Those who claim nuclear is dead, at least for Europe, because of its high costs and lack of public support are wrong, writes Tim Yeo, Chairman of the pro-nuclear group New Nuclear Watch Europe (NNWE). Despite recent financial troubles besetting certain parties in the nuclear sector, there are competitive vendors and competitive projects out there. Key for European countries considering building new nuclear plants is to choose the right technologies.
By far the greatest criticism of nuclear pertains to its cost. As a result of the strike price of ÂŁ92.50/MWh the UK government has agreed for Hinkley Point C, the impression has been created that nuclear power is expensive. Yet there are many examples of new build nuclear power being economically competitive.
Lying at the heart of the issue is technology choice. NNWE has long argued that in order to secure the advantages of nuclear power for their citizens, governments must take care in choosing the technology and vendor that suits their particular requirements. When it comes to new build we believe that the risk of significant cost can be dramatically reduced by choosing designs that have been previously built elsewhere and have a track record of safe commercial use.
The most cost-competitive technologies in the next few years are likely to be supplied by foreign vendors
Paks II in Hungary, recently approved by the European Commission, and the Hanhikivi project in Finland are examples of much cheaper and competitive nuclear technology. At €55-60/MWh these nuclear plants, both built by Russian supplier Rosatom, are just over half the price of Hinkley Point. Both projects are so-called Generation III+ nuclear power stations.
Rosatom is the only vendor in the world that has the latest nuclear technology (generically known as Generation III+ technology) up and running and the cost benefits of choosing a proven technology are clear. Other vendors of Generation III+ technology, for example, Areva, with its EPR design, which is used in Finland’s costly Olkiluoto project and will be used at Hinkley Point C, are still first-of-a-kind and have a price tag to match.
In the United Arab Emirates, the first of four new Korean nuclear reactors, built by Kepco, will start producing electricity within the next 12 months, at a price that will be cost-competitive with other forms of electricity generation. And China’s Hualong One reactor, currently undergoing the UK’s rigorous Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process required by the nuclear regulator, will not be far behind.
Stark reality
The general message to European countries planning new build nuclear projects – these include Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Romania, Slovakia and the UK – is to commit to the technology and to protect the projects from being de-railed by anti-nuclear sentiment. One has only to look at Germany for the stark reality of saying no to nuclear – rising or flat carbon emissions, increased dependency on imported gas and a renewables revolution that is out of control. If Europe is serious about its climate change commitments, it simply cannot afford for new build nuclear projects to falter.
New nuclear projects in Europe should be encouraged if they meet the key principles of affordability, reliability and value creation. The most cost-competitive technologies in the next few years are likely to be supplied by foreign vendors, in particular the three mentioned above. Therefore, it is important for European countries to create conditions that encourage foreign investors and vendors to participate in European energy markets.
The industry needs to get better at exploiting the economies of scale which have transformed the competitiveness of some renewable technologies
In that way, investment in new nuclear capacity should bring substantial economic benefits to host nations during both the construction and operational phases. Investment in nuclear will not only guarantee secure and affordable low carbon electricity, it will also give a boost to the economy. By contrast, the consequences of delaying new nuclear build will mean slower economic growth, fewer high quality jobs, and a less reliable power supply.
At the same time, the need for the nuclear industry to demonstrate its cost competitiveness is as strong as ever, especially against a backdrop of low fossil fuel prices and the falling cost of renewables. The industry needs to get better at exploiting the economies of scale which have transformed the competitiveness of some renewable technologies. Something which is far more challenging for nuclear, when an individual plant costs a thousand times more than a solar farm or a wind turbine, than for many other parts of the energy industry.
The good news is that vendors of proven technology are demonstrating they can deliver nuclear power at competitive prices for electricity produced. There is a choice of nuclear technologies, and the benefits in terms of cost, security of supply, tackling climate change and above all safety are clear. Nuclear does not cost the earth. Governments should not shy away from the nuclear option – it is simply a matter of making the right choice.\
Editor’s Note
Tim Yeo is chair of New Nuclear Watch Europe and the University of Sheffield Industrial Advisory Board for the Energy 2050 initiative. He is also a Board member of Eurotunnel and Chairman of AFC Energy. He is a former Minister of State for the Environment, Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and was Chair of the Environmental Audit Select Committee from 2005-2010 and then Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee from 2010-2015.
Tim founded NNWE at the end of 2014 to help ensure nuclear power is recognised as an important and desirable way for European governments to provide affordable, secure, low carbon energy and help to meet the long-term energy needs of their citizens. He is also a considerable champion of renewable power believing that nuclear and renewables are an effective energy mix. Tim regularly speaks at energy events and is also active in the media and blogs regularly on nuclear issues at www.newnuclearwatch.eu.
For more information on the economics of nuclear power, see this recent report from the World Nuclear Assocation (WNA) and this article by Milton Caplan, Chair of the WNA Economics Working Group responsible for the report.
For a good, simple overview of what “advanced” nuclear reactors are and why they are safer and cheaper than existing reactors, see this article by Michael Fitzpatrick of Coventry University.
[adrotate group=”9″]
Bob Wallace says
Paks II and Hanhikivi have yet to be built. How do we know what the price of their electricity will be?
Can you give us an example of a recently built reactor which was constructed with EU/US labor rates? A Chinese example where labor can cost 20% of Western labor doesn’t tell us anything.
“One has only to look at Germany for the stark reality of saying no to nuclear – rising or flat carbon emissions, increased dependency on imported gas and a renewables revolution that is out of control.”
If you wish to be taken seriously then you shouldn’t make such obviously false claims such as Germany’s renewable “revolution” being out of control.
Bas Gresnigt says
The figures below from German authorities AGEB and UBA show that the article is completely off with its statements:
“… Germany for the stark reality of saying no to nuclear – rising or flat carbon emissions, increased dependency on imported gas …”!
year; sh: nucl.; gas ; ren.; emissions g/KWh*)
2000 29% ; 11% ; . 7% ; 640
2010 22% ; 14% ; 17% ; 558
2017 12% ; 13% ; 33% ; 510
So an emissions reduction of 20% while it reduced nuclear by 58%.
______
*) As Germany changed from a net import to a net export country which exports ~9% of electricity production, it would give a wrong impression to state the overall emission figures.
Bob Wallace says
“One has only to look at Germany for the stark reality of saying no to nuclear – rising or flat carbon emissions”
Let’s do look at that.
https://goo.gl/yQ98H5
Unfortunately we can’t post graphs here so let me work up a table of German electricity consumption vs. electricity export. I’m going to start with 2010, the year before Fukushima.
Gross Gen Gross Consumption Export
2010 632 615 17
2011 612 606 6
2012 629 606 23
2013 638 604 34
2014 627 593 34
2015 647 595 52
2016 648 593 55
From 2010 through 2016 we see an increase in generation by 12 TWh. Germany’s 2010 CO2 emissions were higher than their 2016 CO2 emissions. Interesting, don’t you think? They made more electricity while releasing less CO2. And closed some of their reactors.
Now let’s look at German consumption. Drops 22 TWh from 2010 to 2016. At the same time exports grow by 38 TWh.
It’s not difficult to argue that the CO2 from the electricity Germany exports should really be charged to the countries that purchase that electricity.
Germany is producing more electricity while releasing less CO2 than they did following Fukushima. And if they weren’t exporting significant amounts of electricity then their CO2 emissions would be significantly lower.
Germany may miss their 2020 target a bit. But seems to me that they are doing fine considering that they weren’t aware that they’d have to deal with Fukushima when they set that goal. Those reactors would have been gone by 2050 regardless. Germany is just dealing with their replacement ahead of schedule.
Bob Wallace says
This may be a better way of looking at Germany’s CO2 emissions. This is millions of tonnes of CO2 per TWh generated by year…
2010 1.23
2011 1.24
2012 1.23
2013 1.25
2014 1.19
2015 1.16
2016 1.17
Since 2010 Germany has dropped their CO2 emission rates by about 5% while at the same time closing reactors. Any rise or flatness you might observe comes from not taking into account the changing amount of electricity produced. (And exported.)
Obviously had German citizens not demanded the reactors closed CO2 levels would have fallen further, but after living through Chernobyl melting in their neighborhood and the watching one of the most technologically advanced countries experience a very severe nuclear disaster Germans decided that they had had enough.
Roger Blomquist says
See http://www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/1/13/breaking-german-emissions-increase-in-2016-for-second-year-in-a-row-due-to-nuclear-closure for the 2016 German CO2 emissions data, and http://www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/2/11/german-electricity-was-nearly-10-times-dirtier-than-frances-in-2016 for the comparison with France’s electric generation CO2 intensity. Shutting down nuclear generation just makes CO2 elimination harder.
Bob Wallace says
“Shutting down nuclear generation just makes CO2 elimination harder.”
It does. But that does not justify building new reactors.
We need low carbon generation replacing fossil fuels. Nuclear could do that. But then we also need to be practical and not waste our money and make life more expensive. Which is why we should be installing renewables.
Nigel West says
“living through Chernobyl…….. and watching one of the most technologically advanced countries experience a very severe nuclear disaster Germans decided that they had had enough.”
It’s purely for political reasons Germany is prematurely closing nukes which as you say will not help the most important issue carbon emissions. Caused by pressure from German Greens and anti-nuclear propaganda that German citizens have swallowed. Western designs are very safe and the latest ones even safer than those from the 60s. Only the Greens in Finland seem to have come to their senses on the role nuclear must play to reduce carbon emissions.
Chernobyl was a completely different design to those in Germany. Inherently unsafe too. If Germany had been that concerned they would have moved to close their nukes 25 years ago – they didn’t. German reactors are well engineered and amongst the best in the world. If they were unsafe in anyway Germany’s regulator ASN would ensured they were closed.
BTW The ‘severe disaster’ in Japan was the tsunami that killed >15,000 people. Fukushima was an accident, that has resulted in only one death – hardly a disaster!
Bob Wallace says
Nigel, Germany is a democracy. Germans decided that they want nothing more to do with nuclear energy.
You are being dishonest about Finland Greens. A small minority of Finnish Greens are willing to reconsider nuclear.
I’m not going to get into an argument with you about how large the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters were.
They happened.
Any reactor can have a disastrous meltdown, spread cancer causing radiation, and ruin the area around it. We have a very long list of “close misses” and more than two reactors which have met a disastrous end.
The probability of any reactor failing is low. But the cost to those living nearby is very high. Please respect the feelings of those who live in harm’s way and wish not to.
The world has changed. We are now, in some places, producing safe, clean renewable energy for less than the cost of operating some paid off reactors. There is pretty much a zero chance that new nuclear will ever become cost competitive with renewables.
Nigel West says
“Any reactor can have a disastrous meltdown, spread cancer causing radiation, and ruin the area around it. ”
The latest designs are very safe. They have layers of protection around the critical components. The EPR is designed with a core catcher so in the unlikely event of a meltdown the core would not reach the environment. It’s called defence in depth. In the west all designs have to go through years of independent design assessment too. Also in the UK new designs have to be sited in ‘remotely’ populated areas.
The risks associated with daily life, e.g. driving and flying, are far greater than new nuclear. Climate change risks are far greater too.
“There is pretty much a zero chance that new nuclear will ever become cost competitive with renewables.”
That is too sweeping a statement. Grid scale renewables may be the best option in places, in others new nuclear will be a better option. Also often the optimum solution is not solely based on cost comparisons, although it is a big factor.
Bob Wallace says
April, 2017
“The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection at Unit 2 of the LaSalle Nuclear Generating Station to review a recent valve failure.
During a February refueling outage, workers discovered a valve in the high-pressure core spray system was damaged and was not able to open. The valve would typically provide cooling water for the reactor in the event of an accident or emergency.”
http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2017/04/nrc-begins-special-inspection-at-lasalle-nuclear.html
Had there been an emergency the backup safety system would have failed. This sort of stuff happens way too often with nuclear energy. Our plants are designed to be safe, but stuff happens.
I think it was Diablo Canyon where someone discovered that an emergency backup system had been switched off during maintenance and remained off for over a year.
Remember Browns Ferry where an engineer inspecting for air leaks using a candle set the plant on fire?
Or Davis-Bessie where a leaking pipe caused most of the containment dome to be eroded away? A problem which was only accidently discovered.
I agree that the probability of a nuclear disaster is low. And the potential damage would be far less than what we have already done to ourselves via climate change. But the underlying question is why take any chance we do not need to take?
Why spend more money, take longer to reduce CO2 emissions, and bring even modest unnecessary risks into our lives?
Nigel West says
Bob, the risk of a serious accident will be even lower with new nuclear.
California made a big mistake curtailing nuclear build:
”California’s power sector emissions are two-and-a-half times higher today than they would have been had the state kept open and built planned nuclear plants.”
http://www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/1/16/new-california-nuclear-closures-resulted-in-250-increase-in-california-emissions
Also life extensions of PWRs can be done cost effectively. Expensive new build can be deferred while lower cost designs are approved for building in the west.
Closing nukes early, abandoning new nuclear and just doing renewables will delay reducing carbon emissions.
Bob Wallace says
“Closing nukes early, abandoning new nuclear and just doing renewables will delay reducing carbon emissions.”
Closing nukes early does delay reducing carbon emissions. But US nuclear plants are failing for economic reasons and, at this point, there is no price put on carbon which could keep these non profitable reactors operating.
Abandoning new nuclear simply makes economic sense. It makes no sense at all to overspend for new generation and to take years longer to bring new generation online.
Wind and solar farms are very fast to bring online and start cutting CO2 emissions in a small fraction of the time it takes to build and start a reactor.
Nigel West says
Both new nuclear and off shore wind is needed to cut carbon emissions. Grid scale wind has to be off shore which is much slower to build than onshore. The UK off shore build rate over the last 5 years was about 5GW. That is not quick.
UK offshore wind CF is 37%. So for every 1GW of new nuclear capacity 2.5GW of offshore wind is needed to achieve the same increase in zero carbon electricity production.
As far costs are concerned in the UK, the jury is still out on the economics of offshore wind v nuclear.
Mike Parr says
UK offshore wind CF is 37% – Danish CF is in the range 45 – 49%, ditto German (they also cost much less than brit turbiens) – I guess this is Brit exceptionalism at play? Oh let me guess – there are lots of extenuating circumstances.
Nigel West says
Renewables UK quote 36.9% load factor for offshore wind:
http://www.renewableuk.com/page/UKWEDExplained
Bas Gresnigt says
The CF of the new Dutch Borssele wind farm, equipped with 8.2MW turbines will be ~ 52%.
UK offshore is so expensive due to UK govt tender structure.
It’s such that only high capital which wants to take risk, will bid. So little competition.
Bob Wallace says
“Both new nuclear and off shore wind is needed to cut carbon emissions. ”
That’s simply your opinion. It is not based on facts.
” for every 1GW of new nuclear capacity 2.5GW of offshore wind is needed to achieve the same increase in zero carbon electricity production.”
True, but since the cost of wind is settling in below a third that of new nuclear it makes more sense to install wind.
The UK seems to be dragging slowly behind other countries when it comes to bringing wind online.
Nigel West says
Bob, it’s not simply just my opinion that nuclear and renewables are needed. The UK’s Committee on Climate says so too:
https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/reducing-carbon-emissions/what-can-be-done/low-carbon-fuels/
Your opinion on the cost of wind being a ‘third of new nuclear’ is not supported by the latest US Gov. figures in its Annual Energy Outlook 2017:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
Onshore wind is about half the cost of new nuclear, not a third. Also the report is silent on the cost of offshore wind in the US which is likely to be higher.
Bob Wallace says
Your link makes no argument based on facts and costs that upholds the necessity of nuclear on the UK grid. It simply says –
“Nuclear Power has been a key source of electricity generation since the 1970s. The UK currently has 16 reactors contributing around 20% of generation in 2011. With the majority of stations in the UK expected to retire by 2030, investment in new replacement plants will be important for decarbonisation.”
Since all the dates in the article are no later than 2011 I think we can assume their opinion was formed at least five years ago when nuclear was looking rosy and renewable costs were very much higher than now.
“Onshore wind is about half the cost of new nuclear, not a third. ”
Onshore wind in the US is now less than 3 cents per kWh. Unsubsidized.
If nothing more is spent on the Vogtle reactors between now and when they might come online the power from them will be at least 13 cents per kWh. Plus subsidies.
13 / 3 = one fourth. And wind is probably going to be under 2 cents by the time Vogtle could be completed.
Additionally, it won’t be possible to build nuclear that cheaply in the US going forward. Vogtle got an incredibly low finance rate because it started construction as the US was crawling back out of the Great Recession.
Onshore wind is more expensive in the UK, probably because the UK really isn’t trying. The UK is lagging quite far behind other countries in offshore wind costs.
The UK can buy the hardware at the same price as other countries and does may several times as much in wages for workers. You could have wind for less than 5 cents per kWh if you wanted.
Bas Gresnigt says
Nigel,
UK has many nuclear scientists, who want expansion for their profession; excellent lobby.
US offshore wind is in its pilot phase. Less offshore wind turbines than Denmark in 1991.
US EIA govt is notorious wrong regarding the cost of o.a. wind & nuclear.
IMO, the reason alternatives flourish.
Lazards is widely considered to be more reliable.
Nigel West says
On the 8th June a General Election is taking place in the UK. By all accounts the Conservatives will be returned with a big majority. The Policy of the current Government is a significant expansion of new nuclear. I can’t see that changing soon. The die is cast. Government expects another five new nuclear stations to follow Hinkley Point.
Cost is of course important, but is not the only factor. When the UK Government gave the go ahead for Hinkley Point C last year they said:
“This ÂŁ18 billion investment in Britain provides an upgrade in our supply of clean energy. When it begins producing electricity in the middle of the next decade it will provide 7% of the UK’s electricity needs; giving secure energy to 6 million homes for 60 years.
The proposed strike price of £92.50 – reducing to £89.50 if Sizewell C is built – contains important elements of insurance against any cost over-run in construction and future high gas prices, which have historically been volatile.
It compares broadly with the costs of other clean energy, whether offshore wind with additional costs of intermittency, or gas with carbon capture and storage.
Hinkley unleashes a long overdue new wave of investment in nuclear engineering in the UK, creating 26,000 jobs and apprenticeships and providing a huge boost to the economy, not only in the South West, but in every part of the country through the supply chain of firms, big and small, that will benefit from the investment.
EDF have also confirmed that UK businesses are set to secure 64% of the value of the £18 billion investment being made – the biggest single capital project in the UK today.
But as the first of a wave of new nuclear plants, we expect the experience of rebooting the nuclear industry to mean that this should reduce for future new nuclear power stations, of which another 5 are proposed.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hinkley-point-c
Helmut Frik says
@ Nigel West,
UK is naturally free to spend or waste as much money on nuclear as they want, especially as long as no accident harms the neighboring states.
But I do not see how building one of a kind of several different nuclear power station designs will trigger something signinficant new in nuclear, which makes it worth to pay a initial premium price, as germany did with solar, wind and biomass., which created complete new branches of industry.
And how much the limitations of prices are worth in nuclear power construction can be seen in vogtle and sumner today. The contract partner files for bancrupt, and then no garanty holds water any more. Ad the compleyity of the bankrupt and delays which is causes inevitabely make costs explode further for sure.
We will see how this adventure will end.
Bob Wallace says
“Hinkley unleashes a long overdue new wave of investment in nuclear engineering in the UK, creating 26,000 jobs and apprenticeships and providing a huge boost to the economy”
This is, of course a dishonest argument as it does not include the job numbers which would be created by an equally robust buildout of renewables.
“a huge boost to the economy”
I really do not understand what England is doing to the UK. Building nuclear will send massive amounts of British cash to France and China.
The UK is divorcing itself from Europe. And Europe will gradually move its financial operations from the UK to European countries. That has already started.
The value of the pound will fall. Imports, on which the UK depends, will become more expensive.
Exports, which the UK has few outside of financial services, will fall.
And at the same time the UK will voluntarily make its electricity more expensive than it need be which will further increase the price of any exports and take money out the pockets of UK electricity consumers.
Bob Wallace says
My reading between the lines of information released about Vogtle and Summer is that the odds are rising that neither project will be completed.
It will be interesting to see if the developers will be able to get either federal or state rescue money.
Bas Gresnigt says
Nigel,
I don’t think that the EPR can withstand a good armor penetrating bomb or rocket fired by e.g. ISIS.
Neither prevent that we then have a disaster with major radio-active plumes into the air.
We cannot expect to be as lucky as the Japanese where the winds blew 97% of the airborne radio-activity direct towards the sea…
Though they still have a large exclusion zone and suffer increased levels of perinatal deaths in large not evacuated areas and other health damage.
Why take such health risks as we have risk free methods available that are also cheaper, faster to construct and emit less CO2/KWh?
Nigel West says
Bas, I doubt ISIS could obtain anything more sophisticated than perhaps a wire guided TOW missile seen in Syria used against tank armour. A TOW missile designed to penetrate armour wouldn’t get through the RC dome of the EPR.
The military’s bunker buster bombs could probably breach the containment. But I don’t believe terrorists could obtain one and the means of delivery.
Can you foresee a more likely scenario that would be of concern?
Bas Gresnigt says
Until now, nuclear disasters occurred because things happened which the experts estimated would be impossible until they occurred!
Assume UK has again a small (or bigger) war. So the other nation can put such bomb on Hinkley… With the spreading of stealth planes and cruise missiles, such scenario is not unlikely.
Especial rewarding with stable wind towards London. It’s inhabitants will flee or will be evacuated. It would cripple UK.
Jeffrey Michel says
The unidentified drones that were seen near several French nuclear reactors a couple of years ago could have been launched to test the reaction times of security measures at those locations.
Nigel West says
Following 9/11 there were reports that anti-aircraft missiles had been sited close to UK nuclear sites.
Attacks on UK nuclear facilities to try and spread radioactivity would not end well for any country who attempted that given given the UK is a member of NATO.
Bas Gresnigt says
NATO didn’t involve itself in the Falklands war. Doubt whether they would, if Argentina would have executed such act on a UK NPP.
Other NATO members have similar vulnerability. Few govt find the risk of a repeat against their NPPs acceptable for their population.
Why take such risks for a method of electricity generation while 2x-5x cheaper methods are available, which also generate 2x-5x less CO2/KWh?
Bob Wallace says
Yes, if another country attacked the UK and bombed open one or more reactors NATO probably would come to the UK’s assistance.
Of course, that would be too late.
And, of course, the real danger is not that Somewherestan will bomb the UK. The real danger is that a terrorist group that has no country might manage to blow open a reactor.
Small danger. But let’s not dismiss dangers because we don’t think they will happen when they could happen.
—
Think it couldn’t happen? It was revealed that the security guards at the Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant were routinely sleeping while on duty.
The whistleblower who reported sleeping guards was fired by the folks running the reactor.
Helmut Frik says
Hmm – “I hope it will not happen somehow, because it’s a bit difficult” is a bit a weak answer.
That means the risk is lower than someone firing a TOW missile, but not no risk.
By the way, even for the outdated and small Milan german army considered more than 2m of steel reinforced concrete as safe protecon as I was educated as soldier. For EPR I find just 1,5m concrete as outer hull.
Imagine someone would steal a PZH 2000 and fire a round of a dozend grenades (just takes some seconds) which hit the reactor in a area of 3m diameter (from up to 100km distance) and go threw 1,5m concrete like threw butter.
Likelyhood? Well once per year somebody steals a tank and drives around with it, so stealing it is difficult but not impossible. So one of many very low likelyhood scenarios which are not impossible, but where the absolute likelyhood is (nearly?) impossible to calculate. Hybris might set it to zero.
R Blomquist says
No one has suffered any adverse health effects caused by radiation from reactors in any country other than the USSR. So while it is important to ensure the safe design and operation of reactors, their safety has been demonstrated over 60 years. During roughly the same period, airline travel has been commercialized with thousands of deaths just in the US.
Bob Wallace says
It’s early to make that claim regarding Fukushima. It will take some time to see if those close to the reactor when it melted will develop health problems. Or if those involved in the cleanup effort will.
In the meantime, no one has suffered any health problems from hazardous spills from wind or solar farms.
Mike Parr says
“Caused by pressure from German Greens and anti-nuclear propaganda that German citizens have swallowed” – if this is the case (swallowing propaganda) they have been doing it for a very long time – circa 75% of Germans are against nuclear & have been since the late 1970s. Gosh citizens having a view – can’t have that can we? The open-toed sandal brigade having a better propaganda arm than the German gov’ really? pull the other one – it’s got bells on.
Jiřà Dvorak says
Bob Wallace,
You take it wrong on Germany. Their electricity generation is up not because of their GDP/energy consumption growth – which is clearly visible on the chart you kindly provided the link to. The gap between supply and demand is a consequence of the growing share of intermittent generation (variable renewable energy sources).
They have to back up their wind and solar by burning coal and natural gas.
CO2 emissions per TWh produced is misleading. We better look at C02 emissions per TWh consumed…
Helmut Frik says
If you look at gorameter or similar, you’d see that export of power and renewable power generation are not really correlated. It’s just that other countries like to buy a lot of cheap german electricity, quite often with quite constant amounts around the colck. Which are nearly exactly the amount of nuclear power generated. So you could say germany sells all nuclear power generated abroad. Extension of renewable power generation reduces the amount of coal and gas being burned. A ongoing process which will accelerate after the last nuclear closures.
Which is why utilities prepare to close down coal capacity during 2020’s even faster than now.
Bob Wallace says
Helmut, do you know if the cost of German exported electricity has changed the last few years? We know that wholesale prices have fallen drastically.
“While wind and solar electricity are being fed into the grid at set prices on a priority basis, natural gas- and coal-fired power plants, and soon nuclear power plants, are being forced off the market.
The price of electricity on the wholesale market has been in freefall for five years, plunging from €60 ($67.37) per megawatt-hour to the current €20.”
https://global.handelsblatt.com/companies-markets/electricity-prices-in-a-free-fall-478046
Are export prices tracking down wholesale prices? That would probably explain the increase in sales outside of Germany, increased export amounts.
—
BTW, the linked article has some interesting things to say about nuclear in a wind/solar rich world.
“According to Trendresearch, a marketing research institute commissioned by Handelsblatt, the use of conventional power plants will continue to decrease. The gas- and coal-fired power plants and the nuclear power plants that remain on the grid will produce around 435,000 gigawatt hours of electricity this year.
Although that’s about two-thirds of the total German electricity production, the power plants were designed for 521,000 gigawatt hours. This means the utilization of their capacity is lagging around 17 percent below what they were designed for. By 2020, the gap between capacity and production is likely to increase to 23 percent.
The plunge in price is putting the heads of E.ON and RWE, Johannes Teyssen and Peter Terium respectively, in a predicament. With prices of €20, restructuring is in danger. When Mr. Teyssen decided to spin off the ailing power plants in 2014, the megawatt-hour of electricity was still at €33.
In a major crisis, even rivals tend to close ranks.
“At these prices, not a single power plant is earning money,” RWE’s Mr. Terium said two weeks ago at the presentation of the company’s financial statement, summing up the situation threatening the very existence of the energy sector.
One day later, E.ON’s Mr. Teyssen could only agree. “Terium is certainly right about that,” he said.
At the moment, the two executives are watching as their business is virtually imploding. First gas-fired power plants were forced off the market, then the black coal plants, and now low-priced lignite and even nuclear energy is struggling against being shut down.
“We can keep the nuclear power plants running at these prices – but it isn’t worth replacing the fuel rods,” Mr. Terium said matter-of-factly.
The price curves for electricity on the European Energy Exchange (EEX) in Leipzig are part of what’s troubling the two CEOs and operators of all large power plants.
While consumers are being forced to pay rising prices for electricity because of constantly higher taxes, fees and levies, the quoted rates on the wholesale market for electricity from coal, gas and nuclear power plants have been heading in the other direction for years. In recent weeks, they reached a dramatic low point that no manager would have thought possible.”
Let me repeat…
“We can keep the nuclear power plants running at these prices – but it isn’t worth replacing the fuel rods,”
Imagine if one was considering building a new reactor and had to add capex and finex payments. Or if there was a significant repair need and the need to pay for it.
Helmut Frik says
Yes that why I said german utilities have no interest in a prolonged operation of nuclear in germany. they would have to invest in a prolonged operation, because they have been deinvesting now for many years so the plants will be rund down till closing date.
by the way german lignite has lower fuel costs than nuclear. Which is not good for CO2 emissions, but tells which plants are most likely to still earn something. Especially since they are much more flexible than nuclear, which can not ramp down sufficiently in times of negative or extremely low prices.
German power exports are rising due to low german wholesale prices, corect. But export prices are still as high as import prices for electricity, unlike france which has to sell surplus nuclear power at much lower prices.
Bob Wallace says
I very clearly stated that Germany’s increased generation is not due to increased consumption. Consumption has been dropping.
“Now let’s look at German consumption. Drops 22 TWh from 2010 to 2016.”
Germany has been adding wind and solar generation to their grid. We all know that the wind does not blow all the time nor does the Sun shine around the clock. But grids deal with that by turning off fossil fuel or hydro generation when there is wind or solar input. They don’t turn on more.
—
CO2 per TWh produced is the critical variable. It tells you whether production is getting cleaner or dirtier.
Taking all the CO2 produced and attributing it to a declining rate of consumption and a rising rate of export makes absolutely no sense. It’s a misuse of data.
TimS says
If mankind is serious about addressing Climate Change, carbon-free nuclear power is the only proven way to go, e.g. France and Sweden, because intermittent renewables are a trillion-euro fiasco, they have failed miserably in curbing CO2 emissions, e.g. Germany.
TimS says
“Wind and solar are like a high-cost placebo — people will think we are treating the problem.”
https://citizenactionmonitor.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/high-cost-of-wind-and-solar-energy-is-a-deal-killer-says-gail-tverberg/
https://citizenactionmonitor.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/placebo.jpg
Bas Gresnigt says
Nowadays, nuclear cost 2 -5 times more per KWh than wind & solar.
That implies that nuclear emits 2 – 5 times more CO2 per KWh than wind & solar.
So nuclear is far less effective to fight climate change.
TimS says
Wind & solar could be for free, even so it’s unreliable and expensive because it depends on weather conditions to generate electricity, it doesn’t work when the sun goes down, or behind a cloud, or when it’s raining, or when it’s snowing, or when the wind is not blowing.
Without cost-effective batteries, solar/wind is just an expensive placebo backed up by fossil fuels to keep lights on.
Karel Beckman says
Can we move the level of the debate up please? We know that wind and solar are intermittent, grid operators have found ways to deal with that. Costs are also down a lot. Etc. Etc. Please find something worthwhile to say, read some of our articles, now you are wasting our time. Thanks.
Bob Wallace says
No, that cost/CO2 relationship doesn’t hold.
Nuclear has a slightly higher lifespan carbon footprint than do wind and solar (NREL megastudy). That’s based on kWh electricity produced.
Nuclear is less effective than wind and solar for fighting climate change due to:
1. Cost. If we take the $6+/watt that we’d spend on nuclear and use it for wind and solar we’d get 5 to 6 times as much nameplate capacity. Adjust nameplate for capacity factors and we’d get about 3x as many MWh per dollar invested.
2. Time to install. Western nuclear plant builders take roughly eight years to bring a reactor online from the day they start construction. Plus years in the planning/approval stage before they start construction.
Both solar and wind farms are typically built in less than two years, sometimes less than one. Install a GW(output) of wind and solar and we can shut down a GWo of fossil fuels four to eight times sooner.
The US now has a bit over 9 GW of wind under construction and another 12 GW in advanced development. Soon to start construction.
The US installed 8 GW of wind in 2015 and another 8 GW of wind in 2016. That’s like bringing four 1 GW reactors online per year. In no way does the US have the ability to build reactors at that rate. It would mean having over 30 reactors being constructed at the same time.
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
Sorry, but you’re wrong.
The NREL (review) study is based on studies from the 1990 – 2010 period*). In that period:
– New nuclear was >2 times cheaper than now;
– Wind and solar were 3 – 10 times more expensive.
In costs per KWh as that is the right measure.
So the NREL study:
– overestimates wind & solar emissions 3-10 times;
– underestimates new nuclear emissions ~2 times.
Apply the corrections and you find I’m right, mainly thanks to the fast price decrease of wind & solar.
_____
*) check the references they use. E.g. a 2001 review study which base its conclusions on a lot of studies from the nineties without correcting for the price decrease of wind & solar…
Bob Wallace says
I was referencing the NREL study on lifespan carbon footprint for all electricity sources.
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html
Sorry if I didn’t make that clear and, as well, my shift of topic from carbon footprint to economics.
Here are the costs and sources I was using for the rest of my comment.
Wind Onshore
$1.64 Installed Cost/Watt
DOE 2015 Wind Technologies Market Report
PV Solar
$1.17 Installed Cost/Watt
$1.30 With Tracking
Greentech Media 2nd Qtr 2016 Executive Summary
CCNG
$1.09 Installed Cost/Watt
Open EI DOE Database Median Overnight Cost
Nuclear
$6.94 Installed Cost/Watt based on Vogtle previous current cost estimate of $15.5 billion for 2,234 MW. That price has now risen to about $9.31 billion in 2014 dollars due to further timeline overruns so now about $18.6 billion = $8.33 Installed Cost
I ‘cut nuclear a deal’ at $6. The installed price would have been $6.94/watt prior to the more recent cost overruns.
And, apparently, fixed mount solar has now dropped below $1/watt. Wind will also be down in 2016 but we haven’t seen official numbers yet.
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
Thanks.
My previous comment concerned precisely the NREL report that you link.
For the reasons I indicated in previous comment, the results of that report are no longer valid. They have to be corrected as I indicated.*)
Costs
I look at prices bidders offer in response to tenders. So e.g.:
– Offshore wind operational in 2021; av price ~5cnt/KWh (5 – 7 cnt in first 15yrs, 3cnt whole sale in second 15yrs).
Operational in 2024: Whole sale prices only. Though only two bids now at a windy German part of the N.Sea; EnBW (~900MW) and Dong (~500MW).**)
It indicates that we can expect further price decreases towards prices of ~2cnt/KWh, already reached at the great plains of USA.
________
*) Think they won’t publish an update soon as it will devaluate nuclear as a low emission source of electricity.
**) Also due to bigger turbines ~12MW (=higher = CF>55%).
Don’t expect low prices for UK offshore as UK’s tender procedure avoids sharp competition.
Bob Wallace says
OK, you’re talking about a page linked to the page address I posted?
Yes, any cost data in that 2014 report would be out of date. In fact, it’s probably 2013 data and not representative of current prices.
At the end of 2013 the average price of installed utility solar in the US was $1.96/watt. By the end of 2016 the price had dropped to $1.06/watt. A 46% drop.
Helmut Frik says
In germany I have first report of utility scale solar systems just below 700€/kWp. Since wages here are not lower than in the US, this indicates where prices could be heading.
Bob Wallace says
700€ = $769. That makes it $0.80/watt installed. That’s good.
At the end of last year fixed mount utility solar was $1.06. That’s an average so some installations were likely under $1/W.
Cyprus Creek, the second largest solar farm company in the US predicts prices below $0.75W by 2020. First Solar, the largest, will probably be below that as they use thin film panels that they manufacture.
Solar prices are dropping amazingly fast. Some are predicting prices around $0.02/kWh, making solar competitive with wind.
These very low prices for wind and solar electricity from new facilities (still paying capex and finex) are going to be very disruptive. Paid off fossil fuel generators and many nuclear reactors can’t compete at that level.
This says a lot of good things about our move off fossil fuels. A lot will happen simply because greedy people will see more money to be made with renewables than by burning coal and natural gas.
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
One would think that the NREL report is based on 2013 data, but for important numbers it’s not as I indicated in previous comment in this thread.
Bob Wallace says
Where do you find the data for
“– overestimates wind & solar emissions 3-10 times;
– underestimates new nuclear emissions ~2 times.”
Costs, I understand. I was just working with GTM/SEIA costs for solar and they report utility fixed mount solar cost has dropped 56% in the last four years. Had the NREL been using current BOY 2013 numbers their costs would now be 2x higher than current.
But what has changed in regards to emissions?
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
Sorry, but your assumption that data from 2013 are used is absurd when you have read the NREL report itself and checked the resources the report uses (a.o. review from 2001 using studies from the nineties).
Bob Wallace says
Bas, it feels to me that we aren’t communicating.
I totally agree that the cost data in the NREL source I linked is far out of date. And I never referenced that cost data.
What I did reference was the lifespan carbon footprint data.
You’re telling me that the report overstates the CO2 footprint for solar 3x to 10x times. And underestimates nuclear by 2x.
Where do you get that information? What has caused such huge changes in carbon footprints over these few years?
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
For all non fuel burning methods of electricity generation the costs and CO2 emissions are linear related.*)
So 2x higher costs per KWh, imply ~2x more CO2 emissions per KWh!
_____
*) In the end all costs are income for people: Workers, investors. All govt income also end being income for people (teachers, bond holders, etc)/ from it), etc.
It’s unlikely that workers, etc in renewable spend that income to less CO2 emitting activities & products than nuclear workers and investors.
The other way around is even more unlikely.
There is no magic by which nuclear costs do not end up being income for people who spend it to activities & products (which imply CO2 emission per ÂŁ) just as other people.
Bob Wallace says
“So 2x higher costs per KWh, imply ~2x more CO2 emissions per KWh!”
That does not hold.
The price of solar panels has come down because manufacturing has become more efficient (automated), we’ve learned to slice wafers thinner with less waste (more wafers per ingot), more efficient cells, etc.
We get cost decreases in wind by things like better blade design, better siting, better software (anticipation of wind shifts), and other changes which don’t require different energy inputs.
Bas Gresnigt says
That does hold. Your models support it!
More wafers per ingot = less CO2/wafer. Also more electricity per wafer as more efficient, etc. etc.
Opposite with nuclear.
More security when accidents showed its not save. Hence more pricey materials, more complicated, etc.
Btw.
Suggest to move this to end of comment thread.
Bob Wallace says
Yes, slicing thinner wafers probably does cut some CO2.
Now, please bring something to back up your 3x to 10x claim. As far as I can tell you have gotten far out in front of any available data.
Jeffrey Michel says
After the experience of “living through Chernobyl”, it was really only the West Germans who “decided that they had had enough.” East Germany was aware that it could not boost lignite power generation any further. Air pollution had already become intolerable, with army helicopters strewing limestone over mountain forests dying from acid rain. West Germany provided no power plant desulphurization equipment to its “brothers and sisters” behind the Berlin Wall, even though it imported a wide range of products from eastern German factories running on lignite.
Immediately after the Chernobyl meltdown, the SPD in West Germany had passed a resolution to abandon nuclear power within a decade. That declaration was later modified to 10 years after the SPD returned to power, and then dropped altogether in favor of reducing CO2 emissions. A prolongation of nuclear generation into the 2030’s was resolved in 2010 by the CDU/CSU/FDP coalition government, only to be revoked a year later following the Fukushima tragedy.
“Germany may miss their 2020 target” more than just “a bit”. Achieving the corresponding -40% GHG reduction would actually be equivalent to retiring all of the country’s lignite power plants within the coming three years. The Germans have been fully “aware that they’d have to deal with Fukushima when they set that goal”, since it was confirmed in the 2013 CDU/SPD coalition agreement. The issue of non-fulfillment has now been politically resolved by aiming toward more distant target years.
Germany’s feed-in tariff legislation was instituted without the asset of predictability. The Czech Republic has been obliged to install four phase-shifting transformers at its northern border to limit renewable power surges from Saxony. With domestic renewable generation at only a fraction of the German level, there is no prospect of the conventional power market “imploding”. Only recently, Pavel Tykac of Czech Coal attempted to take over the 1,000 MW Pocerady power station from CEZ for €400 million. That is proportionately the same price that the German government is providing to retire 680 MWel of obsolete lignite generation at RWE or LEAG. Nuclear phase-out in southern Germany will soon be inducing more power imports until north-south transmission corridors are finally completed. That perspective is of particular importance to the RWE green power spinoff Innogy.
The deficits of lignite power generation are compensated by its continuing importance for grid supply reliability. Since around 15% RWE is owned by 85 Rhineland municipal entities, furthermore, they bear a particular responsibility for developing post-lignite strategies that restore their accustomed business tax revenues. It remains to be seen whether competition or cooperation will determine the ultimate outcome.
Bob Wallace says
Germany was not aware that it would have to deal with Fukushima before Fukushima happened. That nuclear disaster changed their timeline for reactor closure and is causing them to miss the 2020 target. Since the 2050 target assumes no nuclear then that target should not be impacted.
No one said that moving from a fossil fuel based energy system to renewables would be simple or easy. Vested interests will fight back. There will be NIMBY problems. There will be some false starts down dead end paths. But we are very, very lucky that wind and solar prices have fallen so much and, hopefully, we’ll see similar drops in storage costs.
Helmut Frik says
Be aware that even with the north south power lines missing ther eare just a few hours a year when the south can not be supplied from the north, there are several 400kV lines in place already, So in energy there will be no significant imports.
Phase shift transformers are a standard equipment to control a grid, they are also installed at other german borders and within germany. they have been missing in the outdated grids of poland and the czech republic, at least in case of poland they are installed by the german and the polish grid operater in a joint operation.
About CO2 – there is a severe problem in the traffic sector (rising emissions) and a smaller one in the building sector (emissions not falling as fast as wanted). Emissions in the power sector are as planned or below. You should complain about car manufacturers if you want to complain about emissions.
Bob Wallace says
I address transportation produced CO2 frequently. It just hasn’t been part of this discussion.
I’m very optimistic about phasing out fossil fuels in most of our transportation systems. We already have battery power buses working city streets and low range (up to 100 mile) battery powered trucks making deliveries. Tesla should release a long distance 18-wheeler tractor later this year.
We should be less than five years from EVs reaching manufacturing cost parity with same-feature ICEVs. When that happens we should see a rapid switch in buying patterns as people have the option of purchasing a lower priced, cheaper to operate, more comfortable and more convenient EV.
Air travel and transoceanic shipping are nuts we have not yet cracked. But we’re making progress.
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
You may be optimistic about phasing out fossil in the transportation system, but German cars emitted 3.2% more CO2 last year (thanks to improving economy).
Which more than offsets the good improvements of the electricity sector…
Jeffrey Michel says
What is the basis of your confidence that no significant electricity imports will be needed in southern Germany once five nuclear power plants with a total of 6.7 GW have been retired by 2022? By implication, they could all be shut down today, particularly since the question of radioactive waste disposal has not yet been resolved. The ongoing heated controversy over new transmission corridors costing tens of billions of euros would also be superfluous. Directing such questions to the responsible authorities would not change the momentum of activities already in progress, however. The fact that one aging lignite power plant in the Czech Republic is apparently considered as valuable as the entire MIBRAG lignite mining corporation in Germany also suggests a rising interest in cross-border power deliveries.
From the standpoint of climate policy, the traffic (transportation) sector has constituted a mirror image of the electrical power industry since the 1990s. CO2 emissions dropped dramatically in eastern Germany due to the reduction of lignite usage from 300 Mt to about 80 Mt. Concurrently, motor vehicle ownership swelled. 60% of the German workforce presently commutes to another city, compared with 53% in 2000. Of 63 million registered motor vehicles, 46 million are passenger cars. The average German automobile is 9.3 years old. In result, GHG emissions from road traffic are higher now than in 1990. Any complaints on that matter might be directed to the environmental organizations that persist in occupying lignite mines while acknowledging the Frankfurt Automobile Show as an indispensible showcase for electromobility despite the elemental provocation of consumer appetites.
Bas Gresnigt says
Jeffrey,
Your question suggest that German authorities would allow that power supply to their population in the south could be endangered.
Be sure they won’t.
Just as after Fukushima when they closed 8 NPP’s at once and Bloomberg predicted long black-outs (none occurred).
In Germany Power Plants have to ask permission >6months in advance for an allowance to switch off. Permission can be refused, then dena compensates the losses caused by the refusal. Such refusal occurred last year in order to help France, as France closed so many nuclear temporary because of the detected fraud.
Note further that the FiT for wind is adapted in the new EEG such that more wind will be installed in the south, etc.
Jeffrey Michel says
Do you believe it might be possible for the lifespan of certain southern German nuclear reactors to be prolonged in order to protect supply security? It’s difficult to evaluate the pertinence of such proposals that are made from time to time. However, if the F.D.P becomes part of the new coalition government after the forthcoming elections in September, such a development would be plausible. The government of North Rhine-Westphalia has recently suggested that up to 10 additional RWE lignite power blocks as well as three coal plant sites could be sensibly retired. A moderate extension of nuclear power generation past 2022 might be pragmatically justified to accelerate such fossil fuel reductions, while effectively blocking increased power imports from Eastern Europe as well as any new gas power plants that could quickly become white elephants.
Helmut Frik says
The nuclear power plants will be completely run down till 2022, since that’s their long terme planned switch off date. So the interest of the utilites to keep them online is also heading towards zero, since they would have to invest a lot on life expansions. Also there is no party beside AFD wich would accept any change of that date. The topic is finished also for FDP. remember it was FDP which (also) switched them off in 2011.
Bas Gresnigt says
Jeffrey,
I think that near all German politicians estimate that supporting prolonged life for nuclear equals political suicide.
FDP drove the 2010 proposal to prolong the life of nuclear. They were always in parliament since WW2 (had ~18%), but were out at next elections. An historic defeat.
In 2016 net export was already 8.6% while nuclear produced 13.1%. So there is almost enough capacity already…
dena will take care for enough.
Btw. North Rhine-Westphalia has no NPP. The state has an early anti-nuclear track record (even for Germany), blocking the start of the ready 330MW fast breeder Kalkar in 1985.
Bob Wallace says
This was just revealed to the public today…
” A worker “deliberately” attempted to fix an error he had made while conducting tests at a New Jersey nuclear reactor causing the plant to shut down 2 years ago, federal officials say.
The now-former employee’s action prompted the Hope Creek generating station to automatically shut down on Sept. 28, 2015. The worker later lied about what he did, officials said Wednesday.
The unidentified PSEG Nuclear technician “made an error while performing a surveillance test and deliberately attempted to correct the error rather than comply with the procedural guidance to stop and inform management,” the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a letter outlining its findings in the case on Wednesday.”
http://www.nj.com/salem/index.ssf/2017/05/nuclear_plant_shut_down_after_worker_deliberately.html
At some point we were discussing how the best designed reactors will still have humans involved in their operation.
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
This is an employee who did his best.
But there are also examples of sabotage by employees in NPP’s, such as one at Doel, which is more risky in my eyes.
Mike Parr says
This is in response to Mr West’s post on Hinkley costs & how wonderful it will all be for Ingerland.
Mr West is being very dishonest in his post on Hinkley – lying by omission would be closer to the point. “The proposed strike price of ÂŁ92.50 – reducing to ÂŁ89.50 if Sizewell C is built” – the price is indexed linked – & currently stands closer to ÂŁ105/MWh & will go higher – much higher as inflation kicks in – caused by a falling ÂŁ. The only “elements of insurance” that Hinkley contains is that EdF/French state will make money hand over fist for the next 30-odd years. Mr West – are you a mouth piece for the Tories or do you work for EdF? In the UK there is no “supply chain”. Concrete? all UK companies are foreign owned. Steel? all UK companies are foreign owned – I could go on in this style for a long time with respect to the panglossian rubbish the West talks. & that is before we get to network elbow room in the summer (low demand) – with PV elbowing out the nukes. That’s going to be fun – doubtless the Tories will next ban PV – after all can’t have it competing with nuclear or the nuclear brown envelopes that are flowing to the Tory-party. Nobody does corruption like the Tories – they could give lessons to a Banana republic – oh hang on – that is what the Uk is becoming.
Colin Megson says
The Chairman of the NNWE might do better for the nuclear industry by pointing out the staggering amount of electricity Hinkley will deliver, compared to renewable technologies. Then he can pursue the argument for looking at more competitive Gen III+ reactors.
Hinkley will deliver 1,513.7 TWh of 24/7, low-carbon electricity over its 60 year design life, at a cost of ÂŁ18 billion. It is virtually 100% certain it will get a life extension to 80 years, raising the amount of electricity delivered to 2,018 TWh.
Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm will deliver 46.2 TWh of intermittent electricity for ÂŁ2.6 billion. 33 would have to be built to deliver as much electricity as Hinkley – that’s ÂŁ85.8 billion.
Rampion Offshore Wind Farm will deliver 27.87 TWh of intermittent electricity for ÂŁ1.596 billion. 54 would have to be built to deliver as much electricity as Hinkley – that’s ÂŁ86.18 billion.
Whitelee Onshore Wind Farm will deliver 31.87 TWh of intermittent electricity for ÂŁ600 million. 47 would have to be built to deliver as much electricity as Hinkley – that’s ÂŁ28.2 billion.
Aikengall II Onshore Wind Farm will deliver 5.2 TWh of intermittent electricity for ÂŁ120 million. 191 would have to be built to deliver as much electricity as Hinkley – that’s ÂŁ34.92 billion.
Bob Wallace says
“Hinkley will deliver 1,513.7 TWh of 24/7, low-carbon electricity over its 60 year design life, at a cost of ÂŁ18 billion.”
Either there’s something wrong with your facts or my math.
1,514 TWh
1,513,700 GWh
1,513,700,000 MWh
1,513,700,000,000 kWh
ÂŁ18,000,000,000 / 1,513,700,000,000 kWh = ÂŁ0.012/kWh.
Hinkley strike price is ÂŁ92.50. ÂŁ0.095 in 2012 pounds. The price will rise along with inflation over the 35(?) years of the contract.
Assuming no startup for 8 years, a 2024 startup and an average 3% rate of inflation would mean ÂŁ0.128/kWh for year one and a price of ÂŁ0.418/kWh at the end of 35 years.
“Recently a German power company called EnBW won a no-subsidy bid for a project called He Dreiht, and Dong won a third project called Gode Wind 3 with a guaranteed electricity price of 60 euros ($64) per megawatt-hour, a wholesale measure of electricity.”
ÂŁ50.8 per MWh, ÂŁ0.051/kWh.
Wind prices are typically locked for 20 years. No inflation.
—
” It is virtually 100% certain it will get a life extension to 80 years”
There is nothing virtually certain about that. Refurbishment costs for reactors designed for a 40 year life are sometimes running too high to justify their continued existence another 20 years.
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
Sorry, a few corrections:
– EnBW won 900MW Offshore to be ready in 2025, for whole sale prices. Which are ~€30/MWh (=~ÂŁ25/MWh).
– Dong won 480MW Offshore to be ready in 2024, far same whole sale prices.
The first offshore wind farms without subsidy!
– Dong won a 110MW wind farm for a guaranteed price of €60/MWh during the first 15yrs, thereafter whole sale prices.
Bob Wallace says
“In the same auction, a German power company called EnBW won a no-subsidy bid for a project called He Dreiht, and Dong won a third project called Gode Wind 3 with a guaranteed electricity price of 60 euros ($64) per megawatt-hour, a wholesale measure of electricity.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/business/energy-environment/offshore-wind-subsidy-dong-energy.html
From Joshua’s article you linked…
“The Gode Wind 3 project was awarded on a bid price of €60 per MWh.”
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/04/14/first-subsidy-free-offshore-wind-deal-german-offshore-wind-auction-dong-energy-enbw-win-big/
From the article Joshua used to write the CT article…
“The Danish energy company said it made a bid of €60 per megawatt-hour for the 110MW Gode Wind 3 project.
The latter will export power via the 600MW DolWin6 grid hub, to be operational in 2023. Borkum Riffgrund West 2 and OWP West will connect to the 900MW DolWin5 grid hub, to be commissioned in 2024.”
http://renews.biz/106694/dong-zero-sum-game-off-germany/
Where are you finding €30? I opened all the comments on the CT article you linked and did a search for “€30” which turned up no hits.
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
The big wind farms (900MW, 2x 240MW) are contracted without subsidy, which imply that production will be sold for the German whole sale prices.
Av. German whole sale price is now €29/MWh.
Futures at the EPEX don’t show increases.*)
So I took a cautionary €30/MWh.
______
*) Those futures go until 2023. For delivery in 2023 a price of €31/MWh is offered but nobody buys, even no offer to buy for a lower price. So you may assume that the price will decrease substantially as occurred in the past.
Note that after 2022 no nuclear plant will be closed (as they are all closed), so the displacement / elimination competition against fossil plants then is moving full steam ahead (fossil will loose as the marginal costs of wind & solar are far lower).
Experts said that the cost price of the new lignite plants is €25/MWh or lower. So there is chance that the whole sale price will gradually move towards that level. Germany will continue to install ~6GW/a wind+solar (their grid is ~70GW).
Bob Wallace says
Regardless of wholesale price, if the accepted bid is for €60 per megawatt-hour then that’s the agreed on price.
If the wholesale price is €29/MWh then the wind farms are receiving a roughly €30/MWh subsidy since they are going to be paid 2x the wholesale price.
—
BTW, where do you find the German wholesale electricity price data? Do you have a source which gives historical prices going back a decade or so?
Bas Gresnigt says
Yes but that €60/MWh guarantee applies only for the 110MW wind farm.
Not for the 900MW + 2x240MW wind farms. For those Dong and EnBW in their bids offered to construct, operate and decommission without asking any guarantee or other reward.
Apparently they think they can earn enough by selling the produced electricity on the market (=~€30/MWh then)!
Read the official publication of the BundesNetzAgentur.
Bob Wallace says
Sorry, I missed that.
Truthfully, I’m having trouble tracking due to the companies and places whose names are strange to me. ” EnBW”, “He Dreiht”, “Gode”, etc. I’m a poor language learner and until I’ve used a word for a few times it’s kind of a mushy spot in my head.
Admissions done, Dong and EnBW which are two companies that install offshore wind in Europe are planning on building large wind farms which will operate on market prices. Which means that they think they can be profitable at the going wholesale price at the time they come online.
Do I have that right?
Are there any sweeteners in the deal such as the market guaranteeing to purchase their output like the Hinkley contract? Or are they expecting to operate as purely market sellers?
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob, you’re right.
There is a sour sweetener for Dong:
Until end of 2021 Dong can retreat. It then has to pay a penalty of 48mln (1mln per 10MW).
Appears EnBW doesn’t have that sweetener but they must be ready in 2025 with their 900MW farm (one yr later), so more sure the needed 12MW – 15MW wind turbines are available.
Those turbines are essential as:
– higher CF as those turbines are higher = harder and more steady wind;
– lower installation & maintenance cost per MW.
Btw.
Also again a decrease of CO2/MWh emissions!
Helmut Frik says
I answer here because otherwise no answer possible: The grid is run by Transnet BW wich is a seperate company owned by ENBW. Similar as with RWE and Amprion.
A smal state owned holding running the grid which tenders actual generation would be my idea for grid operation.
Helmut Frik says
They expect to operate as pure market sellers, but they have their own customers on the market- EnBW is still a integrated utility. But if you ignore that EnBW can sell power to their sister copany which sells the power to end users (under competition, so no monopol) the wind farms operate as mechant plant on the wholesale market.
Bas Gresnigt says
“EnBW is still a integrated utility.”???
Thought that they are obliged to keep their grid operations fully separated. No preferential treatment for their own power services allowed.
Dutch Tennet could buy E.on’s grid in 2010 as E.on didn’t fully live up to the rules and was obliged to sell (EU).
Here in NL it’s forbidden that an utility runs a grid. They were obliged to sell to state owned Tennet.
Because the grid is an inherent monopoly.
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
Sorry, I forgot a sweetener. Dong and EnBW bid for a price of €0/MWh. So if av. whole sale price becomes negative they get compensated such that they don’t have to pay to get rid of their produced electricity.
Though it’s a small one as now negative prices are short and not deep as market parties adapted (alu smelters rush to max. when they think neg. prices will occur, etc).
And near all base load power plants will be closed in 2025 (incl. all nuclear)…
Bas Gresnigt says
Btw. I forgot, but they can also easily stop the wind turbines if the price is negative.
So the value of that sweetener in case of negative whole sale prices is near zero.
Bob Wallace says
That’s an amazing price if they can pull it off.
(I expect that by the time we get there offshore wind prices like that will be common. But I’m still amazed at how rapidly change is happening.)
BTW, a source for German wholesale electricity prices?
The closest I can get is the price of industrial electricity sans taxes and fees. (Eurostat)
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
Regard cost & production factors. Offshore wind should become much cheaper than onshore.
I often use Fraunhofer and AGEB.
You can see e.g. that the av. Day ahead price in 2016 was €28.60/MWh. That this Jan. av. price was €50.53, while wind decreased 1,4TWh (15%) and net export also decreased 1.4TWh (30%).
etc.
Helmut Frik says
It’s a bit more complicated. Lignits cost price, so shor time variable costs is far below 25€/MWh. it’s somewhere between 12 and 3,5€/MWh, and that’s the price when they leave market. (And unlike nucleaar they are able to leave the market fast enough)
But that does not mean that thy can be run at that price for longer times. That’s why their owner are starting to plan their phase out.
E.g. Jähnischwalde will not get a extension of the open cast mine supplying it. (It would also most likely not being allowed today any more), which means tha plant will run out of fuel in 2023. (2,5 GW remaining till then), and other lignite plants in the east will run into similar problems not too much later.
The plant might remain reserve if it can be operated with few people in the future, for a few hours every year.
In the west reserves are bigger in the existing mines, but alo they are reducing the capacity to make better use of the remaining coal in the mines. They have alo cancelled extensions of the mindes so far, which means that resouces under nearby areas will never be used. They will most likely close down older, less efficient plants, but keep the newes ones running till the last hard coal plant has left market.
Colin Megson says
There’s nothing wrong with the 1,513.7 TWh of 24/7, low-carbon electricity Hinkley will deliver and that ÂŁ18 billion cost works out at ÂŁ11.89/MWh.
On behalf of UK electricity bill payers, our Government negotiated a ÂŁ92.50/MWh wholesale price that would be paid to EDF. No wonder the Chinese couldn’t wait to get ÂŁ6 billion into the project with an income like that written into the deal.
Without a by-your-leave the UK Government invested ÂŁ1.2 billion of taxpayers money in offshore wind through the Green Investment Bank.
For every ÂŁ invested in Hinkley, the investor has the opportunity of a dividend from over 5X the income a ÂŁ invested in offshore wind will receive.
Latest score:
Inscrutable Chinese Politician >5 – Gullible UK Politician 1
http://idiocyofrenewables.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/nuclear-power-hinkley-point-c-nuclear.html
Bob Wallace says
“There’s nothing wrong with the 1,513.7 TWh of 24/7, low-carbon electricity Hinkley will deliver and that ÂŁ18 billion cost works out at ÂŁ11.89/MWh.”
ÂŁ11.89/MWh wholesale. That’s pretty much the retail cost of electricity in the UK, is it not?
“On behalf of UK electricity bill payers, our Government negotiated a ÂŁ92.50/MWh wholesale price that would be paid to EDF.”
ÂŁ92.50/MWh in 2012 pounds and linked to inflation for the 35 years after the reactors come online. Every year from 2012 until Hinkley might come online (2024? 2030?) the price of nuclear goes up. The price of wind and solar falls.
And wind/solar contracts generally are fixed, do not adjust upward with inflation. I know of only one US PPA that has an inflation clause. It’s starting price was far below that of other current PPAs and its average price over 20 years worked out to roughly that of the other PPAs.
The UK is lagging behind in terms of offshore wind cost. There’s no reason why the UK shouldn’t be able to quickly catch up with the most efficient installers and get its offshore costs in line.
But, hey, England seems to want to march to a different drummer. Brexit is another self-inflicted wound that folks there have given themselves. If they want to pay a lot more than necessary for electricity that’s up to them.
Nigel West says
UK Government policy on renewables CFDs is 15 year contracts with CPI indexation:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/263937/Final_Document_-_Investing_in_renewable_technologies_-_CfD_contract_terms_and_strike_prices_UPDATED_6_DEC.pdf
Eg. Beatrix offshore windfarm.
P.S. Many Californians aren’t too happy with the Union currently? Brits voted to pull out of the EU while they still could to remain a sovereign nation.
Bob Wallace says
If UK renewable prices are inflation indexed then the strike price should be much lower than for projects which lock into fixed selling prices (and for longer intervals). IIRC the one index solar farm in the US offered a 3.5c/kWh start price while other farms at the time were settling for a fixed 4.5c/kWh price.
Brits exited the EU so that they could prevent “undesirables” from entering Britain.
Colin Megson says
“…reactors designed for a 40 year life…”
LWRs are not designed for 40 years – “…40 years was an arbitrary time period chosen in the 1950s by the Atomic Energy Commission…”
“…If a nuclear power plant gets a license extension, as almost all do in America, the NRC requires another look every 20 years after that. Most of our 98 operating nuclear power plants have already had the licenses renewed for the first time, so are now licensed to operate for 60 years. Eleven are in this process and are expected to pass. Only six plants remain to apply for an extension. Many nuclear plants are already planning for the next cycle to extend their life to 80 years…”
“…Refurbishment costs………. are sometimes running too high to justify their continued existence another 20 years…”
“…Maintaining existing nuclear plants cuts the cost of producing electricity in half relative to installing new units of either hydro or nuclear, and cuts costs even more relative to installing new wind and solar. Maintaining existing nuclear is also cheaper than installing new natural gas plants even with our amazingly low gas prices…”:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/02/23/80-year-nuclear-plants-trump-renewables-and-gas/#3d39a5726a06
Bob Wallace says
“Maintaining existing nuclear plants cuts the cost of producing electricity in half relative to installing new units of either hydro or nuclear, and cuts costs even more relative to installing new wind and solar. ”
We have yet to see a US reactor last 50 years. In fact, our oldest operating reactor will be closed just before it reaches its 50th birthday.
If reactors require only maintenance some of them might operate beyond age 50. But almost all US reactors have little room to increase their price of electricity and stay in business. A major repair and they are toast.
Out of the “98” about one fourth are very close to bankruptcy. Some are now receiving subsidies in order to keep from being closed.
The US nuclear industry is on thin, thin ice. Without subsidies or a price on carbon we should expect a string of economic failures going forward.
Helmut Frik says
Proble is that each life extension – or keeping the sytems running for extended periods, means to exchange significant parts of the systems, because the original parts are worn out and are not available any more on the market. This will become more severe with the phase out pf coal power plants, because the non nuclear part of a nuclear power station is mostly identical to a coal power station. Missing parts can end the life of a power plant very fast.
Bob Wallace says
That’s an interesting concept I’ve run into recently. I wonder if anyone will do a study on the impact of empty parts shelves?
There’s the addition problem of running out of replacement workers. The US nuclear industry is reaching a critical point at which large numbers of its trained and experienced people are reaching retirement age and it’s not clear that we are preparing enough people to take their place.
Were I someone who was considering my future career I’d stay far away from nuclear (unless I was interested in decommissioning). All it would take is one major Chernobyl-like disaster in the US or Western Europe to shut down the US nuclear industry.
Bas Gresnigt says
Helmut,
Right! E.g.
The necessary replacement of its steam generators and one reactor head of twin reactor SONGS 2×1.1GW ended its life in 2013 after ~30years…
Material (incl steel) wears faster under influence of radioactive radiation (neutron bombardment), etc…
It’s one of the reason av. life of nuclear reactors at decommission is ~ 40years.
No reason to assume that the new reactors will do better since those are bigger and more complicated, so more risks on expensive repairs which the owners may consider the reactor isn’t worth.
Nigel West says
AREVA’s main business now is refurbishing EDF’s reactors not building new stations. PWRs can be life extended by replacing the steam generators. Also the RPV is defuelled and the internals replaced. It can be annealed to deal with embrittlement caused by neutron bombardment.
Average life of nukes is not a good measure because unlike PWRs some designs can’t be refurbished and major parts replaced economically. E.g. the UKs 8GW fleet of gas cooled reactors that are being replaced with new nuclear stations starting with Hinkley Point C.
There is no issue with running out of spare parts. New steam generator components can be forged at plants in the UK, France and Japan. New RPV heads can be made too.
Bob Wallace says
If you take a reactor that is probably just competitive and refurbish it the cost of electricity produced goes up.
And while you’re refurbishing the cost of renewables keeps dropping.
Not saying that all refurbished reactors will not be competitive, just pointing out that not all is rosy in reactor-land.
Helmut Frik says
There is a brand new coal power station which is scrap metal now because it would need a new, or partly new boiler to start operations. So such a refurbishment would surely kill a old nuclear power station with lower remaining value.
If you forge parts not for a significant market, but fully hand made as one piece in years, you get servere cost and quality problems, and totally unaffordable spare parts are as good as no spare parts. We got some spareparts cast in similar way in another branch after serial production was closed. Factor 10 was by far not enough, so this will surely not repeated, the old systems will simply get knocked down because of missing (or hyper expensive) spareparts.
Bas Gresnigt says
Hinkley will also need expensive spinning reserve and rerouting within a second, as all that power will be down to zero in a second a number of times during its operation.
It’s virtually certain that Hinkley will stop in 2060 when the 35yrs guarantee period is over, as wind & solar will then produce for €10-30/MWh. A price level below Hinkley’s operating costs.
Germany contracted this spring 1,380MW offshore wind (CF~55%) to be constructed in 2024/’25 for German whole sale prices which are ~€29/MWh on average (contracts won by EnBW and Dong).
UK part of the North-Sea can support enough wind to deliver 3000TWh/a which is ~ 8 times more than UK’s electricity consumption…
Nigel West says
Intermittent wind power in isolation is worth far less than nuclear which provides firm capacity. Just comparing the energy price of nuclear with offshore wind is quite misleading without the storage costs associated with wind factored in.
On Hinkley Point the UK Government said:
“…..It compares broadly with the costs of other clean energy, whether offshore wind with additional costs of intermittency, or gas with carbon capture and storage.”
The UK is very short of firm generating capacity. The margins are too thin already and by the mid 2020s AGR capacity will start to close. The UK must build firm capacity to keep the lights on. Just building an equivalent amount of wind power based on energy output would not be an option. It is for Germany while their capacity margin is around 90% they have huge reserves of back-up generation so wind intermittency is not an issue.
In energy output terms 3.2GW equates to about 8GW of offshore wind. Hinkley is a two unit station. The probability of an unplanned outage of a new PWR is about 4%. The probability that 8GW of wind will not be available is near 100%. So on a risk basis, used by National Grid, far less reserve is needed to cover nuclear than for wind.
Lulls in the UK can occur for days in the winter during periods of high demand. What might this mean in terms of storage needs if 8GW of wind capacity is down for 3 days at say <10% LF due to a lull. 8GW of wind would need about 190GWh of storage to cover a 3 day lull. 8GW *0.9*0.37*72.
To provide 190GWh of storage, 19 pumped storage plants the size of the UK's Dinorwig facility would be needed at a cost of around ÂŁ3bn each. The feasibility of building so many plants across the UK is very doubtful too.
Hence to match Hinkley Point C with an equivalent amount of firm capacity based on offshore wind might in addition need ÂŁ60bn spent on pumped storage, not including transmission reinforcement. Makes Hinkley Point sound a no brainer at ÂŁ18bn!
Bob Wallace says
Compare the cost of Hinkley + backup spinning generation + storage to time-shift to offshore wind + storage if you want to make a rational choice.
” a 2024 (Hinkley) startup and an average 3% rate of inflation would mean ÂŁ0.128/kWh for year one and a price of ÂŁ0.418/kWh at the end of 35 year”
” ÂŁ0.051/kWh” for offshore wind starting up in 2024. Fixed, no inflation.
That’s a median price of ÂŁ0.27 for nuclear vs. ÂŁ0.05 for offshore wind. That is an incredibly large difference. Very, very large.
Short term storage (2-3) days will almost certainly be accomplished using batteries. They are already competitive with PuHS for single day storage and prices continue to fall rapidly.
That means that a source for long term storage containing far less energy than what you assume will be needed. If the grid has sufficient battery storage to cover a three day lull (and lull’s do not mean zero input) and the maximum lull length is seven days then the grid needs to cover the shortfall for days four through seven.
PuHS, biofuel, and imported electricity from the east or west are all options for meeting the Day 4 to Day 7 shortfall.
Take the UK’s coal plants and convert them to biomass. Store enough fuel to cover the infrequent lulls and Bob’s your uncle.
Capex very low. The coal plants are probably already paid off. Fuel costs are probably low, there could be enough wood waste to cover fuel needs. Transmission is already in place.
Nigel West says
“Compare the cost of Hinkley + backup spinning generation + storage to time-shift to offshore wind + storage if you want to make a rational choice.”
Think of Hinkley Point C as a like for like replacement for three AGRs. So no need for more support in the form reserve. (Storage for UK nuclear is not needed either but let’s not go there). HPC is a standalone project other than modest local transmission reinforcement works. So the honest comparison is HPC v. offshore wind and extensive offshore transmission works + pumped storage and extensive onshore transmission works.
Indeed that comparison will hold true for all the new nuclear capacity needed to replace the UK’s existing AGR stations. Unless new CCGTs are built too.
“Short term storage (2-3) days will almost certainly be accomplished using batteries. They are already competitive with PuHS for single day storage and prices continue to fall rapidly.”
Very unlikely batteries could provide days of grid scale storage. National Grid recently ran a tender for frequency response services and 200MW of battery capacity was successful bid. The largest farm is 49MW. Endurance will be a few hours at the most before being discharged. Grid is not planning to build battery storage capacity to provide many GW’s of capacity to last days.
The capacity needed would be as expensive as pumped hydro for storing power for days on end. 1000s of battery farms would be needed to provide 200GWh of battery storage. That would not be an easy task in the UK.
“Take the UK’s coal plants and convert them to biomass. Store enough fuel to cover the infrequent lulls and Bob’s your uncle.”
UK’s existing coal fleet is at the end of life point nearly all >50years old. Drax dates from 70/80s and has six 660MW sets. Half have been converted to biomass mainly imported from the US and Canada, as not enough in Europe. Requires shipping 7.5mt of biomass each year to the UK from N. America……
“imported electricity from the east or west are all options for meeting the Day 4 to Day 7 shortfall.”
Would not be secure enough to provide firm capacity. ‘From the west’ is just Ireland so I don’t think so. Unless you mean the USA!
Bob Wallace says
If the UK doesn’t need backup and storage for Hinkley the the UK doesn’t need backup and storage for wind.
“Very unlikely batteries could provide days of grid scale storage”
That is not what I said. Let’s not distort, OK?
“UK’s existing coal fleet is at the end of life point nearly all >50years old. ”
That’s OK. We’re really talking about using them a few days per year. Those ‘extended wind lulls’ which pop up once in awhile.
West of the UK is Iceland which has a lot of electricity to sell. It’s an already researched idea. East is the vast hydro potential of the northern mountains.
Nigel West says
“If the UK doesn’t need backup and storage for Hinkley the the UK doesn’t need backup and storage for wind.”
Wrong. The reserve needed to cover firm generation capacity with >90% availability already exists. However there is no spare reserve as margins are very tight during the winter. If firm generation capacity (closing nukes) is replaced with intermittent wind the UK grid will for sure need more reserve generation capacity, or vast amounts of new storage capacity.
Bob Wallace says
You’re now switching the discussion from building new nukes to closing existing nukes.
That’s called moving the goalposts.
Bas Gresnigt says
Nigel,
You forget most important cheap storage suitable for long term storage of massive amount of renewable power in earth cavities: Power-to-Gas.
The Germans have many pilots.
Regular roll out in 2024 (though they won’t need it until ~2035).
Jeffrey Michel says
Thank you for posting this link, which has been widely overlooked here in Germany. However, I wouldn’t agree that these capacities may only be needed two decades from now, since many of them are located in regions with overdue transformation strategies. The HYPOS installation, for instance, has been realized at Saxony-Anhalt’s chemical industry complex that currently uses 5 – 6 Mt/a of lignite. The sooner the Leuna and Schkopau facilities there can be alleviated of fossil fuel depencency, the more likely other countries will be motivated to follow suit.
Bas Gresnigt says
Nigel,
Those wind farms each have a CF of ~55% delivering for €30/MWh (unsubsidized, check my previous comment).
Install 50% over-capacity and spread them around the sea (also Irish sea) than the resulting overall CF will be ~75% for on av. €45/MWh.
Use the over-capacity to produce gas (use the then mass produced unmanned PtG plants housed in a container from the Germans). With 40% efficiency for PtG-S-GtP + 3.7cnt/KWh for equipment etc., the resulting power will cost €15/MWh.
The total then delivers 95% of UK power for an av. price of €67/MWh which is less than half the guaranteed price Hinkley will get in 2025. Thereafter the difference will only increase as the Hinkley guaranteed price is inflation corrected!
The model leaves 5% open for other renewable resources such as onshore wind, solar, bio-fuels/-waste, geothermal, etc. While those can easily generate 20%, so spare capacity enough.
Why take the risks and genetic and health damage of new nuclear when there are other solutions that fully satisfy demand, and cost less than half and emit also less than half compared to new nuclear (Hinkley, etc)???
I’m baffled about so much stupidity by UK (scientists).
Nigel West says
Bas, I agree a higher CF of >50% for new offshore wind looks realistic compared to 37% for existing. It would decrease the amount of wind capacity needed to match HPC to 6GW in terms of energy output, but not firm capacity. The storage capacity I indicated in my post that would be needed to deal with a 3 day lull is unchanged – 6GW*0.9*0.5*72 = 194GWh.
Spreading wind capacity around the UK wouldn’t provide a secure enough supply in my view. To cover down time I think the practical solution would have to be a parallel fleet of CCGTs running on gas/gasoil, rather than PtGtP.
Unfortunately over building wind would not help with firm capacity needed for the UK grid. Currently National Grid for the wind fleet use equivalent firm capacity (EFC) – currently 22%. Note calculated on the current level of wind penetration and system demand. If wind as a proportion of total generating capacity increases the EFC will decrease. Every 1GW of nuclear is equivalent to 4GW of wind based on EFC.
Yes there are risks with nuclear. Nuclear legacy risks exist across the UK and will do for centuries with or without new nuclear. New nuclear has to be safer than what has gone before. Of more concern are legacy issues at Sellafield where open to the environment pools contain spent fuel in cans that have split open due to the length of time left under water.
Mike Parr says
50% CF is meaningless in the context of a strong seasonal assymetry – the Danes experience 75% through to 85% CFs in autumn through to spring – (just when you need lots of elec & wheh prices are high) this does not obviate the need for multi-day back up – but it does throw a somewhat different light on how power generation could be structured – wind & PV complement each other quite well in seasonal terms – but again this is not a subject often discussed – the preference being for “simple solutions” like nuclear (which are anything but simple & anything but cheap – but I think we have beaten this one to death – although Megson still seems to be defending the indefensible). Gas back up could also work with PV (& some wind) in summer – thus over coming some of the problems with very low running hours. Those that have a problem with Danish CFs – Nordpool & others have the numbers – on a daily basis (even hourly) & segment out off-shore. The Brits don’t do that – cann’t think why.
Bas Gresnigt says
The Danes cooperate with the Germans towards P2G-S-GtP.
Enough cheap storage to cover any extreme long and deep seasonal lull.
Bob Wallace says
Is there a website that you know of that follows E->G->E technology? In English?
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
Sorry, I don’t know one.
It are three different technologies:
– PtG, the new one. With good cost and efficiency improvements.
– Mass gas storage in earth cavities.
Minor cost with little developments.
– GtP
Unmanned gas turbines, or fuel cells (only H2; improvements ongoing) as in FCEV cars (only for H2).
Note that produced H2 is often injected in the gas grid. That implies that electricity can become >100% renewable as it also makes other heating methods partly renewable!
Bas Gresnigt says
Nigel,
With PtG the Germans have a storage capacity in cheap earth cavities (in the south and the north) of ~220TWh. Enough to cover 4 months of UK demand? And it can easily be expanded!
We in NL also have such huge storage capacities.
I feel sure UK has similar.
The stored gas can also be utilized with simple unmanned gas turbines (flexible peakers = low investment which is important as those will have low CF) or fuel cell assemblies if it’s H2 (if those are cheaper).
Note that Siemens is making progress with an unmanned H2 gas turbine.
Mike Parr says
I visited your site Megson – “idiocy of renewables” – I’d suggest the only idiocy is the data you “presented” in your post – quite clearly made up from start to finish. What a funny fantasy world you live in. Assuming that you live in the UK – & assuming Hinkley gets built – then you can look forward to paying very high electricity bills indeed – but perhaps that does not matter in Brexitland/LaLaLand – where indeed black is white.
Nigel West says
Bas, yes the twin reactors at Hinkley will require Grid to carry about 1.6GW of reserve to cover the loss of a reactor. But Grid already has to carry about 1.32GW to cover all generation in feed losses, e.g. CCGT modules, nukes, off shore wind farms on single circuit connections to shore, interconnectors with the continent. So reserve needed for HPC is not an issue.
Operationally the amount of reserve needed varies though throughout the year depending on system load. When system load is low at around 25GW the change in frequency caused by the sudden loss of 1GW is more than at times of peak load.
Bas Gresnigt says
Nigel, Your question:
“Now, please bring something to back up your 3x to 10x claim” (=3x to 10x cheaper compared to nuclear)
The average year of the research publications on which the NREL report is based is ~2007, which implies the studies are made in ~2006. There were 2 major moves:
1. Cost increase of western nuclear from ~$2/W (Olkiluoto 3 contract price) towards ~$8/W (Vogtle, Hinkley C) now.
2.a PV-solar is on a long term 8%/a price decrease trajectory, which brings about a 2.5 times lower cost per decade.
E.g. In Germany in 2006 the av. FiT for solar was €530/MWh. Now tenders deliver prices at ~€70/MW.
2.b Offshore wind is becoming soon cheaper than onshore wind, hence will become far bigger than onshore wind here.
So offshore is the important factor.
Offshore wind decreased from ~€140/MWh towards €50/MWh – €30/MWh (recent German 900MW and 2x240MW wind farms).
Onshore wind decreased also, but that was only 30% – 70%.
3. All in all my claim seems to be rather cautious.
Bob Wallace says
I’m talking about your decreased emission per kWh claim.
“So the NREL study:
– overestimates wind & solar emissions 3-10 times;
– underestimates new nuclear emissions ~2 times.”
(Obviously any cost info in the NREL study is badly out of date.)
Bas Gresnigt says
There are no structural long term cost in-/decreases without similar GHG emissions in-/decreases.
E.g.
All nuclear reactors from before 2000 have a single weak dome intended to keep escaping radio-active gasses inside.
Now reactors have a strong dome, EPR even a double dome, in order to withstand a simple plane crash.
It implies 2-4 times more steel, even far more work & energy bowing & welding the thicker steel plates, etc.
That implies 3 – 6 times more CO2…
There is no magic by which nuclear can become 3 times more expensive without emitting about 3 times more CO2.
Neither no magic by which wind & solar can become 2 to 6 times cheaper without emitting roughly accordingly less CO2.
But may you can show a miracle?
Bob Wallace says
A large portion of solar’s CO2 footprint comes from the aluminum framing and glass cover plate. From transportation. From mounting steel and aluminum.
A move from 12% to 18% efficient panels would give us 50% more electricity per pound of steel, glass and aluminum. That’s far from a 3x to 10x CO2 reduction.
I don’t disagree with your direction. Just the extent to how much things have changed. I’ve very open to being convinced by actual numbers.
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
The rule is that:
“CO2 emissions are roughly linear related with the costs“.*)
And the cost and CO2 of the alu frame and glass are minors in the cost of solar panels. Even now.
Though even those costs decreased roughly a factor 2 per W; due to:
– the higher volumes of the special glas, etc = more efficient production and transport
– the efficiency increase from 12% towards 23% now (375W panels now).
More important cost (=CO2) decreases came from:
– Design improvements.
E.g. Recently PERC was introduced (is higher efficiency with less alu/silber). Now further improvements with PERC+, which saves more alu.
– more accurate doping = less faulty cells at production (don’t know with solar cells but with chips it’s not unusual that 80% of production is rejected => rubbish);
– larger ingots = more efficient, less energy needed. (making clean silicon is a real energy intensive process);
– improvements with sawing thinner slices and the sawing itself (thinner blade with optimized tooth);
– automation = less CO2 rich work by people;
E.g. for large scale solar farms; fully automated cleaning of the panels, using less water etc..
Alas distribution and installation improved little. Especially in USA.**)
So those take an ever bigger share of the total costs and total emissions (Its labor intensive and people spend the earned money for CO2 producing products and activities).
___________
*) for non-fossil methods of electricity generation, such as e.g. nuclear, wind, solar.
**) In USA the installation costs for rooftop are about twice those in Germany while the installation workers get less paid according to MIT study. Too much overhead, sales costs, paperwork.
E.g. the license: In US the utility often even sends an engineer to inspect. How inefficient can one organize it?
Here a short form on a WEB page. If the consumer has a smart meter (everybody will have one in 2020) the utility remotely adjusts. Otherwise they send an engineer to install one.
HarryDutch says
[…]
On the cost of new nuclear power plants, China has been aggressively attracting nuclear human capital from all over the world to help grow its nuclear industry, and all those people aren’t going to leave places like Germany, France and the USA to work in China for a low salary. Moreover, today’s Chinese nuclear costs are similar to South Korean nuclear costs, and South Korea has fairly high salaries, comparable or even higher than US salaries. So at the moment I’m satisfied that the Chinese official cost target for their nuclear technology exports is realistic.
[…] There are plenty of actual climate and energy scientists who urge us to reconsider nuclear energy while there is still time to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.
The fact that nuclear power as a single technological concept is evidently sufficient to allow achieving a low-cost, almost zero-carbon energy system, with no help needed at all from any wind power, solar power or anything else. By 2030 in China 300 nuclear power plants will be spinning out clean power. In 2030, the share of nuclear will have grown from 3,56% in 2015 to 10%. This means that about 2/3 of China’s nuclear power plants in 2030 will be new ones, an addition of about 200 GW in just over 10 years. And by the end of the century Russia will be generating 80% of it’s electricity with nuclear energy.
[comment edited, please see our guidelines, no disparaging remarks allowed]
Helmut Frik says
well, I did not see any new construction start of a chinese power nuclear plant this yar so far – maybe I missed it.
With a average of 8 years or so of construction time in china, to get another 240 or so nuclear power stations in 2030, there would have to be 240 construction starts till 2022, so something like 60 construction start per year, or once per week. It does not look like this will happen.
What happens in reality just now is that the solar panel maufacurers are running at full utilisation and expand their capacities like crazy. Looks like we will se a output of 130GWp this year worldwide, and much more next year. I do not see a supply chain for nuclear anywhere near to that size (calculated in TWh output per year), and now a the non nuclear part of the plants the supply chain is shrinking fast, too. Many manufacturers of steam turbines close down because there is no market, neither for coal nor for nuclear plants.
HarryDutch says
China. now is the world’s largest maker of electric vehicles (sorry, Tesla) and is growing rapidly and expanding globally. China is now also the world’s largest EV battery supplier. Despite top design, engineering and marketing talent, Tesla has struggled with basic manufacturing. Automated processes have failed on the factory floor, and the company has struggled to secure the supply chain to operate on the scale it needs to produce a mass-market electric vehicle.
Back to the Chinese nuclear program. China has completed it’s supply chain for the mass manufacture of modular nuclear reactors and the nuclear fuel production. Much of this has been carried out and will continue as they say “off radar”. Chinese 1000 MW steam turbines, no problem, they also export them.
Roger Blomquist says
Obviously, the deployment rate depends on a societal sense of urgency and the ability of the central governments and large companies to think strategically. France and Sweden pretty much eliminated fossil fuels in electricity generation, each completing the task in about 15 years with large nuclear builds.
Bob Wallace says
That is true. In France’s case they treated replacing oil as a matter of national defense. Nuclear was, at that time, a logical choice.
Suppose a country now decided that quitting fossil fuel use for electricity was a national emergency. Suppose one or more countries decided to take climate change seriously.
At this point in time there would be two options.
1) Follow France’s lead and build nuclear reactors. With a very concerted effort they might be able to bring average build time to the 6-8 year range (after first educating a new generation of nuclear specialists). They might be able to bring the cost of electricity down from Hinkley Point’s roughly $0.15/kWh starting cost to $0.10/kWh.
2) Follow Denmark’s and other countries’ leads and install wind and solar. New wind and solar farms can be brought online in less than two years and start cutting fossil fuel use faster. Since there is little specialized knowledge needed to stand a wind tower or build a solar farm many projects could be started very quickly and build in parallel. And the cost could be brought down from the current global (unsubsidized) average of under $0.05/kWh to around $0.02/kWh.
The question boils down to:
“Which weapon system do we use to protect ourselves, the one we can get in place quickest or the one that will take far longer and cost us far more?”.
Bob Wallace says
” This means that about 2/3 of China’s nuclear power plants in 2030 will be new ones, an addition of about 200 GW in just over 10 years. And by the end of the century Russia will be generating 80% of it’s electricity with nuclear energy.”
The number of units under construction is declining for the fourth year in a row, from 68 reactors at the end of 2013
to 53 by mid-2017, of which 20 are in China.
China and Russia are pretty much the only countries building nuclear these days. South Korea has left the field of nuclear champions.
What we’re seeing is that two countries with very strong central governments (“Don’t cross us our we’ll kill you”) are building very expensive reactors. Countries where governments are more responsive to their citizens such as South Korea, France, and Japan are no longer carrying battle flag into the field for nuclear.
Russia 80% nuclear by the end of the century? Very unlikely. The collapse of the oil market which should start in less than ten years will leave Russia without money to waste.
Russia is a backwards country but they are now starting to install wind and solar. As their income shrinks Russia will have to be more careful about how it spends its money.
BTW, it is expected that solar will surpass both wind and nuclear in China in terms of electricity generated per year.
HarryDutch says
Stating that Russia is a backwards country tells it all. Someone overlooked that they have already constructed Gen-III+ Nuclear Reactors that are operational. Some 20 of those nuclear power reactors are confirmed or planned for export construction. Furthermore, Russia is a world leader in fast neutron reactor technology and is consolidating this through its Proryv (‘Breakthrough’) project.
On the Chinese nuclear program, your information has always been out off date. Three top Chinese nuclear researchers meet with a group of Dutch MSR enthusiasts.
https://articles.thmsr.nl/why-chinas-600-fte-msr-program-wants-to-cooperate-with-delft-tu-and-nrg-in-petten-7e103414a861
Bob Wallace says
Ever been to Russia, Harry?
Bas Gresnigt says
“Chinese nuclear researchers meet with a group of Dutch MSR enthusiasts.”
Yes, because their huge (600 Chinese scientists) MSR project stalled. Probably because they couldn’t find:
– a fluoride mix that allows for lower operating temperatures (<650°C; ORNL used 700°C during their MSR experiment in the sixties);
– a steel alloy which shows less wear when confronted with the hot (700°C) streaming fluoride salt – uranium – actinide mix than Hastelloy-N, which was developed and used by ORNL.
Note that the Chinese got all secrets during their visits to ORNL ~2010 from the now old scientists involved in the MSR experiment of the sixties…
Chinese nuclear expansion in general seems to have stalled too. No new construction starts in the past 2 years (except a long planned small experimental reactor). So they won't reach any of their nuclear expansion targets.
HarryDutch says
CERC was formally established between the U.S. Department of Energy and Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology in November, 2009. The Technology Management Plan (TMP) was signed in September, 2011 by U.S. and Chinese officials. It protects American and Chinese researchers and partners by ensuring their intellectual property rights for the technology they create and contribute. To ensure legal enforceability, the corresponding government ministries formally agreed to and endorsed the TMP. https://cercbee.lbl.gov/intellectual-property
Furthermore, ORNL and Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics (SINAP) cooperate on development of salt-cooled reactors. The Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between ORNL and SINAP focuses on accelerating scientific understanding and technical development of salt-cooled reactors. https://www.ornl.gov/news/ornl-and-shanghai-institute-applied-physics-cooperate-development-salt-cooled-reactors
Karel Beckman says
comments closed on this one – editor