I think the comment about Nuclear and Renewables complementing each other is not really correct. Both sit at the high deployment end of the merit order i.e. they must sell (ideally 90%+ of potential renewable generation, or 90% of nuclear capacity) to achieve good economics. Renewables need peak and backup supply, typically gas, and slowly some batteries, to offer a combined very low overall baseload price.
They are therefore directly in competition. This is why there is so much petty argument on Twitter.
I think they can complement each other, if construction prices can be brought down. The latest generation nuclear plants like the EPR do have some load following capability.
Slow and small load changes can be met without affecting the nuclear plant's life, and if I'm reading the source below correctly, faster changes (<5% power rise per minute between 50%-100% of rated power), can be done 15,000 times before fatigue limits the plant's life. If such power changes are done once a day, that is a rated life of 41 years, which might be extendable if plant monitoring proves fatigue is low enough.
If we built cheaper nuclear, this demand following capability could be used more whilst still generating an acceptable return on investment, meaning nuclear could make up for moderate power fluctuations of renewables. A small amount of gas would be reserved to reduce the rate at which nuclear needs to be ramped up and down, and for the more extreme changes in the grid.
Cheap hydrogen production, or next generation high temperature reactors paired with thermal energy storage, might enable full replacement of gas with nuclear and renewables.
Source of the numbers used in the second paragraph:
It is worth remembering that the civil nuclear power programme having been signed off in 1952, construction of Calder Hall, the World’s first grid scale nuclear power station, commenced in 1953, was carried out by Taylor Woodrow Construction and was officially opened on 17 October 1956, all done using 1950s technology and construction techniques.
The station was closed on 31 March 2003, the first reactor having been in use for nearly 47 years.
Nuclear energy used for electricity generation would be acceptable if it were handled by individuals with a suitable ethical profile and adequate training in mathematical finance. For instance, it is these so-called 'nuclear experts' who mindlessly apply the LCOE metric in their economic calculations. These experts engage in thoughtless calculations based on LCOE, where they discount a physical quantity—electricity production—in the denominator. Such absurdity can only be expected from nuclear specialists. I encourage you to read and learn: Szymański, Adam, A brief history of the LCOE definition - An update (July 26, 2021). Available at SSRN: [usunięto nieprawidłowy URL] or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3893462.
Hello - if the UK is midtable on pre-1995 costs (ie Sizewell B and before) isn't the point that Hinkley C is very expensive? That is the only one to be built since 1995. And that is almost all down to cost of capital.
I think the comment about Nuclear and Renewables complementing each other is not really correct. Both sit at the high deployment end of the merit order i.e. they must sell (ideally 90%+ of potential renewable generation, or 90% of nuclear capacity) to achieve good economics. Renewables need peak and backup supply, typically gas, and slowly some batteries, to offer a combined very low overall baseload price.
They are therefore directly in competition. This is why there is so much petty argument on Twitter.
I think they can complement each other, if construction prices can be brought down. The latest generation nuclear plants like the EPR do have some load following capability.
Slow and small load changes can be met without affecting the nuclear plant's life, and if I'm reading the source below correctly, faster changes (<5% power rise per minute between 50%-100% of rated power), can be done 15,000 times before fatigue limits the plant's life. If such power changes are done once a day, that is a rated life of 41 years, which might be extendable if plant monitoring proves fatigue is low enough.
If we built cheaper nuclear, this demand following capability could be used more whilst still generating an acceptable return on investment, meaning nuclear could make up for moderate power fluctuations of renewables. A small amount of gas would be reserved to reduce the rate at which nuclear needs to be ramped up and down, and for the more extreme changes in the grid.
Cheap hydrogen production, or next generation high temperature reactors paired with thermal energy storage, might enable full replacement of gas with nuclear and renewables.
Source of the numbers used in the second paragraph:
https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12/technical_and_economic_aspects_of_load_following_with_nuclear_power_plants.pdf
It is worth remembering that the civil nuclear power programme having been signed off in 1952, construction of Calder Hall, the World’s first grid scale nuclear power station, commenced in 1953, was carried out by Taylor Woodrow Construction and was officially opened on 17 October 1956, all done using 1950s technology and construction techniques.
The station was closed on 31 March 2003, the first reactor having been in use for nearly 47 years.
So what has gone wrong since?
Good perspectives, especially on the historical costs and international costs as well. Thank you. And yes, the world needs a nuclear renaissance.
Nuclear energy used for electricity generation would be acceptable if it were handled by individuals with a suitable ethical profile and adequate training in mathematical finance. For instance, it is these so-called 'nuclear experts' who mindlessly apply the LCOE metric in their economic calculations. These experts engage in thoughtless calculations based on LCOE, where they discount a physical quantity—electricity production—in the denominator. Such absurdity can only be expected from nuclear specialists. I encourage you to read and learn: Szymański, Adam, A brief history of the LCOE definition - An update (July 26, 2021). Available at SSRN: [usunięto nieprawidłowy URL] or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3893462.
Hello - if the UK is midtable on pre-1995 costs (ie Sizewell B and before) isn't the point that Hinkley C is very expensive? That is the only one to be built since 1995. And that is almost all down to cost of capital.
Thanks. Keepup the good work.
Seems there's a simple check this article missed.
Finland is taking £5.97mill/MW and 17 years
UK is taking £9.42mill/MW and 9 years
It's almost like around the clock construction costs more.
It would be nice to see the current £/MW/year of construction for solar and wind for comparison. After all, value for money is important.
Wanna bet?
My mistake. Unsubscribed.