Green Building Forum - Is Hinkley C dead?

Is Hinkley C dead?

gravelld — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:00:42 +0100

I hear a lot of vague generalist arguments on either side.

Anyone seen any kind of analysis of how a renewables + storage + demand reduction strategy would play out in terms of cost v Hinkley C?

Is Hinkley C dead?

fostertom — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:50:33 +0100

The former is not an option, to be assessed, it's a done deal. Hinkley would just be putting up with its consequences.

Is Hinkley C dead?

ringi — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:55:49 +0100

I yet to see any evidence that renewable will be allowed to be built on the scale needed in the UK, due to MPs not liking losing votes over wind farms in â€œniceâ€ places. Hence I think Hinkley C is needed, as not even the green party can get its members to vote for wind farms close to where they live or go on holiday.

Is Hinkley C dead?

fostertom — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:04:55 +0100

Things change, new generations arrive.

Is Hinkley C dead?

gravelld — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:11:04 +0100

This is why I want an analysis. Given different scenarios (different amounts of storage, different amounts of demand reduction) do we even need more generation? If so, how much?

There's not the same degree of opposition to solar - although there is some.

Is Hinkley C dead?

SteamyTea — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:59:45 +0100

I could have a go at an analysis (have done one or two already).

The main thing is that, regardless of what the Green party says about demand reduction and distributed generation, we, as a nation, still need huge amounts of baseload generation. If it is to be low emissions, then nuclear is the way to go.
Just that this Hinkley deal is badly thought out and just too complicated all over.

Is Hinkley C dead?

Gotanewlife — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:40:32 +0100

Exactly so ST - why I am generally 'for' nuclear power but specifically against Hinkley C. I also have a 'thing' about EDF, having worked closely with a couple of bits of them.

Is Hinkley C dead?

fostertom — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:45:34 +0100

I meant generations as in GenY, GenZ - who are going to want max autonomy and small demand they need to generate, enabling max sharing - which is worlds away from 'sharing' as in grid connection.

Cost calcs won't come into it - it's what they'll be set on - but actually as plummetting marginal cost of almost everything speeds up, distributed/autonomous will be vastly more economical at future (soon) price than old-style massive centralised capital-intensive mega projects at today's price.

Is Hinkley C dead?

fostertom — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:48:34 +0100

Posted By: SteamyTeawe, as a nation, still need huge amounts of baseload generation

That's conventional wisdom, but don't you think that Teslas's just changed the game fundamentally?

Not Tesla solely of course, and maybe not Tesla at all if EM over-reaches himself - but all the big shots, Mercedes, Fiat-Chrysler are scrambling to catch up now he's so accellerated what was just a future dream.

Is Hinkley C dead?

gravelld — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 19:29:38 +0100

Posted By: SteamyTea

The main thing is that, regardless of what the Green party says about demand reduction and distributed generation, we, as a nation, still need huge amounts of baseload generation. If it is to be low emissions, then nuclear is the way to go.

No offence but this is the kind of generalisation I was talking about.

Domestic energy is what, 25-30% of energy use? How much of that is space heating? So if we retrofitted the entire stock cutting space heating usage by 80% is that possible and how much would it cost and would it negate need for Hinckley?

Honest questions, I have no idea.

Is Hinkley C dead?

renewablejohn — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 19:54:12 +0100

Posted By: gravelldI hear a lot of vague generalist arguments on either side.

Anyone seen any kind of analysis of how a renewables + storage + demand reduction strategy would play out in terms of cost v Hinkley C?

Hinkley is now redundant as the capacity has already been replaced by new gas capacity and a dusting out of mothballs of some older gas plants to cover the closure of coal fired plants which originally where being dismantled but are now being mothballed as an insurance policy. In addition new interconnectors are being built on shorter time scales than that proposed for Hinkley.

Is Hinkley C dead?

billt — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:21:26 +0100

Posted By: fostertombut don't you think that Teslas's just changed the game fundamentally?

I'm wondering in what way Tesla has changed the game.

He hasn't come up with a new battery technology and he hasn't reduced the price of existing technology. He's produces a nicely packaged low capacity module which has generated a lot of publicity, but is just as expensive per kwhr as any other lithium battery storage system.

AFAICS there are no game changing battery technologies on the horizon, not surprising as research has been going on for well over 100 years. Of course, there are lots of companies trying to generate capital with exciting sounding claims, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Is Hinkley C dead?

SteamyTea — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 23:17:35 +0100

Posted By: gravelldNo offence but this is the kind of generalisation I was talking about.

You can easily go to the old DECC website and download the appropriate spreadsheets, they are there for the taking, Just that I don't have time right now to look at them all (summer being my busy time).
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change/about/statistics

When dealing with statistics, your first question is 'is it a big problem'. Then you start slicing and dicing to see what can easily be done.
Taking just heat loss from about 7,000,000 E7 water storage cylinders, it is probably possible to save around 14 GWh/day.
Sounds a lot, but that is spread over 7 hours, so about half of DRAX and about 2/3rd of Hinkley C, over that 7 hour period.
A quick look at our old mate Damon's website shows that this morning our mean demand between 00 and 0700 was 24 GW, or 167 GWh. so we could possible easily save 8% of that time period's generation. Significant, but not huge.

Is Hinkley C dead?

gravelld — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 07:22:29 +0100

So on the DECC website there's a breakdown of demand by application type and costings for fixing those things? And similarly costings for different levels of national energy storage? I'll take a look later, but I'm surprised these studies are never, ever mentioned by politicians.

Is Hinkley C dead?

SteamyTea — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 07:51:14 +0100

Not for 'fixing', that was not DECCs remit, but the usage data and classes are there.

They do get mentioned when it suits them. When energy prices were rising rapidly a few years back, I remember hearing a female politician (could have been May) saying that the long term outlook was for declining prices. Could be why May is not a fan of Hinkley.

Is Hinkley C dead?

fostertom — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 09:43:31 +0100

https://theconversation.com/hinkley-c-delay-how-uk-can-exploit-this-attack-of-common-sense-in-energy-policy-63293

"Energy policy is often seen as a bit of a backwater â€“ little tweaks to existing approaches tend to be preferred to massive shifts in strategy. The latest decision has the potential to change that. Without Hinkley Point C, the potential to have a real and considered debate about the future shape of the electricity system has loomed into view. Now is the time to start considering the sorts of options being considered widely around the world, with measures to encourage more flexible, smaller-scale, renewable systems incorporating demand-side measures and new technologies such as storage. A system that is the absolute antithesis of what Hinkley Point C represents. Suddenly UK energy policy has become very exciting indeed."

Is Hinkley C dead?

owlman — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 10:24:04 +0100

Could it be the UK government is using Hinkley as a Brexit bargaining chip with the French. Seeing as the French government has, I understand, a stake in EDF, and Hollande and others are vociferous in giving the UK a rough ride.

Power politics in play. Personally I hope it doesn't go ahead, but don't get your hopes up.

Is Hinkley C dead?

Mike1 — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:04:19 +0100

Posted By: owlmanCould it be the UK government is using Hinkley as a Brexit bargaining chip with the French. Seeing as the French government has, I understand, a stake in EDF, and Hollande and others are vociferous in giving the UK a rough ride.

You mean really annoy them so that they're nice to us?
And really annoy the Chinese to boost their confidence in investing more in the UK too?

Is Hinkley C dead?

Mike1 — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:42:17 +0100

Posted By: SteamyTeawe, as a nation, still need huge amounts of baseload generation.

But not necessarily in the traditional sense - renewables can provide 'baseload' too, but to enable them to do so would require changes to the energy landscape - in particular more interconnectors to match supply with demand, and an adequate number of peak-load plants to cope with peaks in demand - see also my comments below.

Posted By: gravelldAnyone seen any kind of analysis of how a renewables + storage + demand reduction strategy would play out in terms of cost v Hinkley C?

There are a number of studies that show how renewables + storage + demand reduction can provide a viable alternative to conventional energy generation (though not specific to nuclear power or Hinkley). Skeptical Science's page 'Can renewables provide baseload power?' has links to over a dozen - see https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374

Is Hinkley C dead?

barney — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:54:15 +0100

Tom - Gen Y and Gen Z have yet to discover that you can't boot up a MacBook Air by harnessing the power of wishful thinking

For grid systems you need a large proportion of rotating thermal plant for stability - and based renewables can't do this - they create system instability - nor can they provide sufficient fault levels to minimise areas of outage

Most interconnects are dc - so again no help in providing stability

If you want decentralised - well that has obvious problems as well - massive duplication and no transfer capability

And presumably the new hipsters would like some sort of industrialised society - so that needs power as well - and lots of it

Barney

Is Hinkley C dead?

Mike1 — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:59:41 +0100

Posted By: SteamyTeaCould be why May is not a fan of Hinkley.

It looks as though the concerns of May's advisor Nick Timothy over Chinese involvement could be driving the review, not (just) cost: http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/07/what-nick-timothy-wrote-on-conhome-about-china-and-hinckley-point.html

Is Hinkley C dead?

owlman — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 14:23:52 +0100

Posted By: Mike1
Posted By: owlmanCould it be the UK government is using Hinkley as a Brexit bargaining chip with the French. Seeing as the French government has, I understand, a stake in EDF, and Hollande and others are vociferous in giving the UK a rough ride.

You mean really annoy them so that they're nice to us?
And really annoy the Chinese to boost their confidence in investing more in the UK too?

No, I mean don't put too many spokes in the Brexit negotiations wheel and we won't put too many spokes in your Nuke plans. What can't you understand.
As for the Chinese, the security aspect is paramount, as a paranoid nation, they'll understand that.

Is Hinkley C dead?

fostertom — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 14:41:35 +0100

barney, conventional wisdoms obsolete, as the blue-sky future suddenly becomes 'very soon' in the last few months. See Mike1 above incl
"renewables can provide 'baseload' too, but to enable them to do so would require changes to the energy landscape - in particular more interconnectors to match supply with demand, and an adequate number of peak-load plants to cope with peaks in demand"
which addresses your 2 points, also several of my links above.

Posted By: barneyTom - Gen Y and Gen Z have yet to discover that you can't boot up a MacBook Air by harnessing the power of wishful thinking

Don't know what that means, excedpt that most GenY/GenZ uninterested in desktops and laptops, already universally have their devices of choice, which run on a pocket-sized PV if necessary.

Is Hinkley C dead?

barney — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 16:11:12 +0100

Cloud cuckoo land Tom - I've been in and around power generation for most of my working life - when engineers tell me that we can carry on with invertor based renewables and solve grid stability then I'll believe it

As I said - interconnection is usually HV/DC - that wont help stability

The end device may be solar powered - what about the industry that makes it and the data centres that host it - we are now into 20kW data racks - plus 20kW of cooling - 24/7/365 - and the growth is exponential

Barney

Is Hinkley C dead?

SteamyTea — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 16:20:16 +0100

Posted By: Mike1But not necessarily in the traditional sense - renewables can provide 'baseload' too, but to enable them to do so would require changes to the energy landscape

Yes, very true. The UK has a particular problem though with allowing access to land for generation and storage.
The do have some potential for tidal lagoons and barrages, but they are limited, as is flooding valleys. These problems don't affect other countries like Iceland and the Scanwegians.

As time progresses, we are slowly going to swap fossil fuels for non combustion methods of energy generation. This means that our electrical generation is going to have to increase. In 2015 we consumed about 2,326,000,000 MWh of energy in the UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/513244/Press_Notice_March_2016.pdf).
Electricity was about 338,000,000 MWh. So electricity accounted for 14.5%.
All renewables accounted for 83,000,000 MWh, or about 3.5% of our total needs for all energy.
Nuclear accounted for 70,000,000 MWh, 3%.
So even if we manage things really cleverly, and cut usage down to the minimum, we still have a real problem.

Is Hinkley C dead?

barney — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 16:42:24 +0100

Looks like we need to get fracking then, ST

Barney

Is Hinkley C dead?

Mike1 — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 20:13:44 +0100

Posted By: SteamyTeaThe UK has a particular problem though with allowing access to land for generation and storage.
The do have some potential for tidal lagoons and barrages, but they are limited, as is flooding valleys. These problems don't affect other countries like Iceland and the Scanwegians.

True, but there are other technologies that require much less land - flow batteries and hydrogen hydrolysis come to mind, for example - that would be more suitable for the UK. But they're going to take Government support though to scale them up rapidly, and that could be a problem.

Is Hinkley C dead?

SteamyTea — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:45:01 +0100

Um
Hydrogenâ€“lithium chlorate is the best there is, and that has an energy density of 1.4 kWh/kg. As a comparison, diesel is about 10. Even wood is better by a factor of about 3.
The electrode power density is around 10 kW/m^2, sounds impressive, but then the fuel line on my car can deliver 3,000,000 kW/m^2 (6mm diameter pipe, 85 kW).

Then there is the price, reliability and overall 'environmental' issues i.e. how do you successfully make low carbon hydrogen.

Is Hinkley C dead?

Mike1 — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 12:52:13 +0100

Posted By: SteamyTeaUm
Hydrogenâ€“lithium chlorate is the best there is, and that has an energy density of 1.4 kWh/kg. As a comparison, diesel is about 10. Even wood is better by a factor of about 3.

But you were talking about the shortage of land for lagoons and flooding valleys. Water has a very low energy density, so you need vast quantities of it (compared to chemical storage) making it (as you correctly pointed out) problematic in much of the UK. Specifically:
Water dropping 100m from a dam = 980 J/kg

And for comparison:
Hydrogenâ€“lithium chlorate = 5,040,000 J/Kg (converted from your 1.4 kWh/kg)
Diesel = 48,000,000 J/Kg
Compressed hydrogen @ 700bar = 142,000,000 J/Kg

Posted By: SteamyTeaThen there is the price, reliability and overall 'environmental' issues i.e. how do you successfully make low carbon hydrogen.

Proton exchange membrane electrolyses of water is the currently favoured option, using surplus renewable energy during peak times. Waste product = oxygen. More: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2014/07/hydrogen-energy-storage-a-new-solution-to-the-renewable-energy-intermittency-problem.html

Electron-coupled proton buffer electrolysis is a recent development that promises to be cheaper: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/04/green-energy-cheaper-hydrogen-separate-water-splitting

I wonder how far the Â£30bn cost of Hinkley Point would go on developing either of these technologies to grid scale? (Comparison: Boundary Dam Power Station CCS Project - cost CAD 1.35bn - http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/publications/16235)

Is Hinkley C dead?

skyewright — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:05:32 +0100

Posted By: SteamyTeaUm
Hydrogenâ€“lithium chlorate is the best there is, and that has an energy density of 1.4 kWh/kg. As a comparison, diesel is about 10. Even wood is better by a factor of about 3.

Is direct comparison between energy densities fair (or should that be relevant) when two of the substances are use once & the other is use many times?
In a car, sure energy density can be important, but aren't we talking grid scale here?