228...
 gethin_allen 30 Jul 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> I'm not sure if I'd call an (estimated) increase of certain cancers jack shit?


Slightly selective reading from the linked article as it also says
" the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated."

And specifies that the "estimated" increased risks are only for those in the most contaminated regions and females exposed at a young age.

I'd say that overall the report says that the impact of the Fukushima disaster has had and is predicted to have a relatively relatively small impact of the health of the population affected and nowhere near the initially feared impact.
 Timmd 30 Jul 2016
In reply to gethin_allen:
I'm not sure if it is selective reading?

.....
Experts estimated risks in the general population in Fukushima Prefecture, the rest of Japan and the rest of the world, plus the power plant and emergency workers that may have been exposed during the emergency phase response.

£The primary concern identified in this report is related to specific cancer risks linked to particular locations and demographic factors,£ says Dr Maria Neira, WHO Director for Public Health and Environment. £A breakdown of data, based on age, gender and proximity to the nuclear plant, does show a higher cancer risk for those located in the most contaminated parts. Outside these parts - even in locations inside Fukushima Prefecture - no observable increases in cancer incidence are expected.£

In terms of specific cancers, for people in the most contaminated location, the estimated increased risks over what would normally be expected are:

all solid cancers - around 4% in females exposed as infants;
breast cancer - around 6% in females exposed as infants;
leukaemia - around 7% in males exposed as infants;
thyroid cancer - up to 70% in females exposed as infants (the normally expected risk of thyroid cancer in females over lifetime is 0.75% and the additional lifetime risk assessed for females exposed as infants in the most affected location is 0.50%).
For people in the second most contaminated location of Fukushima Prefecture, the estimated risks are approximately one-half of those in the location with the highest doses.

The report also references a section to the special case of the emergency workers inside the Fukushima NPP. Around two-thirds of emergency workers are estimated to have cancer risks in line with the general population, while one-third is estimated to have an increased risk.
....

My point remains that any predicted increase isn't jack shit (with jack shit being no increase). My point is a simple one really.
Post edited at 13:28
1
In reply to wintertree:

> Could your firm start building concrete lamp posts outside parliament? They won't actually need electricity for their main purpose come the revolution...

No - we dont do the concrete work - just design and make the formwork

> The disconnect between government and long term planning is hard to fathom.

Sadly it's actually rather predictable - and explains a lot for Britain's relative malaise. No politician wants to be the one who makes a difficult decision that they believe to be in the best interests of the nation but could see them having to resign or being voted out of office at the next election or even before if they think they are going to upset great swathes of the voting public. ( whoops - didn't something like that just happen!) Doing nothing is actually easier for politicians to justify than doing something.

In reply to Jack B:

> Sorry, meaning is sometimes lost when writing on the internet. It wasn't meant to be acidic, it was meant to be genuine. I was sure that 95% of the population, you included, could do the calculation.

It's a bit more complex than those calculations based on averages because it isn't acceptable to design a system that works on average, it needs to work with extremely high reliability which means even in far from average weather conditions. Your calculations are more of a lower bound than an estimate.

 Andy Say 30 Jul 2016
In reply to dread-i:

> pump water up hill each night to act as a power storage facility.

Let's face: that is the silly bit. We've got another scheme for pumped storage on the slips in Llanberis right now. How efficient can it possibly be to pump a load of water up to the top of a hill so you can drop it to produce less electricity than you used to pump it up the ........

Maybe the Government is waking up to the unsustainability of a guaranteed price for the electricity produced in these new nukes being about three times the current market rate.

I'm sure Electricite De France is enjoying this.

 wintertree 30 Jul 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> How efficient can it possibly be to pump a load of water up to the top of a hill so you can drop it to produce less electricity than you used to pump it up there

More efficient than starting and stopping coal or fission plants twice a day.

Also what really matters currently is CO2 emmisions rather than thermodynamic efficiency.

There's a fascinating plan in the USA to have a pumped storage system using robotic, electric locomotives and "low" and "high" shunting yards full of heavy train carriages with a 1-2 km climb between them.
 Ridge 30 Jul 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> Let's face: that is the silly bit. We've got another scheme for pumped storage on the slips in Llanberis right now. How efficient can it possibly be to pump a load of water up to the top of a hill so you can drop it to produce less electricity than you used to pump it up the ........

Norway makes a fortune out of using suplus wind generated power to top up hydro,and then sell hydro power back to countries that have invested heavily in wind.

All storage and transmission of power involves a loss in efficiency.

> I'm sure Electricite De France is enjoying this.

I somehow doubt they are.
 Jack B 30 Jul 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Yeah - the full picture is fiendishly complicated, and would probably flesh out a decent length book. I disagree that it's a lower bound though, it's an overview of the cost and capacity of the idea in the post I replied to. There are other advantages and disadvantages I didn't cover:
- Embedded generation makes voltage and frequency control harder, the grid becomes very complex
- With careful control, distributed and embedded generation could yield a very resilient grid with low transmission losses.
- Without that control, the grid may not be stable at all.
- All those wind turbines are going to be really noisy and annoying
- Rooftop wind and solar have pretty poor safety record - lots of fatalities in the installation process
- The plan is not reliant on any form of imported fuel - be that coal, gas or uranium
And of course I didn't cover availability, which won't be as good as nuclear. The 24h reserve combined with both wind and solar will actually give pretty decent availability (now that's a much more difficult calculation to do!). And nuclear doesn't have perfect availability; the target is 92% for Hinkley C. The total output was about 15% of UK demand, so the availability would probably be OK as part of a diverse grid, especially given the recent push to build a few more gas plants.
 wintertree 30 Jul 2016
In reply to Jack B:

> Rooftop wind and solar have pretty poor safety record - lots of fatalities in the installation process

I beleive they've killed more people per unit capacity than nuclear, even including examples like Chernobyl which have no relevance to modern plant design.
 off-duty 31 Jul 2016
In reply to Timmd:

When you are looking at an INCREASE in risk of say 6% in breast cancer then you are looking at the actual risk of breast cancer going from something like 0.1% to 0.106% .

So Jack shit isn't a bad summary. And was pretty much the headline in the article you linked to.
 krikoman 31 Jul 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> Let's face: that is the silly bit. We've got another scheme for pumped storage on the slips in Llanberis right now. How efficient can it possibly be to pump a load of water up to the top of a hill so you can drop it to produce less electricity than you used to pump it up the ........

Not silly at all, it's the best battery type we have, it means we can "store" energy, when the wind is blowing and there's little demand, and that we don't have to keeping switching coal and nuclear on and off, what may seem simple isn't always so in reality. Energy plants are more efficient when the run constantly, so it's not as daft as it may seem at first sight.
 Root1 31 Jul 2016
In reply to George Killaspy:

What Kryten didn't mention. If all that dosh was used to insulate most of the houses in Britain ( internal / external wall insulation, loft insulation, and floor insulation ) then a large wack of the power might not be needed.
 wintertree 31 Jul 2016
In reply to Root1:

> What Kryten didn't mention. If all that dosh was used to insulate most of the houses in Britain ( internal / external wall insulation, loft insulation, and floor insulation ) then a large wack of the power might not be needed.

Well, that power wouldn't be needed for heating. You just might see it being needed for air conditioning instead....
 neilh 31 Jul 2016
In reply to Jim C:

Looks as though it's concern over Chinese money judging from Vincent cables comments. I am sure that they are right to adopt a less gung-ho attitude to this.

So my view is it will go ahead without the Chinese involvement.
 kevin stephens 31 Jul 2016
In reply to Root1:

> What Kryten didn't mention. If all that dosh was used to insulate most of the houses in Britain ( internal / external wall insulation, loft insulation, and floor insulation ) then a large wack of the power might not be needed.

That makes no sense, almost all houses are heated by gas, oil, coal or wood rather than electricity
 Pete Pozman 31 Jul 2016
In reply to Lord of Starkness:

> No - we dont do the concrete work - just design and make the formwork

> Sadly it's actually rather predictable - and explains a lot for Britain's relative malaise. No politician wants to be the one who makes a difficult decision that they believe to be in the best interests of the nation but could see them having to resign or being voted out of office at the next election or even before if they think they are going to upset great swathes of the voting public. ( whoops - didn't something like that just happen!) Doing nothing is actually easier for politicians to justify than doing something.

Remember Nick Clegg. No matter how you try to explain that compromise is integral to making any progress in politics voters will not forgive unpopular decisions. If ever there was an example of pour encourager les autres the massacre of the LibDems at the last election is one.
 Richard J 01 Aug 2016
In reply to neilh:

I think the issue is less the Chinese money for Hinckley C, more the side-deal that allows the Chinese to build another, entirely Chinese designed and built, reactor at Bradwell. The security worry arises because there is no separation between the Chinese civil and military nuclear programmes - the agency that would build the reactor is the same one as runs the Chinese nuclear weapons programme.
 neilh 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Richard J:

Never knew that. I reckon we have a right to be concerned.

I also assume judging from oth rChinese infrastructure projects in other parts of the world , that there would be a significant number of Chinese nationals over here working " on site". That is not going to play out well politically.
 jkarran 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jack B:

> Why not do the maths? I'm sure you're capable of it.
> ...
> So lets add that up. We have a total average of 2.6+3.9=6.5GW and a cost of £30+26+20=76bn. Twice the powerof Hinkley, four times the cost. And that's just to build it - a nuclear plant lasts 40-50 years, but those batteries will need replacing after 5 and you'll be lucky if the panels and turbine are serviceable after 20 - so more like 8 times the cost. And I wouldn't put too much hope in economy of scale dropping prices - enough wind turbines are made to get most of the gain already, but using half the worlds annual lead production in batteries might push prices up.

I appreciate what you're trying to do in offering a reality check but I do think you're being a little overly negative.

Domestic scale wind doesn't make sense for most households, costs and problems are relatively high, output low. Domestic solar on the other hand whether that be PV or thermal should really be the norm on all new build and we should be doing everything we can to encourage retrofit including on the less profitable east and west aspects, this spreads the daily generation pulse out significantly and for much of the year ensures solar energy is available at peak load times. Useful system lifespans are well in excess of 20 years already.

None of that implies a criticism of large scale wind generation

The storage problem is real and part of the solution is likely to be more grid scale storage, perhaps pumped using mountain and lagoon sites, perhaps flywheel, perhaps chemical or thermal, probably a messy unplanned mix driven by market forces. In addition to that the way we use electricity is changing, that in itself will provide storage in electric vehicles and allow smarter consumption, prioritising the charging/heating/cooling off stuff when there is surplus. The idea we'll be building huge banks of lead acid batteries is looking pretty outdated.
jk
 MonkeyPuzzle 01 Aug 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> In addition to that the way we use electricity is changing, that in itself will provide storage in electric vehicles and allow smarter consumption, prioritising the charging/heating/cooling off stuff when there is surplus. The idea we'll be building huge banks of lead acid batteries is looking pretty outdated.

It's a-comin: https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/powerwall

 jkarran 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> Let's face: that is the silly bit. We've got another scheme for pumped storage on the slips in Llanberis right now. How efficient can it possibly be to pump a load of water up to the top of a hill so you can drop it to produce less electricity than you used to pump it up the ........

70+% typically (electrical to electrical) but the question rather misses the point, these things facilitate the efficient operation of a cleaner generation network.
jk
Jim C 01 Aug 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Was it tested in the West of Scotland ?
How many generations will my family have to live at that address , after I fit it, just to get payback for the installation and maintenance ?
 jkarran 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> Was it tested in the West of Scotland ?

Scotland isn't as miserable as it sometimes seems if you actually measure the anual insolation http://contemporaryenergy.co.uk/insolation-map/ Note the scale, even the darker bits of Scotland (outside the deep glens) still get 70% of the solar energy gracing Cornwall.

As to the payback time: that surely depends what you're doing with it as much as anything, if it's lightly cycled so you can listen to the wireless under a bare LED bulb in the evening then it's a waste of money. If it's used to charge your car from your own renewables then the ROI is going to be rather better.
jk
Post edited at 13:17
 MonkeyPuzzle 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jim C:

Jim, it's not really important whether it works for you right now. There will be early adopters and it and others like it will get improved hopefully to the point that you can answer your questions positively, but it stands that the technology exists, so expect it to be a matter of time.
Jim C 01 Aug 2016
In reply to rallymania:

> open question

> if we, as in the UK, spent the 40 old billion pounds on replacing the trident submarine fleet with SERIOUS investment in nuclear fusion, does anyone think we might actually get it to work in a semi reasonable time frame?

> Last i heard Lochheed (among others) have thrown their hats into the fusion ring and claim, with proper investment, there's nothing that can't be solved...

What is a reasonable time frame?
I was speaking to a young graduate after an evening after work talk on Fusion, who told us he was about to invest his entire career in the building and testing of (prototype fusion reactors) .
He expected to be retired before even the the agreed testing programme was completed , and that was just early stage testing.
Jim C 01 Aug 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Jim, it's not really important whether it works for you right now. There will be early adopters and it and others like it will get improved....but it stands that the technology exists, so expect it to be a matter of time.

I might be better with Hydrogen fuel cells , rather than a Tesla power wall , Fuel Cells are also existing right now , and also just a matter of time until a household version could be made, and is more reliable than solar , so maybe I need both.
Jim C 01 Aug 2016
In reply to gethin_allen:
They looked at others :- Westinghouse£s AP1000,(still unproven ) Japan's Hitachi ABWR, is a better bet .

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/the-alternatives-for-uk-nuclear/

Edit :- "it seems that PRISM might actually be a viable option: it is at least suited for the UK’s particular situation.
If only we weren’t dependent on that Chinese money. But then, if Hinkley C were cancelled, we wouldn’t be…"

Post edited at 14:31
 blurty 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jim C:
The UAE started negotiations with South Korea for 5600MW of generation in 2009. The first reactor will go live next year with the remainder complete by 2020. Total cost £15billion (admittedly before the Brexit devaluation).

These numbers compare with Hinkley C as follows:

UAE Vs Hinkley C
5600MW Vs 3200MW
£18 Billion + £6.5 Billion finance costs = £24.5 Billion Vs £15 Billion financed by sovereign debt
2009 - 2020 Vs 2010 - mid 20s?

Another interesting factoid about the strike-price is that it values the social cost of carbon at around £60 per tonne - this is roughly double what Greenpeace et al would price it at (£28 per tonne) or the US Government (between £2 and £22 per tonne).

For comparison:

Onshore wind £90/ t
Off-shore wind £180/t
Domestic solar £250/t

For what it's worth domestic solar doesn't really add up in my book - without huge subsidy. Solar panels on the same latitude as London are around 2% efficient, when compared with the equator. Without subsidies, the IRR for a domestic solar panel installation is around -4%, I.e. a loss. The 'payback' will normally exceed the the lifetime of the installation - especially if the cost of disposing of the installation as hazardous waste is included (most solar panel use cadmium in their make-up (and interestingly, lead in their manufacture - but that's a separate issue)).

Personally, I'd build some gas power stations to tide us over & immediately subsidise Rolls Royce & Associates to develop their PWR to make it suitable for commercial generators - rapidly.

We can do great things in this nation when we have to.
Post edited at 15:08
Jim C 01 Aug 2016
In reply to B
> Personally, I'd build some gas power stations to tide us over & immediately subsidise Rolls Royce & Associates to develop their PWR to make it suitable for commercial generators - rapidly.

Gas has been talked about for years, it makes sense but no one has done anything about it. Maybe the Home Hydrogen Fuel cells might take off , but we need industrial scale fuel cell generation too.

 tony 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> In reply to B

> Gas has been talked about for years, it makes sense but no one has done anything about it.

Given that about half our electricity comes from gas generation, I'm not sure what you mean by 'no one has done anything about it.' The most recent big gas plants were opened as recently as 2012.
 jkarran 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Gas has been talked about for years, it makes sense but no one has done anything about it. Maybe the Home Hydrogen Fuel cells might take off , but we need industrial scale fuel cell generation too.

I'm puzzled. Elemental hydrogen isn't a fuel in the conventional sense, used in a fuel cell it's basically just a way of storing and moving energy. What is the energy source for the fuel cells?
jk
 jkarran 01 Aug 2016
In reply to blurty:

> For what it's worth domestic solar doesn't really add up in my book - without huge subsidy. Solar panels on the same latitude as London are around 2% efficient, when compared with the equator.

Do you have a source for that? My rather basic understanding of the physics and my experience of equatorial weather leaves me a little suspicious. If we were comparing say the Scotish highlands with a sub tropical desert region... maybe.

> Without subsidies, the IRR for a domestic solar panel installation is around -4%, I.e. a loss. The 'payback' will normally exceed the the lifetime of the installation - especially if the cost of disposing of the installation as hazardous waste is included (most solar panel use cadmium in their make-up (and interestingly, lead in their manufacture - but that's a separate issue)).

The lions share of the up-front cost is fitting. Given the all up cost seems to track suspiciously close to the lifetime subsidy minus a couple of years 'profit' for the owner I can't help thinking the subsidy system seriously distorts the installation market and that solar panels could be installed rather more competitively. The component costs are actually relatively low.

Obviously we are going to need to reprocess them efficiently and safely.
jk
Post edited at 16:14
Jim C 01 Aug 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> I'm puzzled. Elemental hydrogen isn't a fuel in the conventional sense, used in a fuel cell it's basically just a way of storing and moving energy. What is the energy source for the fuel cells?

> jk

Natural Gas with clean waste products.
 wintertree 01 Aug 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> The lions share of the up-front cost is fitting

If anyone success in getting a "solar slate" product really shipping and working well, the cost of fitting won't add so much to laying a new roof or replacing an old one.

One UK firm doing this recently went under I think and another isn't exactly trendsetting. Elon Musk recently announced his plans to push this line of product.

 jkarran 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jim C:

That process still requires energy input and produces CO2. I don't see how it's significantly better than a combined cycle gas turbine plant burning the stuff then capturing the CO2?
jk
Jim C 01 Aug 2016
In reply to tony: e


> Given that about half our electricity comes from gas generation, I'm not sure what you mean by 'no one has done anything about it.' The most recent big gas plants were opened as recently as 2012.

And that is your version of a 'dash for gas' to head off the closure of old coal / gas and nuclear stations. We would have needed to have a production line of gas stations already under construction . The government's so called 'capacity market' will apparently guarantee investors a return on their investment if they build them, but that does not even come into force until 2017/18 as I understand it, and the investors will have to have confidence that the government will not change its mind . ( and will be watching PM May closely re her second look/ pause on the Hinkley deal)

If you were an investor looking at the UK s energy policy ( if they can find it) would you be confident hat whatever they say today will happen tomorrow?
Jim C 01 Aug 2016
In reply to jkarran:
> That process still requires energy input and produces CO2. I don't see how it's significantly better than a combined cycle gas turbine plant burning the stuff then capturing the CO2?

> jk

Fuel cells convert natural gas or hydrogen into electricity through a chemical process that produces fewer emissions than burning the fuels

Edit , they are being produced and bought by other countries who already have huge new nuclear programmes , 70 power plants will be going into to South Korea’s largest utility producing 30.8 megawatts of power for Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. and the city of Busan.
Post edited at 16:56
 tony 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> And that is your version of a 'dash for gas' to head off the closure of old coal / gas and nuclear stations.

I don't think I said anything about being an adequate response, but it's clearly a bit more than 'no one has done anything about it.'

> If you were an investor looking at the UK s energy policy ( if they can find it) would you be confident hat whatever they say today will happen tomorrow?

When the delay to HPC was announced, I did say to my partner that describing the UK's energy policy as a farce would be wrong, since, as you say, there doesn't appear to be a coherent policy. Neverthless, if I were an investor, I'd be building gas-fired generation.

 RomTheBear 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Natural Gas with clean waste products.

I'm shit in chemistry bit I'm pretty convinced that if you reform natural gas in a fuel cell you'll get CO2 out.
 tony 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> Edit , they are being produced and bought by other countries who already have huge new nuclear programmes , 70 power plants will be going into to South Korea’s largest utility producing 30.8 megawatts of power for Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. and the city of Busan.

70 power plants producing 30.8 MW is only 440kW each, which isn't very much. I'm not sure what that has to do with a huge new nuclear programme.
 Richard J 01 Aug 2016
In reply to blurty:

Korea is the only country in the world which has had a significant nuclear build programme through which they've managed to reduce costs as the build-out has proceeded (the French didn't do too badly in their PWR build-out but still suffered some cost escalation). The Koreans settled on a single, proven design, built multiple units on single sites, established a national supply chain and managed to generate economies of scale and learning by doing.

The UK has decided to do the exact opposite. We have competing designs, a different design and a different vendor for each site: Areva EPWR for Hinckley, Hitachi ABWR for Wylfa, Westinghouse AP1000 for Moorside and (maybe not now) a Chinese PWR for Bradwell. If you wanted to design a nuclear new build programme which maximised cost and minimised the economic return to UK industry this is what you'd do.

 wintertree 01 Aug 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I'm shit in chemistry bit I'm pretty convinced that if you reform natural gas in a fuel cell you'll get CO2 out.

I think the idea is to make H2 from CH4 and steam then use the H2 in fuel cells. CO/CO2 comes from the H2 generation and not the fuel cells.

I'm at a loss as to why you'd do this when you could just use the CH4 directly...
Jim C 01 Aug 2016
In reply to tony:
> 70 power plants producing 30.8 MW is only 440kW each, which isn't very much. I'm not sure what that has to do with a huge new nuclear programme.

Maybe you have misread it. ( edit you were correct, approx 440 kWh each )
Either way, we were discussing future capacity of evolving technologies. The fact that they are being made and installed is more to the point.
Post edited at 18:04
Jim C 01 Aug 2016
In reply to wintertree:
Maybe you need to look into why there is already a business/ environmental case worth billions for these, and then perhaps that will answer your questions.
( there is lots of info online on how they work )

Edit :- "The fuel processor converts (reforms) natural gas to a hydrogen gas to feed the fuel cell stack. Hydrogen and air are combined in an electrochemical process that produces direct current (DC) electricity, pure water and heat. The byproduct water (in the form of steam) is used in the fuel processor for natural gas reformation . The DC power provided by the fuel cell stack is conditioned to provide grid-interactive, high-quality alternating current (AC) power output. An integral heat recovery system can heat facility water for purposes such as space heating, domestic hot water, and cooling in conjunction with an absorption chiller."
Post edited at 17:58
 RomTheBear 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Maybe you need to look into why there is already a business/ environmental case worth billions for these, and then perhaps that will answer your questions.

> ( there is lots of info online on how they work )

From what I've seen they produce slightly more co2 per mw than the most efficient conventional gas plant.
Jim C 01 Aug 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> From what I've seen they produce slightly more co2 per mw than the most efficient conventional gas plant.

Can you tell me what specific Fuel cell technology data you are comparing to conventional gas plants ?

Edit :- Typical emission data that I was looking at is:-

NOx ...............................................0.01 lbs/MWh (0.006 kg/MWh)
CO ................................................. 0.02 lbs/MWh (0.009 kg/MWh)
VOC ............................................... 0.02 lbs/MWh (0.009 kg/MWh)
SO2 .........................................................................Negligible
Particulate Matter.................................................... Negligible
CO2 (electric only) ..............................1,049 lbs/MWh (476 kg/MWh)
(with full heat recovery) .........................495 lbs/MWh 5 (225 kg/Mmh
Post edited at 18:10
 RomTheBear 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> Can you tell me what specific Fuel cell technology data you are comparing to conventional gas plants ?

I am talking about the same type of fuel cell as you I believe (hydrogen from gas reforming)


> Edit :- Typical emission data that I was looking at is:-

> NOx ...............................................0.01 lbs/MWh (0.006 kg/MWh)

> CO ................................................. 0.02 lbs/MWh (0.009 kg/MWh)

> VOC ............................................... 0.02 lbs/MWh (0.009 kg/MWh)

> SO2 .........................................................................Negligible

> Particulate Matter.................................................... Negligible

> CO2 (electric only) ..............................1,049 lbs/MWh (476 kg/MWh)

> (with full heat recovery) .........................495 lbs/MWh 5 (225 kg/Mmh

You haven't quoted the source but I'm guessing you are referring to this: http://www.doosanbabcock.com/common/pdf/GreenPowerSolutions.pdf

Which is no more than a marketing document...

Even then 476 kg/MWh is more Co2 than what modern combined cycle gas turbines are reported to produce, and any case, even if those technology get more efficient, as you can see from your own numbers, they still produce A LOT of Co2 compared to a nuclear plant.
Post edited at 19:32
Jim C 01 Aug 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I am talking about the same type of fuel cell as you I believe (hydrogen from gas reforming)

I think we are talking at cross purposes, I was originally commenting/ comparing the comments that we could use wind , solar and then the Tesla technologies based on the mass use in individual homes. From there it moved on to the suggestion ( which us not new) that we need to build large new gas stations ( which is just not happening) and I suggested there were other technologies ( like Fuel Cells ) that can be home based , but also scalable and quick( quicker ) to build ( and easier to fund) than the conventional stations be it gas coal or Nuclear .

So if we can't get builders to build in solar to all new homes, ( and some areas that is not efficient anyway) and if we are ruling out mass home wind turbines that are not all efficient either, and as we can't seem to get government/ private sector investors to build enough large centralised power plants, then perhaps these small, but modular technologies( as appropriate) , like , wind , wave/ hydro, Tesla packs, or Fuel cells, that can work at home level, and village level, or town, or in future city level , and beyond, are A way forward.

If individuals or towns are not going to be getting the power they need in time from the huge centralised power generators, maybe we are heading to a situation that mixture of available ( and developing ) technologies can replace ( or fill a gap for) stations that we need, but are not proceeding fast enough ( or at all)

If there is a proven technology and a business case that makes sense , I don't see the problem with Fuel Cells, if the preference is conventional gas stations then that is fine too, ( they just take a bit longer to build, and cost more, and are harder to fund)

I'm not sure what the argument is here, Fuel Cells are available and selling, conventional gas stations are available too, we just need to pick what is suitable for the UK, and get on and build them.

 RomTheBear 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> I'm not sure what the argument is here, Fuel Cells are available and selling, conventional gas stations are available too, we just need to pick what is suitable for the UK, and get on and build them.

The argument is simple really, they emit quite a lot of CO2, therefore, that limits the options to renewable and nuclear.
I'm no expert, but from the evidence I've seen, nuclear is overall cheaper and safer than renewable, but renewable do work too and can be built quickly, most likely we need a mix of the two.
 wintertree 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Maybe you need to look into why there is already a business/ environmental case worth billions for these, and then perhaps that will answer your questions.

A "business case" or advertising copy? Hydrogen that comes form fossil fuels just adds another step to the chain introducing more waste and inefficiency. CCGT gas plants have a similar efficiency to real world fuel cells so more inefficiency in the conversion cannot be afforded. Hydrogen is a real pain to store in any quantity as it is very low density as a gas, requires much colder temperatures than methane to liquify (about 100K lower) and is highly destructive to storage containers and plumbing when liquid.

Rather than H2 fuel cells at the domestic or street level you'd be better off installing combined heat and power units that run of methane and cut out the middleman.
 MargieB 02 Aug 2016
In reply to wintertree:

And would this mean a lower price of energy for the consumer in the long run?

What seems to distort Hinkley as an idea is the fixed energy price{ and a pretty high one } for China which will be passed on to the consumer and goes on and on.

Other projects give the hope of price for consumer going down as time passes and initial installation costs are paid for?

Is this not so?

Looking for enlightenment on this point..
 jkarran 02 Aug 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> I think the idea is to make H2 from CH4 and steam then use the H2 in fuel cells. CO/CO2 comes from the H2 generation and not the fuel cells.
> I'm at a loss as to why you'd do this when you could just use the CH4 directly...

Glad I'm not the only one.
jk
 galpinos 02 Aug 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I'm no expert, but from the evidence I've seen, nuclear is overall cheaper and safer than renewable, but renewable do work too and can be built quickly, most likely we need a mix of the two.

Is nuclear actually cheaper? None of the evidence I've seen takes into account realistic decommissioning costs and, having working on projects at Sellafield, they are mighty expensive. I'm pro nuclear but I do think the cost side is overstated, Hinckley C will most likely cost about three times the estimate (going on the evidence of the previous two EPRs) and then you've got decommissioning costs after that.

The nuclear safety stats are better than renewables but both are a few orders of magnitude better than fossil fuels. Renewables also gives us a degree of energy security. I've no idea what the availability of uranium is to the UK nor the potential future costs, I only know we have a lot of plutonium kicking around
 wintertree 02 Aug 2016
In reply to MargieB:

> And would this mean a lower price of energy for the consumer in the long run?

The hydrogen fuel cell stuff? Doubt it. Domestic natural gas combined heat and power, perhaps, perhaps...

> What seems to distort Hinkley as an idea is the fixed energy price{ and a pretty high one } for China which will be passed on to the consumer and goes on and on.

I may be wrong but I imagine it's similar for any capital intensive plant.

> Other projects give the hope of price for consumer going down as time passes and initial installation costs are paid for?

Fossil fuel plants: No, because the price of the fuel is unpredictable in the future. Hinckley's fixed price is something I would sign on the dotted line to pay myself for the next 30 years because it's fixed. There have been enough examples of fossil prices going through the roof.

Renewables: These only work if there is significant nuclear/fossil baseload capacity. I don't really care what happens to the cost years after a plant goes in because despite people's unfounded optimism renewables are nowhere close to providing enough energy to decarbonise our electrical power, transport and heating grids.

> Looking for enlightenment on this point..

I don't think our national approach to new build fission is very sensible. On the other hand, paying 2x the going rate for electricity isn't such a bad idea if it gets the process started, especially when you consider the unpredictable but likely inflation busting cost of fossil fuels over the next 30 years and when you realise that 2x the costs on 0.2x the generation mix results in the consumer paying little more.

To be fair 2x the price is cheap when you consider the implicit/hidden costs in fossil fuel power, such as an estimated 8,000,000 premature deaths a year worldwide, significantly more people with affected health, and the cost of wars related to fossil fuel supply. On the flip side you could argue similar about future decommissioning costs perhaps.
Post edited at 09:49
 RomTheBear 02 Aug 2016
In reply to galpinos:

> Is nuclear actually cheaper? None of the evidence I've seen takes into account realistic decommissioning costs and, having working on projects at Sellafield, they are mighty expensive. I'm pro nuclear but I do think the cost side is overstated, Hinckley C will most likely cost about three times the estimate (going on the evidence of the previous two EPRs) and then you've got decommissioning costs after that.

But remember that in the case of Hinkley, we won't pay for it, instead we will pay a guaranteed strike price, that makes estimating the cost
(for us) very easy.
Although there is always a danger that EDF goes under and then we are left with the tab.

The studies I've seen show that indeed it would be the cheaper non fossil fuel option.

> The nuclear safety stats are better than renewables but both are a few orders of magnitude better than fossil fuels. Renewables also gives us a degree of energy security. I've no idea what the availability of uranium is to the UK nor the potential future costs, I only know we have a lot of plutonium kicking around

I don't know about that, would need to look into it.
 jkarran 02 Aug 2016
In reply to galpinos:

> The nuclear safety stats are better than renewables but both are a few orders of magnitude better than fossil fuels. Renewables also gives us a degree of energy security. I've no idea what the availability of uranium is to the UK nor the potential future costs, I only know we have a lot of plutonium kicking around

I presume those relatively poor renewable safety stats are mostly skewed by a handful of mass casualty dam collapses?
jk
 malx 02 Aug 2016
In reply to jkarran:

That may be true for hydro, but both wind and solar have caused more deaths per kilowatt hour than nuclear. The nuclear stats are also skewed by a few one off incidents - in a similar way to hydro, but the nuclear incidents were much less severe than the worst hydro ones
 Richard J 02 Aug 2016
In reply to galpinos:

> Is nuclear actually cheaper? None of the evidence I've seen takes into account realistic decommissioning costs and, having working on projects at Sellafield, they are mighty expensive.

I don't think it's fair to judge the likely future decommissioning costs of modern PWRs on the basis of the shameful debacles that led to the situation in Sellafield. That arose largely because the Magnox design intrinsically produced a lot more waste than a PWR; the design was based on the need to produce military grade plutonium, which requires one to be able to swap the fuel rods at low burn-ups without shutting the reactor down, so you can get the plutonium out before it is poisoned (as far as bomb-making goes) by spontaneously fissile P-240.

Which isn't to say that decommissioning is negligible in its cost, but I do think for PWRs it is reasonably predictable and can be planned for and financial provision made over the life of the reactor.
 Richard J 02 Aug 2016
In reply to galpinos:

> I've no idea what the availability of uranium is to the UK nor the potential future costs, I only know we have a lot of plutonium kicking around

Uranium isn't that uncommon or expensive. It's currently around $25 a pound, mostly mined in Canada (though that does itself have some significant environmental impacts). Then it needs to be enriched, which gets done in the Urenco plant on the Wirral. If there was a large scale world expansion of nuclear power, the stuff might get more expensive but that's a long way off now. Uranium is only a little less abundant than tin.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...