BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[PurplePenguin]

Governments plural. And not, I wouldn't have imagined, over coffee and without speaking to a few experts.

The latest announcement is sensible, in that it mitigates some of the cost overruns of learnjng about the one they are still building. It also conspicuously doesn't include building any more large scale plants or postponing decommissioning of the existing ones. Instead they are pursuing the modular reactor concept.

You may have misgivings about cost, but I don't see a better alternative. And don't say gas plus CCS.

For Hinkley Point, the government offered EDF a 35 year CFD with an incredibly high strike price. Despite this, due to cost overruns, EDF is still likely to make a loss, but the UK is only on the hook when energy is actually produced.

This time the government owns the majority of the site and will contract EDF to build it. As the government is not in the business of procuring large scale developments, it is highly likely they will foot the bill for the inevitable cost overrun and delay on their site. I imagine EDF have pinky promised that this won't happen.

I'm not against nuclear, but I am in favour of a level playing field. Why not make available the 35 year CFD for everyone providing carbon free baseload and see how the private sector responds to it.

In the end, governments always like grand projects that create lots of jobs irrespective of need and value.

 

[First Aspect]

Can’t that simply be covered by logs in with a possible pause before work?
The reason for the pause is irrelevant to the IT system.

Also, IT people don't seem to understand the subtle distinction between solution and work-around.

 

[First Aspect]

For Hinkley Point, the government offered EDF a 35 year CFD with an incredibly high strike price. Despite this, due to cost overruns, EDF is still likely to make a loss, but the UK is only on the hook when energy is actually produced.

This time the government owns the majority of the site and will contract EDF to build it. As the government is not in the business of procuring large scale developments, it is highly likely they will foot the bill for the inevitable cost overrun and delay on their site. I imagine EDF have pinky promised that this won't happen.

I'm not against nuclear, but I am in favour of a level playing field. Why not make available the 35 year CFD for everyone providing carbon free baseload and see how the private sector responds to it.

In the end, governments always like grand projects that create lots of jobs irrespective of need and value.

I'm sure it won't be cheap. But pardon me for asking again, what's the alternative?

The discussions about the UK energy market as a whole is separate, I think. There are so many vested interests I can't see it being solved.

 

[PurplePenguin]

I'm sure it won't be cheap. But pardon me for asking again, but what's the alternative?

The discussions about the UK energy market as a whole is separate, I think. There are so many vested interests I can't see it being solved.

As I stated, make the subsidy available and pick a winner when it materialises. For example, Swansea tidal lagoon with batteries would then be able to compete - that's not an endorsement of that either, just a request for a level playing field.

If you compare the UK power market today to that of 2010, it is so different with such a massive change in technology and cost, and that is the time frame we are talking about for more nuclear power.

 

[First Aspect]

As I stated, make the subsidy available and pick a winner when it materialises. For example, Swansea tidal lagoon with batteries would then be able to compete - that's not an endorsement of that either, just a request for a level playing field.

If you compare the UK power market today to that of 2010, it is so different with such a massive change in technology and cost, and that is the time frame we are talking about for more nuclear power.

The grid's technical requirements still merit a consistent baseline supply. That won't change.

If you have a tidal lagoon, you don't need a battery. The potential energy of the water is the battery. If you have battery capacity on that sort of scale, you don't need a tidal lagoon. Just store energy from wind, solar, tidal stream etc..

I was asking about a technical solution rather than a "the market will decide" solution. The market isn't sentient and would, left to its own devices, have snuffed out renewables at an early stage. If you let the market decide what the baseline supply should be, it will be fossil fuels, basically.

 

[PurplePenguin]

The grid's technical requirements still merit a consistent baseline supply. That won't change.

If you have a tidal lagoon, you don't need a battery. The potential energy of the water is the battery. If you have battery capacity on that sort of scale, you don't need a tidal lagoon. Just store energy from wind, solar, tidal stream etc..

I was asking about a technical solution rather than a "the market will decide" solution. The market isn't sentient and would, left to its own devices, have snuffed out renewables at an early stage. If you let the market decide what the baseline supply should be, it will be fossil fuels, basically.

Why do you constantly argue with me on this stuff?

The tidal lagoon was expected to provide intermittent, but predictable energy (load factor of approximately 20%). To make it baseload, it would need some batteries. That might be economically viable on a Hinckley subsidy.

The grid does not technically require baseload. There are some advantages in having inertia, but plenty of workarounds.

My answer was pretty clear - make the subsidy available for all low carbon base load and see what wins. Fossil fuels won't win the competition, because they will fail at the first hurdle of not being low carbon. In any case, base load isn't really that important, so they should focus on what they actually want which is dependable on demand generation, so if I want to turn a salt mine into a compressed air storage unit, then there should be a subsidy available for me.

 

[icowden]

The tidal lagoon was expected to provide intermittent, but predictable energy (load factor of approximately 20%). To make it baseload, it would need some batteries. That might be economically viable on a Hinckley subsidy.

It was also being backed by some very dodgy companies and was regularly featured in Private Eye.

 

[PurplePenguin]

It was also being backed by some very dodgy companies and was regularly featured in Private Eye.

I'm not arguing in favour of it specifically. I'm arguing in favour of a level playing field.

 

[Pross]

There is, in my experience, a disconnect between the people using a system, and the IT people implementing it. I think our own IT dept could work here for a century and still have no real understanding of our workflows. As such, the cart leads the horse.

I've finally found some software in my line of work that is intuitive and uses a process that makes sense. I don't think it's a coincidence that it was developed in conjunction with a consultancy involved in my line of work. It also disproves the response we used to get when pointing out the cumbersome way other software was set up along the lines of 'it can't be made to work that way'. Unfortunately it is developed by a small UK company and will never become the industry standard against far more expensive US shite that has become the international default.

 

[First Aspect]

Why do you constantly argue with me on this stuff?

The tidal lagoon was expected to provide intermittent, but predictable energy (load factor of approximately 20%). To make it baseload, it would need some batteries. That might be economically viable on a Hinckley subsidy.

The grid does not technically require baseload. There are some advantages in having inertia, but plenty of workarounds.

My answer was pretty clear - make the subsidy available for all low carbon base load and see what wins. Fossil fuels won't win the competition, because they will fail at the first hurdle of not being low carbon. In any case, base load isn't really that important, so they should focus on what they actually want which is dependable on demand generation, so if I want to turn a salt mine into a compressed air storage unit, then there should be a subsidy available for me.

Your approach is fine, but presumes there is another alternative. The government, and several previous governments, and the governments of several other counties have concluded otherwise.

I stand corrected on the hypothetical Swansea lagoon, but I believe it's possible in principle to smooth out the power generation from a lagoon.

It's a moot point, because it is too small and not repeatable around enough of the coastline to be the answer. Or, at least, the only answer.

I'm skeptical that the grid doesn't need a baseline, whether via energy storage or otherwise. I don't understand the technical issues, but I have heard proposals about smart switching nodes and large capacitors, which don't as yet exist in a grid and seems to me to be a solution looking for a problem (the problem being a renewables heavy grid without enough baseline).

Back to fossil fuels - the sales pitch will be CCS. I personally don't think it's scalable without creating upstream environmental damage associated with the adsorbent materials, or downstream environmental damage associated with where one puts the materials or the captured flue gas species afterwards.

Imalso don't share your belief that if you set the price the market will induce the clever people in lab coats to fix it for you.

 

[PurplePenguin]

The UK currently has 6 GW of nuclear, based on projections this will drop in the coming years before getting back to 6.1 GW in 2037, so in 12 years nuclear capacity will be the same having spent a fortune to decommission some sites and build others. Demand averages around 33GW and will rise to 45GW in 2037, so nuclear is not providing a minimal level that will keep the lights on. It's just an also ran. Still, net zero is about "and, and, and" so maybe any low carbon generation should be applauded. I just detest the cosy relationships with government and sweet deals that are only available to one company that doesn't need to compete.

One thing that nuclear does provide is inertia. This is because it has turbines that keep spinning for a small amount of time even if something goes wrong with the generator. This provides time for the grid to correct. Without inertia, incidents like the one in Spain are more likely as in fractions of a second, generators take themselves off line to protect themselves. NESO are looking at powering (with renewable energy) some turbines to maintain inertia. I'm happy for this cost to be considered in a pricing contest.

In general, if a price is set, the market may not be able to deliver, but I don't see the harm in trying.

Orsted has just cancelled Hornsea 4 which was supposed to be 2.5 GW with a load factor of around 50%. I assume they are just playing games over pricing for now, but they say they can't make it work at £60/MWh for 15 years. Hinckley is £90/MWh for 35 years.

 

[First Aspect]

Hinkley's deal was done with the previous Muppets. But the pricing discrepancy to me seems to reflect the different offerings.

I think the plan to increase nuclear capacity is via small modular reactors. Hard to tell if that's a Millinand pipe dream, but it's potentially quite a good exportable product and reduces greatly the cost and risk barrier to entry, as it were. Okay so it generates more waste, but Finland has dug a big hole in the ground and Sweden wants one too. Yay.

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

Hinkley's deal was done with the previous Muppets. But the pricing discrepancy to me seems to reflect the different offerings.

I think the plan to increase nuclear capacity is via small modular reactors. Hard to tell if that's a Millinand pipe dream, but it's potentially quite a good exportable product and reduces greatly the cost and risk barrier to entry, as it were. Okay so it generates more waste, but Finland has dug a big hole in the ground and Sweden wants one too. Yay.

Just been reading this:

https://apple.news/A1wScBcf2QYe_eO_iFqoA9Q

 

[PurplePenguin]

Hinkley's deal was done with the previous Muppets. But the pricing discrepancy to me seems to reflect the different offerings.

I think the plan to increase nuclear capacity is via small modular reactors. Hard to tell if that's a Millinand pipe dream, but it's potentially quite a good exportable product and reduces greatly the cost and risk barrier to entry, as it were. Okay so it generates more waste, but Finland has dug a big hole in the ground and Sweden wants one too. Yay.

It's a deal so good, EDF are making a loss on it. This time though the government is going to develop it and do it so much better.

 

[First Aspect]

It's a deal so good, EDF are making a loss on it. This time though the government is going to develop it and do it so much better.

They didn't do the deal assuming it was bad, it became a bad deal because of technical issues they didn't forsee.