Pancho wrote:
On 18/05/2021 19:36, Theo wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
We should have built more baseload power stations - particular nuclear.

That ship sailed 10+ years ago. For the one we are building, the wholesale
price per unit is roughly double that of renewables ( in normal conditions)
so it's going to need subsidy to sell its power. It's not cheap baseload
it's expensive baseload.


I doubt that your figures are true.

Hinkley Point C has a guaranteed purchase price of its nuclear electricity
of £92.50 per MWh (9.25p per kWh):

"The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy therefore agreed a
deal to support construction of Hinkley Point C in September 2016. The deal
is with NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited (NNBG), which is owned 66.5% by
Electricite de France (EDF) and 33.5% by China General Nuclear
Power Group (CGN). The deal guarantees that NNBG will receive £92.50
(2012 prices), linked to inflation, for each megawatt hour (MWh) of Hinkley
Point Cs electricity for 35years, with electricity bill payers paying
topups if the market price islower.
....
The Department estimates that between £10 and £15 of the average annual
household electricity bill (in 2012 prices) will go towards supporting
Hinkley Point C up to 2030"
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...cc/393/393.pdf


The day-ahead baseload contract for the grid has been between £40 and £60
per MWh for most of the last decade:
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal...lesale-markets

We need to factor in reliability of supply. It also does not address
that the cost of renewables (we mean wind) will go up as the best sites
are taken. Getting to 3 times current electricity generation, needed for
heat and transport, will be hard with wind.

Considering that nuclear electricity is double the cost of renewables,
somebody has to pay for that difference. While reliability of supply is
necessary, it doesn't mean that people won't be exposed to those
differential costs in pricing terms. The lights stay on, but you pay more
for them in times of high demand. If you don't, somebody else does.

On the other hand we could do it with Nuclear and we would expect
Nuclear costs to come down with economies of scale. The problem with
Nuclear is that it is upfront cost and has to fight bull**** and
"something will turn up" arguments. Something may turn up, but I think
it is very rash to rely on it.

+1 One of the railway journalists calls this 'bionic duckweed', some
seductive new technology that will save you from having to do boring work
installing proven technology like electrifying railway lines. Unfortunately
the new technology doesn't exist, but it distracts politicians from
committing to doing the boring but necessary work.

I think all the stuff about hydrogen and small modular reactors and whatnot
have a basic question: can you bring it to market at scale in 5 years? If
not, it's too late - we're going to have to do something else (and maybe
they will be usable technologies when *that* comes up for replacement). I
think for traditional nuclear it just takes too long to build them.

Theo