SIZEWELL C

[dan_b]

Will it be another EPR - I assume so?

[Oldgreybeard]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-62235221

The government has granted development consent for the new Sizewell C nuclear power plant on the Suffolk coast.
The project, mainly funded by the French energy company EDF, is expected to cost in the region of £20bn.

Ironically the day after the French Govt fully renationalised EDF!

I think it is a mad project. The location is barmy (given the retreating coast, sea-level rise and more storms from global warming) and the money is only justifiable if you have an ulterior motive, like making money out of arranging the financing or arming their police force.

As has been said repeatedly, we could have renewable energy NOW and tons of storage a lot sooner for the same money.

The problem is that renewables and storage don't pay the politicians big enough back handers ...

Right now we're between a rock and a hard place, as Russia is going to hold as much of Europe to ransom as it can as a way to try and get countries like Germany, and to a lesser extent Italy, to try and reduce the level of EU sanctions, or reduce the level of support to Ukraine. In the case of Germany this is already working, Chancellor Scholz has been reducing the committent to support Ukraine, yet Nordstream 1 remains offline due to "maintenance", whilst Russia blames Canada for this as yet another tactic in Putin's dirty tricks playbook.

In the short term (for the next one or two winters) we, and, more importantly, the EU, are going to have to be pragmatic and try to keep enough energy available to stop people dying. It would be great to think we/they could do it with renewables, but there isn't even the slightest chance of that happening, time is just far too tight. I think we're going to see a resurgence in dirty power generation for a year or two, may even see Germany break its own committent to shutting down all nuclear generation by the end of this year, as we all get pushed into a corner by Russia.

The sad fact is that we are where we are, and much as we can all wring our hands and criticise the decisions made by some EU states to make themselves beholden to Russia, that cannot easily be changed in the space of a few months without making some compromises.

[Mart]

It is a sad decision. By the time this comes on line, probably 2035+, the UK will already be net 100% low carbon. Hopefully we'll be there by 2030, with roughly 80% RE and 20% nuclear, and by 2035 as the old nukes age out, we'll be around 93% RE and 7% nuclear (HPC).

Obviously we'll still be burning a lot of gas to fill in the holes, hence the 'net', which should be made up by exporting roughly the same amount of RE, as gas (and FF generation imports) we use.

So when SZC comes on line, it won't be displacing FF's, it'll simply be competing with RE for market share, and storage when supply is in excess. So the real issue that needs attention is storage, which would go hand in hand with extra RE generation, all from the monies saved not piddling about with SZC.

The bigger picture is that SCZ will 'gain' us less low carbon generation and storage, than if we didn't build it. Kinda crazy. And the monies tied up in it, before it comes on line, would add more cheap RE and storage for 2030-35, displacing CO2 earlier.

[Ken]

The economics is only one consideration what about all the others.

I do not believe it is a OR situation but a AND situation is that not the lesson from Putin gas/Germany. We need everything but what worries me about that is the money men only chase profit whereas a gov sometimes has to invest in other things which are a little bit more expensive in order to get a better mix of all the factors. In fact even money men will not put all their eggs in one basket.

Anybody who wants to build clean energy or storage of any type is welcome in my book. We need a lot of it if we are to go all electric, perhaps 5X what we have now. People just do not seem to get the scale of the task we are faced with.

[dan_b]

From what I've been reading, there is plenty enough money out there from investors looking to put money into renewable energy projects - the problem is there aren't enough projects of a big enough scale with near-term planning for that money to back. I guess that's why the seemingly bonkers idea of the solar HVDC plant in Morocco has managed to gain so much traction so quickly - it's a huge project, which ironically makes it easier to get the funding.

Yes nuclear takes a long time to deploy, but I don't see any evidence at the moment that the money being spent on Hinkley C and now Sizewell C is at the expense of fast-to-deploy big renewable projects like all those offshore wind farms that are being planted? And ultimately, Governments create money if they need to. I'm sure the now renationalised EDF will be quite happy to get some more EPRs under way.

For what it's worth, I still think it's useful to have some nuke in the generation mix. With a full transition to EV ground transport, and then a full transition away from fossil-based heating, we are going to need quite a lot more electricity generation capacity than we have now.

I guess the next target will be to get a new nuclear build in Wylfa back on the table?

[Mart]

Obviously it is an 'or' situation, since the nuclear money comes from the same CfD pot, which itself is based on what the Gov think they can add to the bills. More on nuclear means less on RE and storage, and since RE + storage is a much better solution than nuclear, as well as being far, far quicker, then spending money on nuclear only makes things worse.

Seems silly (to me) to spend a fortune on building an extra basket, at the expense of many, many, many eggs.*

If Putin's lesson is that we need to get off gas fast, then let's get off gas fast(er), rather than waste an extra decade waiting for nuclear. Expand next years CfD auction to add more RE, that would arrive in 2-5yrs, 10-13yrs faster than SZC.

*Just to be clear, as the throwaway phrase - "don't put all your eggs in one basket" - is often used. It refers to losing all the eggs if one basket is used and something goes wrong. That applies well to RE (RE + storage + interconnectors) as it's spread over a huge number of generation sites and sources, which themselves are modular. The aim is to avoid losing eggs. But building nuclear (v's RE) means far less generation (eggs) for your money, and far later, so the phrase is misapplied here, since going down the nuclear route loses us eggs ..... and we have to wait longer to receive less. So the eggy basket argument achieves the exact opposite of what it claims to be doing.


As to the scale of the task, it looks to me like most people do get it. The National Grid seem happy, the rollout of large projects via the CfD mechanism are on line to meet the challenge around 2030. After that we roll out generation (and storage) as needed to meet the changing demand, just like the leccy market did last century.

[Mart]

Hi Dan, regarding CfD spending, last decade, I think mid(ish), the Gov actually announced that they were going to have to reduce CfD spending. This was around the time Cameron described RE 'as the green carp', and got a majority government (post coalition).

They argued that the far higher (than expected) capacity factors of the early off-shore wind, plus the long term cost commitment to HPC, accounted for all of the CfD pot, as there was a limit on the LCF (levy control framework). They didn't want to increase the pot, since that meant more levies on bills (or taxation). This actually undermined confidence in the UK's renewable industry, and knocked us down in the national rankings for 'renewables attractiveness'. Luckily they have since u-turned on this, and later expanded the CfD contracts, as costs had fallen, so the top up (of new projects) would be less.

So there really is competition for the same money, from the same pot.

For anyone who wants to revisit 'the dark times' when the Gov decided to cut/cap almost all subsidy support for RE, or to see how nuclear/HPC is wrapped into the same LCF, then here are a couple of links discussing the issues:

The UK's Levy Control Framework for renewable electricity support: Effects and significance

Levy Control Framework: The unanswered questions




Edit - Just a thought, but did you mean the Morocco scheme was bonkers in the sense that it's a huge amount of generation, or bonkers regarding the idea/concept?

If the later, then for comparison, the Morocco scheme is for 3.6GW with storage, for £48/MWh. I suspect that's before index linking, so £60/MWh. Whereas the HPC scheme is for 3.2GW, and £89.50/MWh (£114/MWh with index linking).
With a wholesale price of around £50/MWh (when the world is normal), then we have a subsidy cost of £10/MWh v's £64/MWh.

[AE-NMidlands]

Something else to consider: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62322574

Climate change: UK sea level rise speeding up - Met Office

Sea levels are rising much faster than a century ago, reveals the Met Office's annual look at the UK's climate and weather.
The State of the Climate report also says that higher temperatures are the new normal for Britain. Conservationists warn that spring is coming earlier and that plant and animal life is not evolving quickly enough to adapt to climate change.

The report highlights again the ways climate change is affecting the UK.
The UK is warming slightly faster than the average pace of global temperature increase, it also explained.
The Met Office assessed climate and weather events for 2021 including extreme events like Storm Arwen that caused destructive flooding.

Sea levels have risen by around 16.5cm (6.5 ins) since 1900, but the Met Office says the rate of rise is increasing. They are now rising by 3-5.2mm a year, which is more than double the rate of increase in the early part of last century.
This is exposing more parts of the coast to powerful storm surges and winds, damaging the environment and homes. Around 500,000 homes are at risk from flooding, scientists say.
etc.

[dan_b]

Mart - two things
First - I love the term "eggy basket argument"
Second - the Morocco project, I think I meant Bonkers because the idea that it's cheaper, quicker and actually logically/technologically feasible AND desirable from a private finance point of view to build a gigantic solar farm in another country 3000 miles away and connect that generation via sub-sea HVDC. But it's the good bonkers in my view.

I do also agree that new nuclear builds are also bonkers. The scale and complexity of them are off the charts. And I can't explain why I still think we ought to have some nuclear capacity, despite all the very obvious financial and timescale eggy basket arguments that you correctly make. And I still think we'll end up with 2 more EPRs at another site, probably Wylfa.

These Hinkley C construction updates are eye-watering showing the vastness of the scale.
One throwaway point that they make, they've started on construction of "Unit 2" at Hinkley and are seeing 20-30% improvements in construction efficiency vs Unit 1. Hopefully those lessons can also be applied to Sizewell C and whereever they build the next ones - both in terms of speed of construction and overall cost.

[Mr Gus]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/s ... lear-plant

Nice view of boats hauled up above the high tide mark , speaks mounds about the place & unsuitability within climate modelling, ...surely it must all be on wheels like a Victorian bathing hut right!?