HPC

[AE-NMidlands]

Did anyone else see https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ergy-needs ?

You would be forgiven for thinking that the debate on nuclear power is pretty much settled. Sure, there are still some naysayers, but most reasonable people have come to realise that in an age of climate crisis, we need low-carbon nuclear energy – alongside wind and solar power – to help us transition away from fossil fuels. In 2016, 400 reactors were operating across 31 countries, with one estimate suggesting roughly the same number in operation in mid-2023, accounting for 9.2% of global commercial gross electricity generation. But what if this optimism were in fact wrong, and nuclear power can never live up to its promise? That is the argument the physicist MV Ramana makes in his new book. He says nuclear is costly, dangerous and takes too long to scale up. Nuclear, the work’s title reads, is not the solution.

This wasn’t the book Ramana, a professor at the University of British Columbia, planned to write. The problems with nuclear are so “obvious”, he wagered, they do not need to be spelled out. But with the guidance of his editor, he realised his mistake. Even in the contemporary environmental movement, which emerged alongside the anti-war and anti-nuclear movements, there are converts. Prominent environmentalists, understandably desperate about the climate crisis, believe it is rational and reasonable to support nuclear power as part of our energy mix.

But with a PhD in physics, and a previous book examining why India’s nuclear programme had not worked and would not work, Ramana is well versed in not just the moral but the technical and practical arguments against nuclear. He lays these out in his new work and then looks at what he originally set out to explore: why, despite the overwhelming evidence against nuclear, governments and corporations continue to invest in it.
etc

I don't think he'll ever convince the decision-makers as his argument seems to be "We can't guarantee it won't go wrong, and if it does the consequences are catastrophic, so we had better not do it." Politicians believe the developers and sign up for a big sexy project, keeping their fingers crossed...

[Ken]

Thanks Mart. I expect there is no funding/interest costs in their 13B

Our 40B is just madness just the same + the additional cost of the over expensive electricity paid by the consumer and lets just forget about waste and insurance.

[Adokforme]

Thanks Mart. I expect there is no funding/interest costs in their 13B

Our 40B is just madness just the same + the additional cost of the over expensive electricity paid by the consumer and lets just forget about waste and insurance.

Well, this augers well for the proposed Sizewell C project then. I wonder what it's final cost and time over run could be?
Rather than £'s and years it might be a little easier to gauge in %age terms as against that stated in the original guestimate!

[Oliver90owner]

Did anyone else see
….
….
I don't think he'll ever convince the decision-makers as his argument seems to be "We can't guarantee it won't go wrong, and if it does the consequences are catastrophic, so we had better not do it." Politicians believe the developers and sign up for a big sexy project, keeping their fingers crossed...

My first thought on reading this was “Grenfell”

[dan_b]

Well the Govt has just given Sizewell C 5.5 billion to continue with development so…

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/civi ... 3-09-2024/

Thanks Mart. I expect there is no funding/interest costs in their 13B

Our 40B is just madness just the same + the additional cost of the over expensive electricity paid by the consumer and lets just forget about waste and insurance.

Well, this augers well for the proposed Sizewell C project then. I wonder what it's final cost and time over run could be?
Rather than £'s and years it might be a little easier to gauge in %age terms as against that stated in the original guestimate!

[Moxi]

In truth I can see them building HPC and SZC as well as another pair of units at WYC (Wylfa) or HYC (Heysham) regardless of the costs because the folk at the tip of the strategic planning strategy seem to still believe that they need a cohort of prime movers adjacent to large population centres either for the purposes of balancing or for black starts.

We wont know the real truth behind the thinking until long after it happens and we are left to live with the results - maybe that's why I believe we need these key decision makers to be financially linked to their results - so that they are risk aware rather than being risk inured because it doesn't directly impact them.

The costs of the build are enormous but a proportion of that is coming back to the treasury via income tax on workers wages, annoyingly less comes back to the UK in terms of materials of construction (key components) but the governments of various persuasion have been investing to get some of that lost expertise back, perhaps the bigger issue is that we really don't appear to have sufficient construction and engineering resources to build in parallel. Even back when we built the Magnox and AGR fleets we needed several companies to form alliances to be big enough.

Until the grid runs routinely in the new green powered format the majority of politicians and the general public will continue to think that we still need something that looks like the old grid simply because they don't know any better.

What we seem to need more than anything is a large conductor manufacturing plant, raw materials manufacturing infrastructure, transformer manufacturers and most importantly for the National Grid or GBPower to set up a 50 year succession plan.

Moxi

[dan_b]

For what it's worth Moxi I agree with you. HPC, Sizewell C and probably at least one more of Wylfa or another site will just get built regardless of cost or changes to generation technologies around it. Although that type of thinking didn't extend to HS2 - which I think was a piece of infrastructure that actually does need to be done and done properly and cancelling the 2nd phase of it was a stupid idea it should go right up to Scotland as per the original plan, but I digress...

I think the only real piece of debate around decision-making will be what reactor technology (and therefore which consortium) gets chosen for that 3rd or 4th site - will "they" continue with EDF and the EPRs so that we have a consistent fleet of new nukes (which would make sense in a lot of ways) or will they go with a different design by a different consortium with the thinking being it might spread the financial and construction risk/timeline? But then we end up with a mixed reactor fleet again (obviously I'm assuming all of the remaining UK reactors will have retired by then)

[Mart]

Totally agree with all. SCZ actually fell through, so to speak last decade when the Gov couldn't agree a price. EDF needed a high figure, and the realization that RE costs were dropping fast, meant the same level as HPC couldn't be offered by the Gov. The result was negotiations failing. And at the same time we saw the other nuclear plans 'collapse' as companies couldn't agree low enough prices, such as Wylfa and others.

So SZC has been in a kind of limbo since as the Gov has desperately tried to find a way to finance it.

Personally, I didn't think the HPC deal was all that bad when announced in 2012, but was way too high when finally agreed and contracted in 2015. That may sound weird, but I didn't expect RE costs to fall so fast. And since 2015 they've only improved further.

Should we build SCZ and more? Personally I don't believe we should, and the monies would allow for more RE, and storage, far sooner, but I don't have to be right, whereas the Gov needs to cover our arses if things don't work out. That's also why I'm keeping a close eye on LDES (long duration energy storage) rather than just SDES like 2-4hr batts. If LDES is cheap and possible, then nuclear isn't needed. But we don't know yet for sure, and nuclear's long lead time means if we do need it, then we need to start building SCZ 10yrs ago.

Catch 22. I think it will prove to be a waste of money, I'm 90%+ certain, but I'm not 100%, hence I appreciate the problem the Gov faces. And I don't mind so much the expense of building the nuclear as it's low carbon, I'm more concerned about the net loss, as better, faster, cheaper solutions are (I believe) now possible ...... well 90%+

[Adokforme]

Cheers Mart, appreciate your take and everybody elses on the matter.
I'm naturally pee'd off about it living just twenty miles down the coast but as you say we are not the ones bearing responsibility for it, although more likely, our offspring will.
One additional point I should like to add is that of it's carbon deficit. This by it's very nature exacerbating AGW during it's decade or more of construction. Great concerns exist over it's ROI and how this can be managed over such an extended period, hence RAV, so wonder if we shouldn't apply a similar approach to that of the carbon debt also.
Earlier in it's proposal, several years now, EDF's estimate of likely CO2 payback period for SCZ was six years. Taking into account the additional delays before it starts construction never mind begins generating how clean will the grid likely be then compared to when that original figure surfaced. Might it even work out to never!
In order to make it appear more palatable to us I'm concerned that however much it's case might be dressed up by "The National Need" In the meantime global warming continues apace with projects such as SZC merely stoking the flames with seemingly so little to gain from gambling upon it.

[Moxi]

I would prefer the government to build a tidal system or and or more pumped hydro in various parts of GB - nearer to large cities and central grid network so North and Mid Wales, Peak District, Cotswolds, North and or South Downs etc - using some of the money otherwise set aside for propping up nuclear - I suspect a far better return on investment regards asset life and reliability etc and a quicker build time to output would be the results. Pumped Hydro in the south could also double up to offer temporary water supplies if the concept was factored in early enough in the design and could form part of a networked water storage / flood abatement strategy.

The energy strategy always seems to be a bit blinkered both in opportunities and scale with big always appearing to be preferred to many. For example the HPC and SZC stations are routinely proclaimed to be able to power hundreds of thousands of homes - but what about when the trip and go off the grid ? the sheer scale of their contribution means an equally massive voltage destabilisation event. I suspect the National grid would be far happier if a 1MW turbine trips rather than a 1.63GW turbine trips - and what happens during the statutory safety outages when the reactor can be off for many months and later in its life many years ? Whats going to fill the gap then ? does feel like a lot of eggs in the one basket.

Moxi