Nuclear power plants life extensions

[Mr Gus]

We will also "unilaterally" (imho) have to deal with this place, & other crumbling infrastructure from the soviet era as part of a rescue package, which has never been cheap (eh TEPCO) !?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prydnipro ... tive_dumps

If we think we are skint now..

& massive projects like HS2 have skyrocketed (only way to finish that was to actually start it in the north, not london) & still to be started in order to finish being deferred for 2 years ..to start with,
Then we can hardly afford to bung up more mega project reactors which make closing the energy gap more do-able
the alternatives even more cost efficient by comparison, can we!?

[Mart]

Hiya marshman, the 'kitchen sink' argument isn't actually an argument, just a saying. That would include hamsters on wheels. The solutions have to be economically viable, otherwise they simply cost more than other solutions.

Looks like tidal lagoons would cost similar to new nuclear (Swansea), but cheaper for the larger ones (Cardiff), but also bring social benefits, such as regeneration.

The storage for nuclear is the same as for RE, since they will be operating at the same time. It's neither fair nor reasonable to class them differently. If RE and nuclear is generating, then the storage required is for both, not the RE, with the nuclear excluded as baseload.

Nuclear storage would not therefore be short term, since the argument that it will support during long periods of low RE, is the same for it generating excess during long periods of high RE. It can't demand follow as claimed (economically), in fact as Dan provided many years ago, the HPC contract docs state that it won't be operated that way. So in these discussions we are not talking about short term storage, but storage in general, which would include short, and longer term (such as CAES, H2 etc) and even interconnectors allowing the load to be spread over a larger area, where weather conditions will vary more. Selling cheap excess to Norway for instance, so that they can ramp down their hydro, allows for the UK (and others) to draw on the existing storage at other times.

Yes, new nuclear can be ramped down, but its costs wouldn't fall, so that's just a form of curtailment, so far better to curtail cheaper RE if that route is taken, than expensive nuclear. This is why all of the 100% RE models include overcapacity. It's simply cheaper to overbuild RE, and accept some curtailment than build nuclear or build out as much storage as would otherwise be needed. Whilst many folk suggest or argue for nuclear as part of the mix, it's absolutely essential to remember that the studies and economic modelling, such as the recommendation from the NIC, show that RE + storage is cheaper.

Whilst I'm not sure we need 100-200GW of wind in the short term (but yes probably long term), the use of short term when proposing nuclear is false. No new nuclear can come on line in less than 10yrs in the UK, probably not 15yrs, so the comparison is long term. When we look to the medium term, we now see that the UK pipeline for offshore wind has reached 100GW. Then add in onshore, PV, tidal etc.

The simple and basic argument is the one stated by the NIC, that RE plus storage is cheaper than nuclear, at that point every penny spent on nuclear is a penny that can't be spent on a faster and cheaper solution. It's really easy to say that we should also have nuclear, but if that action is detrimental to the fight against AGW and rising CO2ppm's, then the net impact is negative.

The vast, vast majority of countries are all aiming for net zero without nuclear, in fact even accounting for new nuclear (such as China), the percentage contribution of nuclear is and will fall, as the demand for leccy grows worldwide. So it looks like nuclear has peaked anyway.


Edit - Just to say I'm not against nuclear per se. In fact I supported it for decades as it's a safer and cleaner form of generation than coal, when you include externality costs, in fact it's cheaper too. This applies to nuclear v's gas generation too, though the externalities are not so mobvious, especially when AGW denial was rife.

However, my support for nuclear waned, as it should, in the early 2010's as the cost of RE began to tumble. Add in the falling cost and rising choice of storage, and then the shift in the economic models for the cheapest and fastest ways to achieve 100% net zero generation, and my support ended. In terms of a timeline, I would say the CfD announcement for HPC in 2012, was a major turning point as it compared poorly to falling PV and offshore wind figures (on shore wind already being far cheaper). But the 2015 and 2017 offshore wind CfD's were the nail in the coffin, with the 2019 and 2021 (announced last summer) CfD's confirming the shift.

[Mart]

Just a thought, but there's been a friendly bumping of heads on this subject on this and previous forum for 5yrs or more. But I can't recall any studies, reports, economic findings etc, that counter the pro RE findings and studies (such as Stanford University, NIC, RethinkX etc).

Are there any economic findings that support nuclear over a RE plus storage solution now? I'd be really interested in reading some, as I'm totally aware that my position may be (or becoming more) biased. I've always assumed that if there was something like this, then someone would have posted it in response to my pushback against nuclear, over the many years on this (and other) green and renewable forums?

Perhaps there is a position, but it's falling behind each time due to the incredibly rapid reduction in RE costs around the World, so it has always remained somewhat behind the curve, I really don't know?

[Disclaimer, whilst I use the term economic all the time, this doesn't mean I'm putting money ahead of the environment, quite the opposite. I use the term since the most economic solution is the one that will allow the fastest solution (hence my previous support of nuclear, when on paper it looked more expensive than coal). Also at this point, any new nuclear won't be in time to help displace FF's (in the UK grid), so it will be competing head to head with RE (plus storage) as we grow the leccy supply, possibly by 150%, heading towards 2050(ish) and an electrify everything future.]

[Swwils]

RE + storage at the scale needed doesn't exist and is unproven technology.

You can't do any analysis against coal since noone will build that - this is why all those RE analysis that show a payback that beats coal is pointless.

You can boil it down to 2 very honest system level questions:

Compared to a new, modern, dual combined cycle natural gas plant, what are the relative GHG emissions vs. wind and solar?

Compared to a new nuclear power plant, what are the relative GHG emissions vs. wind and solar?

If you answer those honestly it's very clear what the options are.

[cycling_mike]

Thanks all, learning a lot from this discussion. I was /am nuclear positive but good to appreciate the other options.

#14 says

If you answer those honestly it's very clear what the options are.

Not sure this is very clear to this newbie...

[Moxi]

Under the present model of finance for new prime mover generation plant build none of the above matters because nothing will be built unless it turns a profit and NOTHING will be built at redundancy scale until cash comes in and profit is delivered.

Its not in the interest of the companies investing in new plant to provide the full level of power security, they make the best profit when the market is tight and the price per unit is high.

To obtain energy security with excess demand cover you need either an new private finance model where they are paid well for idled plant (kind of what we have now which lead to the stupid gas sets the price problem) but clearly not linked to gas so maybe thats the wind and storage option some mention.

Or you swallow the bullet and nationalise and build for security and not for profit - it works, as we know the CEGB did a good job during its time in service, but as with most nationalised industry its often less than efficient and you pay a price premium for that.

Or you have a mix of the two which quite probably brings all of the negatives of both options with few of the positives.

Remember none of these companies that generate our power really care about the environment or you and I they care about PROFIT, if there wasn't any profit in the business sector then there would be no new Hinckley C no Hornsea 1 and 2 etc etc

Moxi

[Mart]

Just to say that obviously RE at the required scale is a proven technology, and is happening already. The UK has moved from around 5% RE to ~45% in ~12yrs, and accelerating. So no issues there.

Storage on an intraday basis is, dare I say fine. It's happening already now that storage for storage sake (rather than for frequency / peaker services) is now becoming economical. Prior to economical storage, at all levels, is the economic buildout of overcapacity of RE, as stated explained in all studies/reports on large scale, or 100% RE future grids. In fact, V2G (V2G/H/L) might provide the UK's intraday storage as a side benefit, if we have ~500GWh's of the BEV's plugged in and providing services at any given time. A whole UK BEV car fleet (before buses, van fleets and lorries) would be around 1,500GWh. As I've previously pointed out a single battery factory, dare I say 'small' now, for BEV batteries, of 30GWh annual capacity, would meet UK intraday storage needs over 17yrs of production, probably mirroring requirements quite well.

With regard to large scale, longer term storage, then we already have CAES and H2 schemes rolling out around the World. Whilst these storage pilots are of course currently very small, they should prove (or not) the viability of larger scale storage needs. For the UK, perhaps we will need to cover a two week shortage of RE, (not zero RE, nor zero imports), so perhaps 20TWh. The UK has potential for 10's, even 1,000's of TWh of storage potential in old gas wells and saline aquifers.

Of course for a wholly nuclear future, just to test the two technologies to the extreme, we would need utterly vast amounts of long term storage, not weeks, but inter-seasonal, since the nuclear (even allowing for summer based refueling) won't have a winter bias, like UK RE, which is biased towards wind.


Moving on to GHG emissions for RE v's nuclear, this is a slam dunk for RE.

Whilst PV and wind have roughly twice the CO2(e) emissions of nuclear per kWh, they are all very low. Arguments/studies differ with figures for nuclear and wind as low as 5-10g/kWh, Other studies have wind and PV around twice that of nuclear, and of course in the UK, PV will be higher again due to a lower cf.

However, studies that include the construction and management of long term nuclear storage facilities, raise the nuclear figure up towards ~100g/kWh, putting it around the same as large scale hydro involving dam construction.

Secondly, due to the additional time required for nuclear construction/commissioning, it's also necessary and reasonable to include the FF CO2 emissions during the time period between when the RE would start generating, and displacing FF's, and when the nuclear will. This significantly increases the CO2(e) figure for nuclear when comparing to RE.

As always, Mark Jacobson has figures etc on this, but here's just a quick and simple read:

7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change

I would just state that whilst he shows the much faster time for planning and commissioning of onshore wind and PV, for the UK, and I suspect our discussion here, we are leaning heavily on off-shore wind. This has a much longer planning to commission time period. However, as previously mentioned we now have a huge pipeline of projects, which keeps growing, so these are working their way through the system, ready for approval (or not). The last CfD for offshore wind issued in July 2022, has commissioning dates of 2026 & 2027, and typically begin generation sooner, as they are modular. [In fairness the same can be said for HPC, which may be commissioned around 2027/28, but the first reactor should be generating by 2025(ish). However I believe these dates may now be 2yrs later(?)]

[Mart]

Or you have a mix of the two which quite probably brings all of the negatives of both options with few of the positives.

Moxi

Hiya Moxi, agree very much with your full post, but dare I say, possibly just for fun, not being difficult, a solution combining a mix of RE and nuclear may well be the easiest.

WHATTTTTTTTT, no I'm not being hypocritical here, just trying to be ultra honest. A mix of the two may be the easiest to change too, and require the least amount of intraday and longer term storage.

However, it's my belief, based on what I've seen and read, that a 100% RE grid* is actually the fastest and cheapest solution. Making it preferable, especially as the rapid shift in economics towards RE (and storage) continues.

To be clear, as I've probably confused many, let's look at the simplest solution, I'd suggest it's 100% nuclear, scaled to meet winter demand peaks. But of course this means vast amounts of overcapacity, so not the most economic solution. So not at all viable in the real World**.

To improve the nuclear option we start to look at smaller levels of capacity and storage, demand management and TOU tariffs (think Dinorwig, Heat Electric & E7). This logic can be followed through into trading some nuclear capacity for RE, and continues till we get to 100% RE.

*in the UK we won't be 100% RE, since HPC is a done deal, and SZC may get through too.

**Although, if you have interconnectors to lots of neighbours, who have demand following FF generation, and you're the only country doing it, then it can work, as seen with France. Though they are now moving away from nuclear, with only plans for 'upto' 14 new reactors by 2050.

[Moxi]

If you use nuclear it should be under national control and not for profit but you can then use the excess power to allow other "British" business to manufacture goods for sale at a vastly more competitive rate - imagine if we grew silicon waifers using low cost power, or ran steel plants on low/ free power rather than curtailing wind on a windy day ?

So a nationalised power sector which in the first instance builds to supply worst case winter requirements with 5% redundancy built in, then at all other times any excess power is fed to high value or bulk industry on a profit return basis ie you treat the nationalised industry as a major shareholder in return for their supply of cheap or "free" power when available, this moves the profit element away from a social necessity (power) to the commodities market (widget sales) where it should be.

That should create income to help replace power generation capacity as it ages, create an incentivisation for companies to build in the UK giving folk employment creating tax revenue blah blah blah

Am I missing anything ?

Moxi

[Mart]

I like the idea, very power to the people, Wolfie would be proud.

One teeny weent problem I can see is that the rest of the World would instantly place punitive trade restrictions on us, for subsidising energy and manufacturing costs. Just like the EU state aids rules. May be wrong, I'mn way out of my depth (again) but I think subsidising household energy costs (too much) can also fall foul of such rules, since that can be seen as an alternative to higher wages / wage costs of manufacturing?

But given that most countries seem to work around such rules, maybe we should fill our boots anyway?