Subtitle: Yet Another Lame Excuse To Prolong Nuclear Plant Lives
An article in Forbes (see link) is rather long-winded but finally gets to the point in the final paragraphs:
"If we retire (carbon-free) nuclear plants prematurely, there is only one resource that can fill their place today. Gas-fired power plants (i.e. carbon-emitting) – with 40-year legacies – will step in to replace them. And those commitments, once made, cannot be easily undone."
Forbes correctly points out that solar and wind-powered energy technologies are improving rapidly, both technically and economically. Therefore, Forbes argues, it is worth keeping the uneconomic, money-losing nuclear plants (see link) running for the additional years or even decades that are required to allow the "carbon-free" (their words) technologies to replace the nuclear plants. To their credit, Forbes includes not only the power generation from wind and solar, but also grid-scale energy storage to allow on-demand, reliable power.
Apparently, it is abhorrent to build gas-burning power plants, simply because they emit carbon dioxide from their stacks. However, one must devoutly believe in the carbon-dioxide-emitted-by-man-is-overheating-the-planet nonsense to reach that conclusion. Never mind that the climate alarmists have been proven wrong at every turn.
What ridiculous analogies come to mind? Should horses pulling buggies (and heavy wagons for commerce) have been subsidized, allowed to continue running by government decree, until electric cars became available and economic? Should pocket pagers (remember those?) have been subsidized and required to be manufactured because flip-phones using cellular technology would someday be replaced by smart phones?
Plus, what of the outrageous amounts of water for cooling that nuclear plants require? It is known that a modern, gas-fired combined cycle plant, CCGT, uses one-fourth the cooling water of a nuclear plant. Should those in water-scarce areas suffer for years, or decades, while the nuclear plant evaporates the fresh water? Note, this is not a hypothetical: the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP) near Corpus Christi, Texas, does exactly that. Texas has suffered through a prolonged and serious drought, with the primary storage reservoir, Lake Travis, sending water down the Colorado River to the plant while consumers along the river must not touch the water. see link. STNP has a small artificial pond to augment the river water, but that pond depends on seasonal rainfall. Lately, the rain has not happened.
Other nuclear plants in the arid areas have the same issue: the cooling water is evaporated into the sky, where it could be used for human consumption.
Forbes cites a nuclear industry group, apparently newly-formed, that is desperately trying to pitch nuclear plants as "good" because they are "carbon-free." The group is Nuclear Matters. This newest, lamest excuse can be added to the other excuses the industry makes for not shutting down the money-losing nuclear plants, one of which is "nuclear plants create jobs," still another is "nuclear plant closures will have a serious negative effect on the economy."
The bottom line is this, as shown in a recent SLB article on the proposed and newly-approved UK nuclear plant at Hinkley Point, (see link), renewable energy plus grid-scale storage must beat US$ 12,000 per kW installed to beat the economics of a new, grid-scale nuclear power plant. With large offshore wind turbines coupled to submerged spherical pumped-storage hydroelectric systems, the $12,000 critical threshold should be fairly easy to achieve or better. Even more, the nuclear plants cannot follow the grid load, and if they did, their economics are much worse. Meanwhile, the submerged pumped storage systems can easily follow the grid load.
In conclusion, there is no need to keep the money-losing nuclear plants running. The US should take full and immediate advantage of the strong offshore wind resources and work out the inevitable kinks in the submerged pumped storage systems.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2014 by Roger Sowell -- all rights reserved
Showing posts with label Hinkley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hinkley. Show all posts
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Sunday, October 12, 2014
UK Hinkley Point Nuclear Plant Heavily Subsidized
Subsidies for nuclear power plants are not just in the US. This week, several sources report that UK's proposed Hinkley Point C plant, a 3,200 MWe nuclear plant, received a blessing from the EU Commission to obtain public funding - a form of subsidy. See link for a BBC report. (for more on US subsidies for its nuclear power plants, of which there are at least six different subsidies, see this link and this link).
The Hinkley Point C plant will have two reactors, each 1,600 MWe, of the EPR reactor design that is currently such a fiasco in Finland at Olkiluoto. (see link) To their credit, the BBC article admits the Hinkley Point C will require 10 years to first operation. However, the plant life is also stated as 60 years, which is wildly optimistic.
The subsidy for Hinkley Point C apparently takes the form of a high sales price for power at the transaction bar - the plant boundary. The plant owner is guaranteed the equivalent of US 15 cents per kWh, approximately double the present rate for wholesale power in the UK.
What is interesting is the quoted price to build the plant, at £24.5 billion (the equivalent of US$ 39.2 billion). This equates to MORE than $10,000 per kW, at $12,250. Again, this is precisely what SLB has maintained all along - a new nuclear power plant costs far more than the $4,000 some advocates maintain. Instead, it will cost at least $10,000 per kW, and more likely $12,000 per kW. Here we see at least a small beginning of honesty from the nuclear establishment.
However, given the long, dismal history of nuclear plant schedule delays and cost overruns, it is to be expected that the Hinkley Point C twin reactor plant will take far longer than 10 years to startup, and will cost far more than US$ 39 billion. It will likely require 15 years or longer, and $48 billion or even more.
The poor people of the UK will foot the bill, as they have few choices but to buy the power. However, with the higher and higher prices that will inevitably occur, it may be possible for some of the grid customers to unplug themselves from the grid. There may be better, cheaper ways to produce their own electricity. For an analysis of such ways, see this link. In the year 2023 or perhaps later, 2030 as a more realistic startup date, the options for unplugging from the grid and self-generation will likely be more numerous and more appealing than what we have today.
It will be a long, long time before Hinkley Point C begins producing power and its true impact will be felt. One can only hope the resourceful people of the UK will rise to the occasion and replace as much power as possible to self-generate and save money.
In another moment of rare candor, UK officials tried to justify the new nuclear plant by stating that there are few options available for providing reliable power. They state that coal is nearly exhausted and would be unreliable if imported, natural gas also is in short supply and in danger of being cut off by selling nations (meaning Russia), and wind is too unreliable. Solar in the UK area is not at all economically attractive, owing to the high latitude and cloudy weather. (The UK, after all, is of the same approximate latitude as Hudson Bay in Canada)
What, then, is left but nuclear? One answer, of course, is offshore wind coupled to ocean-based storage systems that supply power on demand, quite reliably. (see link) By 2030, one expects that the offshore wind with storage to be well-proven and very attractive. All the offshore wind projects must do to compete is beat US$12,250 per kW. The energy is free, and many of the other very high costs of running a nuclear plant simply do not exist for wind-energy.
Update - 10/13/2014: UK wind resources offshore are quite good. see link -- end update.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2014 by Roger Sowell -- all rights reserved
The Hinkley Point C plant will have two reactors, each 1,600 MWe, of the EPR reactor design that is currently such a fiasco in Finland at Olkiluoto. (see link) To their credit, the BBC article admits the Hinkley Point C will require 10 years to first operation. However, the plant life is also stated as 60 years, which is wildly optimistic.
The subsidy for Hinkley Point C apparently takes the form of a high sales price for power at the transaction bar - the plant boundary. The plant owner is guaranteed the equivalent of US 15 cents per kWh, approximately double the present rate for wholesale power in the UK.
What is interesting is the quoted price to build the plant, at £24.5 billion (the equivalent of US$ 39.2 billion). This equates to MORE than $10,000 per kW, at $12,250. Again, this is precisely what SLB has maintained all along - a new nuclear power plant costs far more than the $4,000 some advocates maintain. Instead, it will cost at least $10,000 per kW, and more likely $12,000 per kW. Here we see at least a small beginning of honesty from the nuclear establishment.
However, given the long, dismal history of nuclear plant schedule delays and cost overruns, it is to be expected that the Hinkley Point C twin reactor plant will take far longer than 10 years to startup, and will cost far more than US$ 39 billion. It will likely require 15 years or longer, and $48 billion or even more.
The poor people of the UK will foot the bill, as they have few choices but to buy the power. However, with the higher and higher prices that will inevitably occur, it may be possible for some of the grid customers to unplug themselves from the grid. There may be better, cheaper ways to produce their own electricity. For an analysis of such ways, see this link. In the year 2023 or perhaps later, 2030 as a more realistic startup date, the options for unplugging from the grid and self-generation will likely be more numerous and more appealing than what we have today.
It will be a long, long time before Hinkley Point C begins producing power and its true impact will be felt. One can only hope the resourceful people of the UK will rise to the occasion and replace as much power as possible to self-generate and save money.
In another moment of rare candor, UK officials tried to justify the new nuclear plant by stating that there are few options available for providing reliable power. They state that coal is nearly exhausted and would be unreliable if imported, natural gas also is in short supply and in danger of being cut off by selling nations (meaning Russia), and wind is too unreliable. Solar in the UK area is not at all economically attractive, owing to the high latitude and cloudy weather. (The UK, after all, is of the same approximate latitude as Hudson Bay in Canada)
What, then, is left but nuclear? One answer, of course, is offshore wind coupled to ocean-based storage systems that supply power on demand, quite reliably. (see link) By 2030, one expects that the offshore wind with storage to be well-proven and very attractive. All the offshore wind projects must do to compete is beat US$12,250 per kW. The energy is free, and many of the other very high costs of running a nuclear plant simply do not exist for wind-energy.
Update - 10/13/2014: UK wind resources offshore are quite good. see link -- end update.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2014 by Roger Sowell -- all rights reserved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
