Hinkley Point C - Oh Deary Me | Fully Charged
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- Chernobyl is NOT IN RUSSIA. I made a mistake. It was in the USSR when disaster happened. It's now in the Ukraine. Okay.
It's NOT IN RUSSIA! Got it!
The UK's brave step forward into a nuclear future.... oh dear.
There are nuclear alternatives which we'll look at in a future episode, and yes, there's Thorium, I know about Thorium, I'm always told Thorium is the future but for now, this one's a right mess.
Patreon
/ bobbyllew
The Three Mile Island incident was wildly sensationalized. It led to no deaths and no injuries to plant workers or the nearby community. It was still rated a level 5 on the INES, even though it really should have just been rated a level 2. If you camped out at the plant at Three Mile Island during the accident that happened there in 1979, you’d have received only an additional 80 millirems of exposure during the duration of the accident.
For reference, if you’ve ever had your spine x-rayed, you’d have received about double that just during the few seconds of the x-ray. If you were around ten miles away from the reactor during the accident, you’d have received about 8 millirems or about the equivalent ionizing radiation of eating 800 bananas, which are naturally radioactive.
There are no known deaths/cancers/etc. that resulted from the Three Mile Island accident.
Public reaction to Three Mile Island went extremely overboard from what the actual event warranted. This was largely due to misinformation in the press; misunderstanding of ionizing radiation among the general public; and the fact that, not 12 days before it happened, the movie The China Syndrome was released.
The plot of the movie was how unsafe nuclear reactors were and just about everyone in the movie but one of the main characters was trying to cover it up. The China Syndrome movie title’s concept comes from the premise that if an American nuclear reactor core were to melt down, it would melt through the center of the Earth to China. Getting around the fact that it is actually the Indian Ocean that is on the opposite side of the Earth from the U.S., not China, and the obvious problems with the “melt through the Earth” premise, it couldn’t have been a better timed movie as far as free advertisement through the press due to the Three Mile Island incident. The movie was nominated for several academy awards, including best actress by Jane Fonda.
Indeed, the blundering speaker thinks ( 0:56 ) that Three Mile Island was "utterly catastrophic" and "horrendous the damage they caused to the environment" after botching the location of Chernobyl. I stop listening at that point. If the planners of Hincley Point only pay that little attention to facts, then England might be in danger.
The plot of the movie was that _THAT_ reactor was unsafe due any number of cost and time saving shortcuts that were taken in it's construction. (which could, and perhaps _has_, happened in reality.) TMI was a catastrophe; we're lucky it didn't reach the proportions of Chernobyl or Fukushima.
And they explained the title during the movie. At the time, that _was_ what the industry called it. "Of course, as soon as it hits ground water, it'll flash boil into the atmosphere."
The "Chunnel" project was "utterly catastrophic" and caused humanity to lose the use of writing and the wheel.
Just shut up you pathetic uneducated filth.
alright then how about you host some nuclear waste in your back yard.
6 years later:
UK prices for electricity: £279 per Mwh, compared to £92.5 fixed price.
Olkiluoto 3: completed, ROI around 4 years
Sweden and Finland: complete plans for disposal of nuclear waste approved and under construction.
Storage in batteries: no progress to talk about.
Windpower: shorter lifespan than expected
So basically: almost all things in video was wrong.
You completely missed the fact that all nuclear stations are required to pay into the Nuclear Liability Fund for decommissioning and waste management costs. You also admitted nuclear is base load and then compared to 12GW of wind which is not base load so it's not even comparable. It is not possible to control when the wind blows and when the sun shines. Whilst you make a very convincing argument on the face of it; the factual basis of your argument is very weak. You make good points about project costs being too high though. The UK has a terrible track record of project management in general.
The only real issue I take with this is the so-called nuclear "disasters" you mentioned at the start. Chernobyl was a poorly run, poorly built soviet station that would never happen anywhere in the western world. Fukashima was an outdated reactor that was damaged by an earthquake and tsunami. Three-Mile Island was hardly a disaster. The plant is still in use today. The President of the United States was on site the following day, nobody died, and 35 years after the fact, people are still studying to see if there were even any serious health issues. Very good video otherwise!
+IamTheSherm I can't recall the Fukashima reactor being damaged by the quake, but I certainly do recall the tsunami giving the power station a right going over. the tsunami wreaked havoc because some someone in their supreme wisdom decided that the recommended height of the sea walls was ridiculous.
+IamTheSherm Fukushima in any case is a red herring. Nobody died from radiation exposure from the nuclear accident while over 15k people died from the Tsunami, yet Fukushima is what everyone is up in arms about!
Sure, the cleanup turns out to be a little costly but still, Nuclear power has a far better track record than people realize.
FDK
yet. Nobody died, yet.
***** Well I'm sure everyone of them will die eventually
Chernobyl was in use until recently (the last unit shut down in 2000). Just like at TMI one unit was damaged beyond repair. Although I agree there was a difference in that the design of the reactor was superior and that the containment by and large worked. However almost ALL nuclear power stations are outdated.
Funny how things change, when this video was made the price per KWH looked excessive. Now it looks like a bargain
Yep, the video did not age well.
I'm so glad to hear you're not opposed to Nuclear power on principle, but rather legitimate complaints on cost. It's a shame the Green party are anti-nuclear without basis, when there are many reasons that renewables are preferable.
Renewable energy is not preferable to nuclear power. Intermittent energy will always be more expensive than reliable energy.
Same thing with the far left democrats in the US like Bernie, AOC and Warren
Nuclear is classed as renewable
Opposition to Nuclear Power is approval to Nuclear Weapons and accompanying fossil fuel dependence on military intervention in unprotectable countries.
"I'm so glad to hear you're not opposed to Nuclear power on principle, but rather legitimate complaints on cost."
He's not. It's just His way of spinning the situation. Knowing full well that Nuclear is only expensive because uninformed anti-Nuclear freakout merchants made it that way.
He also flatly claims that Wind Turbines don't produce waste. Which is a straight up lie.
I'm glad these videos are coming in again.
Hi, 3GW of wind with storage wouldn't generate same amount of electricity as 3GW of nuclear, as 3GW is peak output. You would need about 9GW to generate same number of kWh. By your costs that's £15bn for wind turbines, and then add cost for storage, it is going to be more.
The £92.5/kWh isn't the most expensive electricity. Higher prices have been agreed for offshore wind and solar through the CfDs (Contracts for difference) that are guaranteeing the price. Plus those strike prices fix what we the customer will pay, whatever the cost of the plant.
I support all the above, nuclear, wind and other renewables, plus storage, which will help us phase out fossil sooner.
+Jonathan Cobb Agreed, it shouldn't be an argument of either/or between non-carbon renewables (wind/solar/tidal/hydro) and nuclear, with load following nuclear reactors they can be complimentary - which is great because they are both ultra-low lifecycle CO2eq emitters.
+Jonathan Cobb Here's the problem with the graphics. My fail.
I suggest we spend £5 billion on wind turbines which would produce 5GW peak, (these numbers are all rough estimates by the way, although I spoke with numerous engineers in the business)
The 3GW was the suggested reliable feed, you say 9GW, I'm not going to claim to be that certain of either figure.
Widely distributed community and domestic storage would cost nowhere near the remaining £13 billion and here's the most important point.
If Hinkley goes ahead, no way will it cost £18 billion, more like £28 billion by many estimates coming out of EDF.
Now, the strike price is, I will readily admit, a nightmare to understand, let along explain to mere mortals.
I do know that some off shore wind farms have a higher strike price, but according to all the figures I could find, the actual cost is enormously lower, and continuing to fall. Onshore wind is now globally accepted as being the cheapest way to generate electricity, rapidly followed by solar.
The cost of nuclear, particularly of the type and design being hashed together at Hinkley is patently economically absurd.
+fullychargedshow Many thanks for reply!
Quoting sources - Renewables UK (hopefully fair on renewables) give capacity factors for on-shore wind of 25.74% and offshore of 34.88 GW. www.renewableuk.com/en/renewable-energy/wind-energy/uk-wind-energy-database/figures-explained.cfm
Modern nuclear would aim for 90% (they may be "24/7" but they need to stop for refuelling and maintenance).
So a 3 GW nuclear plant would produce 23.6 TWh (billion kWh) in a year.
5 GW of onshore wind would produce 11.3 TWh
5 GW of offshore wind would produce 15.3 TWh
To produce same electricity in a year as 3 GW nuclear you 10.1 GW onshore wind or 7.6 GW offshore. My 9GW was a rough average between the two.
Not sure which figure the £5 billion is - on or offshore, but if offshore (the more expensive) then £5bn for 5 GW means you actually need £10 bn for the 10 GW of wind turbines to get the same amount of electricity as Hinkley - and then add in costs for storage.
One more point on costs - modern nuclear plants are expected to have an operating life of at least 60 years. Wind turbines tend to be certified for 20-25 years, but 30 years is probable. So that £10 bn of wind would generate for around half the lifetime of Hinkley. Should one argue that those 30 years of Hinkley represent half its cost - £9bn (or £14Bn if you take your higher estimate) - okay, that might be pushing things a bit... but comparing costs of Hinkley to those of wind need to take into account not only storage, but whatever will need to be built in the likelihood that the wind turbines will be closing down before Hinkley.
Hinkley is a massive amount of money for a massive amount of reliable power. No doubt nuclear needs to get cheaper if it is going to get to the 30% share of the mix projected for the UK, rather than the 7% Hinkley will supply. But Hinkley's not quite as bonkers as the video makes out.
+Jonathan Cobb Thank you for providing some sensible numbers. People are determined to believe that wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear when it's not yet true even for Hinkley, a very expensive plant.
And nearly everyone underestimates the cost of storage too, which is currently absolutely huge. Obviously it will come down, but we need factor-of-10 reductions to make renewable-only systems cheaper than nuclear+renewables.
It's fine if people choose renewables-only _even though it'll cost more_. But if they choose it after being misled about the relative costs and reliability then we will have a problem eventually.
You can't put a price on the planet. We need to learn from mistakes not repeat them for profit
Three Mile Island really wasn't a bad accident in terms of the amount of radiation that was released.
Especially when comparing TMI with the Chernobyl desaster and the Fukushima accident. Both of those are a lot more severe than TMI. In fact, TMI's other cores continued operating after the meltdown.
“Rapidly emerging storage solutions”
4 years on from this statement, and still nothing.
All the talk of how good it is might be rapid, but the science is nowhere near working.
Yep, and they say no waste, the toxic waste stream from renewables is a topic these folks glance over. Last time I checked solar panels, batteries and wind turbines don't grow on trees and they definitely have a much shorter life span than a fission power station. Then there is the problem of what to do with them at the end of their life, literally square kms worth of waste for an industrial scale renewable power station with it's battery backup. Recycling? Nope, we can't even recycle simple paper and plastic in meaningful quantities or economically.
@@anydaynow01 batteries are "recycled" by incineration. Typical spin
@@anydaynow01 Nope, renewables "toxic waste stream" is not a problem, but is rather a series of many red-herrings. Let's look at the most popular: "wind-turbine blades cannot be disposed of". In fact, all wind-turbine blades can be used for creating energy islands in the North Sea. Pity we don't have enough of them! Next, lithium batteries. There's a proven path to recycle all of the precious metals etc.. I could go on and on. So, no-one is "glancing over" anything.
Oh Deary Me this hasn't aged well. Strike price of 92.50 is now dirt cheap. Wind power running at 40% duty cycle is EUR 3/W, i.e. your GBP 18B gets ~6GW nameplate, = 2.5GW continuous then you have storage, storage losses, extra transmission etc with higher capital cost than the wind. And the nuclear disasters killed almost no one compared to the massive loss of life every year due to coal.
Ha LOL many years later - none of us have aged well, and especially your comment hasn't!?! Large nuclear reactors Hinckley etc. continue to expand their budgets and completion deadlines indefinitely. This tec has hit its dead-end.
Great breakdown of prices and the insanity of cost of both building Hinkley Point C and the price of the electricity.
"But lets face it, coal is pretty sh!t", gave me a laugh =)
The nuclear industry funds the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, not the taxpayer
I agree that nuclear is much safer that the unfair criticism it gets, and it is definitely better than all other polluting sources. However, 6 thing that is often conveniently overlooked when talking about the pros of nuclear:
1. *The close calls.* Actual catastrophes are few yes, but you really have to also consider about how many near accidents there have been. Some of them came down to pure luck. And when it goes bad with nuclear, it's usually catastrophically bad. How many Chernobyls are too many?
2. *Scale.* Nuclear only provide around 10% of our global energy generation. If this were to be a serious solution to our problem, then we would need to massively scale up production, and with that, we also have to count in proportionally more accidents, of the catastrophic kind. And it would also make #3(waste) much worse.
3. *Waste*, yes we have safe storage spaces for now...but is it generally a good long term solution to start accumulating massive amounts of toxic waste we don't know what to do with?
4. *Cost effectiveness*. It is my understanding that a nuclear power plant is actually not very cost effective at all, when you take into account its entire cycle. It's very cost effective at peak production true, but it takes forever to get rid of them, and they remain a huge expense long after their lifetime.
5. *World stability*. If this is to truly be a solution, it needs to be adopted in far more dodgy corners of the world too. It's easy to say that nuclear is safe in a rich, stable, western nation. But how safe would it be in a nation that is struggling financially or have massive corruption? Not to mention violent conflicts. If you have to abandon a solar farm...not much will happen, nothing actually... but if you have to abandon a nuclear power plant? How long does it stay safe? The point is, do you really want to build a nuclear power plant in a nation you can't predict the future for at least a generation to come?
6. *Better solution is ready*. Why are we discussing how to solve a problem with the 2nd best solution, when we have the best solution ready to deploy?
The last point is really what drives me crazy with the nuclear debate. Yes it works, yes it's relatively safe and bla bla we know! It's just that you are 2 decades too late, we are already solving it in a record pace today, without nuclear at all. And there are absolutely no huge risks with renewable energies, ok fine hydroelectric dams does have some environmental issues...but that's about it.
I guess this discussion give me the same burning question as the FCEV vs BEV debate, no they are not bad...but: *_WHY!?_*? :)
"Cardiff Tidal Lagoon is now being developed as the first full-scale lagoon in our programme. With a potential installed capacity of around 3GW, this project could provide enough green, clean home-grown power for every home in Wales."
Mark Shorrock, Chief Executive, Tidal Lagoon Power
I think you skimped over one important point about nuclear waste:
It's not only very costly to store it, we also don't actually have _any_ final solution! We're just producing more and more of the stuff, hoping that we will eventually find a place that can contain it safely for the next *10,000* years.
There are some pretty good solutions being designed that can run on our existing nuclear waste. Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR), the clue's in the name, being one, others include PRISM and LFTR.
So, somewhat ironically, the solution to nuclear fission waste, might just be nuclear fission.
Just as well it is being built. With most of the other Nuclear power stations being decommissioned we would be In even more trouble without it.
The British AGR 2 designs are proven, relatively cheap to build, and produce electricity about ten times cheaper than Hinkley Point C (Torness currently produces at £9.90/MWh)
4:50 3GW name plate capacity is not 24/7. People think that batteries eliminate capacity factor problems of wind. It does not.
For you to deliver 3GW 24/7, you have to build 3x wind capacity and levelize it with batteries. This is because Nuclear capacity factor is 3x that of wind.
For for 24/7 3GW power from wind, you need 9GW of Wind farms and associated 6GW batteries that will be able able to store 6GW during happy hours and supply during the 0 speed wind times.
We haven't even discussed the land issue. The land of storing 6GW power with batteries alone is bigger than the 3.3GW EPR being built. I can't even imagine the vast land for 9GW wind. The UK's off shore capacity of wind is barely more than 9GW (it's actually 11.3GW).
Also, you will be lucky if wind and batteries last more than 20 years. 3.3GW EPR plant last 3 times.
So that multiply that £5billion by 3 for 24/7 coverage and then by another 3 for 60 years.
The equivalent cost excluding land would be £45billion.
This would cost the Brits almost 2.5 times more if they went with nuclear. Considering that batteries and the whole farm would have to be replaced every 20 years, I haven't factored inflation. The reason why people say French are only benefitting in nuclear programme is because the built their infrastructure early.
Building big now will make Britain enjoy the benefits in the future too. Look how Russia is showing Europe some flames right now. Aren't you happy that you've already started with EPR?
I work for EDF on a nuclear power station, fantastic company and safety is paramount, and I genuinely mean this, safety safety safety and it goes from top to bottom.
Hate hearing negatives as I have seen it first hand for the last 10yrs that I've worked there.
It's not the tea we need to worry about, it's these electric cars they all want us to have soon, how are we charging them?
Also the security element on these stations is scary, armed police 24/7 and lots of them, the security element is £££££ and people need to remember this.
seven years on, a nearly doubled budget, and Hinckley B shut down and costing half a million a day to run, a death on site and completion date now 2026... might be time for an update video on this
"Let's face it: coal's pretty shit." if this and Red Dwarf goes tits up, can we vote you in as Aussie PM? Don't worry about nationality, Tony Abbott never did! (UK born)
+tallaussiebloke I'd vote for him.
Great videos that are clear, informative and humorous, keep up the good work!
I hate to inform you that the man is deranged.
Not technically the highest strike prices, as wind power has seen higher deals, though admittedly only fixed for 15 years (CPI linked), vs. Hinkley Point C's 35 years (CPI linked) - but then again wind turbines have ~25 year lifespan, vs nuclear's 60 year+ lifespan. I think a better indicator of cost than strike price is the levellised cost, which you can read for yourself in DECC's 2013 report. I'm not saying that Hinkley Point C makes financial sense, but the figures for these kind of things are never as straight forward as you'd want or you'd like!
One thing to note about Hinkley Point C's reactor design (EPR) is that it is a fast rampable design (between 60 and 100%, at 5% per minute), meaning that far from traditional nuclear power it is capable of load following, making it a very handy partner for wind/solar/tidal.
Of course, we would have been better off spending money on developing molten salt reactors, which produce a fraction of the waste of solid fuelled reactors, can use old "waste" as fuel and are walk-away safe, but that's another story for another day.
David,
another factor in the strike price for wind is that wind requires substantial support for load balancing and back up that adds to the real cost of wind. Nuclear requires no such extra cost so strike price is a poor comparison as you say. The media though do not seem to be aware of this?
The strike price for wind is also very weak as there is no real requirement for the operator to stick to them. Hornsea two and three I believe, although operating have not taken up their contract?
Indeed from Professor Gordon Hughs's research as to wind farm operating costs are well above the strike prices, how can it work?
Nuclear is the only non CO2 emitting source of electrcity that can work, as we have little scope for hydro power. Renewables will never work by themselves and always need additional power from other sources. It's interesting that you say Hinkley C can load follow because if used in that manner adds to it's operating cost as it's availability drops. I expect though that it will need to run at full capacity as we will need the power.
@@iareid8255 it adds operating cost, but running at lower power also reduces fuel usage and reactor wear and tear. But it would be better to re-task to hydrogen production/desalinisation rather than ramp down. Some transportation, such as aviation, isn't a good fit for battery based electrification, but green hydrogen is.
Interestingly, UNECE's 2021 report on life-cycle CO2 eq emissions put nuclear power's emissions lower than solar and on shore and off shore wind, and that's before you factor in storage/backup generation and grid re-engineering.
I live near a closed nuclear power plant in Scotland and it was total safe, if Hinckley point c can power 5 million homes then us in Scotland would just need one huge nuclear power plant like Hinckley point to power all of Scotland and with our wind turbines combined would power Scotland for years and years, let's get rid of Coal power like we are doing in Scotland and build one huge nuclear power plant for our future.
3 things.
1 - Cost of decomissioning is taking into account during the pricing.
2 - Sellafield's waste is mostly left-over from the nuclear weapons era. So not relevant to power.
3 - Waste storage is a solved engineering issue.
Three mile Island was not catastrophic. The containment vessel did it's job. Chernobyl didn't have one. The Windscale fire in 1957 was much more serious than three mile Island but you didn't mention it.
your wind power calculation doesn't account for capacity factor. 3 GW of installed wind capacity is likely to produce an average of 1 GW.
The problem is the Base Load, you can run any country from renewable energy right now if you figure out how to provide it more stable ! The cleanest way of doing so is a Massive Battery park to stable the Grid and an also massive Gas Turbine which can quickly change its power output so the core output can be provided by renewable energy
Manufacturing millions of high capacity batteries is so green... so progressive.
*brb, off to buy lithium on the commodity market.
Hello from Bulgaria! I watch your videos with great interest and you have my full support for sharing them among my friends! Please keep on with your work (and wit) :)
I think the price argument is the most important thing, this way everybody is on the same page: everybody wants cheap electricity. Nobody can say, "no, that doesn't concern me".
And great for acknowledging advice from patreon member and making it a weekly show, it certainly gives you an advantage to have a steady flow of content coming :)
I just posted the following message in the channel's discussion too, but I thought other viewers might be interested.
There is a young nuclear physicist called Taylor Wilson who has designed small and very safe neighborhood nuclear power plant that use Nuclear Waste to generate electricity. This uses up the stockpiles of nuclear waste around the world and solves the problem of storing nuclear waste. You can also watch his other videos such as his TED talk. Taylor Wilson was featured in a recent HBO Vice episode called "The Future of Energy" (Season 4, Episode 9). Thank you for your great videos.
Only seen today. Well done Robert. Your common sense approach to this white elephant is much appreciated. You demolish all the arguments for this project in five simple minutes, with simple English language and simple examples. Somewhere along the line there has been serious corrupt practice to see this project promoted.
Brilliant Video! Couldn't agree more
UK Government is a monetary sovereign. It can't run out of UK Pounds. Using those pounds to build up the productive capacity of the UK by investing in public infrastructure and services is a great way to ensure the long term stability and prosperity of the UK.
Nuclear given how safe and clean it is, even when factoring in storage, is a solid investment for the future.
You're argument that essentially we shouldn't build nuclear because it's expensive and long term is flawed due to a lack of understanding about public finance and economic growth.
100% agree with you. Thought you were going to crap on Nuclear power but glad you made it clear at the beginning of the video :) Coal needs to stop now, along with diesel. I'm okay with us using gas gradually phased out but coal is an awful, awful, awful resource and there is little to no reason for diesel cars, buses etc. to exist. Yes they provide slightly better economy but they're mainly a benefit to the oil industry who don't need to refine their fuel as much as a result of them.
Inspired video, love it, gets the point across in such an effective way. Congrats, this will make a difference!!
By the way, love your show. Thanks for doing it!!
Just read in the Economist: "The British government announced a surprise review of the planned Hinkley Point nuclear power station. The decision came shortly after the board of EDF, a French power company, voted to go ahead with the much-delayed and financially precarious project-the first to be built for a generation. A final decision will-supposedly-be made in the autumn."
"Nuclear is better than coal. But let's face it, coal is pretty shit."
Thanks for the chuckles!
Brilliant ;0) The Comedy, the maths, the facts ;0)
Thanks for making and posting Robert ;0)
In Holland we say, they have à "plaat voor de kop", means "à sheet in front of their face", when people know what the right decisions are for the future, but don't want to see it becouse of other interests.
If the government would invest that amount of money in sustainable energy, the transition would go a lot faster!, its really sad that this happens.
Fully charged video's are great!, keep up the good work!👍
And NOW (September 2017) we're told by the GOVERNMENT that wind power is THE cheapest power generation in the UK without question. Can be installed far faster, produced far more cheaply, stored as required and produces no waste.
BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE for the government!!.... ONLY A YEAR LATE!
DUH!!
Now I'm a Patreon :) You are doing so much good on a humoristic and smart way. Been looking at your episodes for a long time now, so it feels good to have a way to support you and to say "thanks!". Keep it up!
"But let's face it... coal is pretty shit"
lmao the delivery is spot on
Thanks for the typically British critique ! Just one more thing - I know UK is prohibitive but ironing a shirt is less than a pound.. :)
+koshur99 excellent comment. Ironed shirts are for bankers and accountants man, I'm too cool to iron...
Okay, I'll try and smarten up just for you
This was very accessible indeed to watch and very informative without feeling too labored or strung out. Great! What a completely mad decision to build this project - were Osbourne and Cameron 'greased' to agree to this (Osbourn's face always looked sinister and afraid that something he secretly knew would be found out). What a shame for our nation this pair were.
A college was making bacteria that can eat nuclear waste but they don't seem to be in a hurry to implement the procedures.
How the h**l does it cost 18 billion to build two reactors? Is the reactor vessel built out of platinum? Is the cooling water flown in from Fiji?
You can spend a fraction of that money on a HVDC-cable to Norway, they will be happy to sell you hydro-electricity to balance your wind power.
+zapfanzapfan And they will probably be happy to buy wind power as well when it is really blowing.
+catprog Yes, just like they do from Denmark and the Netherlands today, windy day -> import, calm day -> open the taps end export. Or more generally, import electricity at night when it is cheap and export electricity during the day when it is more expensive.
We should have built 3 of them and they should all be British made with the whole thing being a British endeavour. That way we would meet 50% of our energy needs 24/7/365 and it can be perfectly safe.
The other 50% could be renewables and a small amount of gas backup plants.
Nuclear waste is actually minimal - when you consider we already have selafield
Ok, to add more fuel onto the minimum selling price consider the following situation: Last sunday (8-5-2016) Germany produced so much renewable energy that the selling price was negative. They were actively paying large consumers money to use the electricity.
The flip side was that coal and nuclear power plants needed to *pay* money to feed their power into the grid. Consider that into the minimum guaranteed selling price for Hinkley Point C and instead of closing a gap of 3 (selling) + 8 (subsidy) cents to get to 11 cents/kWh, you would now 3 (paying) + 11(subsidy) = 14 cents per kWh. The english people will love their government for this :)
I now understand what the deal with HPC. This usually what happens with government funding. It magically disappears.
it is NOT the public's responsibility to pay the costs of dealing with Atomic Fission waste products. We need to kick the Nuclear Industry off the dole and make them reveal the true cost of their insanely expensive electricity.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants#/media/File%3ANuke%2C_coal%2C_gas_generating_costs.png
+SuperCorrector1 but what of the waste storage costs?? *crickets*
Denial of the existence nuclear waste disqualifies any further opinions from you sir.
thank you. for those who do not understand what he is saying about renewable energy from solar and wind in combination with emerging industrial storage solutions from the likes or Tesla i suggest watching more videos from fully charged. yes it is true that currently available technology will mean 24 7 reliable power form returnables!
THIS IS IN MANY PLACES INACCURATE
Glad you're not one to spout anti-nuclear rhetoric. Definitely concur that our government isn't handling it in the best of ways. Not sure what's happening to high-tech engineering in this country - we seem like a right bunch of muppets. Honestly, I don't know why we didn't work with the Americans. Are their designs old or a bit shit? I can't imagine it. Good video!
@Kael
The Americans scrapped their "half built" reactors and Westinghouse went bankrupt.
In short they can't even help themselves.
Fantastic stuff, so happy to donate towards this show!
Simply awesome. As a worker bee in a bio-mass 50 MW station hooked up to ISO-New England I saw MW rate range from negative numbers up to $120 with an average of $18 MW during this past (mild) winter. The cost of $193 MW is astronomical and totally insane.
And now?
Depressed and amused at the same time. Could we buy some decent politicians for 18 billion pounds? I have a suspicion somebody already did.
Chernobyl occured in Pripyat in Ukraine not Russia
Good informative video! But I beg to differ Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Plant at a price tag of £18 billion or $23 billion is no where close to having the crown for the world's costliest power plant, that title is held by China's Three Gorges Dam at wopping $75 billion or £60 billion 😲
Hinckley Point C might never be built, EDF are making their decision in September this year (2016), and that decision could well be "Non!"
IMO we should tell EDF to sling their hook and build two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors instead (and a GE Hitachi PRISM reactor at Sellafield) and save ourselves a packet.
Further information about the decision date: www.power-technology.com/news/newsedf-finalise-decision-britains-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-project-4873434
That would mean making a sane decision... something politicians are not capable of.
I have bad news for you.
SuperCorrector1 I guess you are referring to radiation hormesis, which is quite conversational and the last I heard was that it lacks evidence supporting it in humans/outside of the lab.
I think VVER 1200 or VVER TOI would be better than AP1000
I so wish this episode was a piece of satirical comedy. Oh Deary Me Hinkley Point C 😂😂😂. Really enjoying your content exceptionally funny, keep up the good work chap.
Thank you Robert. I like the Patreon polish. I think your point about having to guard nuclear waste for ever is a weak one. You could say the same about the Crown Jewels, or big data, for instance. A tradesman friend of mine was recently working in Canary Wharf Tower, he said there was a security guard every 50ft.
hahahaaa, executive limousines that burns lots of petrol. This part really blew me out.
Love the show and valuable information that your channel provides, all greatly presented.
Missing the scrapheap challenge programs on channel 4.
If you have Freeview, there are reruns of Scrapheap Challenge showing on Quest.
Only one small observation. To match 3 GW nuclear with 3 GW Wind + storage, you actually need about 15GW wind and storage or 30GW of solar with storage. This is due to the inherent intermittent of those sources. You also need a LOT of storage to give a solid 3GW 24/7 power from such an array. 15GW from wind would require 30,000 500kW wind turbines. Let that sink in, 30,000. To store 3GW * 24 hours is a battery capable of storing 72 GWh. They don't exist.
As a French, educated in the 'nuclear is so great' moto, I can only recommend _not_ building this plant. In fact, I wish the French would stop Flamanville right now and subsidise people to put solar panels on their roofs (photovoltaic or not). It is cheaper, it is local, it does not radiate EM fields...
What an amazingly fair and balanced view about an absolute no brainer.
+cinilaknedalm Except it wasn't very fair, or accurate. I posted some corrections above. That's unfortunate as it _sounds_ quite fair if you don't know the details. I expect Robert to do better than this.
Quote “Sizewell C is a carbon copy of Hinkley Point C”… Sizewell has shedloads of nuclear waste (literally a field of sheds) and the Indians are working on a reactor that burns waste; a bit late now but it sounds like a prospect?
Very nice episode!
Thanks a lot for making my day a bit shittier !!! What a great way to start my day !!
Well put, well put!
"Most expensive electricity ever produced" checking back in on this one with wholesale prices currently trading at about £370 per MWh
Totally understood. This is a great channel and the comment was meant to underscore the accuracy that is presented in the content of each video. I originally missed the text under the video.
The question is that now the renewable incentives have been cut, will individuals and businesses be able to install on-site generation before Hinkley Point C can get off the ground and therefore make it less and less viable as fewer and fewer will need the electric produced?! Lots of love, a solar owner! :)
Funny how fat, profitable businesses need to be incentivized, but helping out the working poor somehow de-incentivizes them. Happy to see you back.
+John Matthias Governments have to finance these really long term projects, because normal financial institutions aren't geared to wait 20, 50 or 100 years for profitability, whereas a nation state is.
The problem is not the incentives, but the fact that governments don't seem to be very good at choosing the recipients. Big centralized industries have a clear united lobby voice, whereas equally good (or better) technologies are so distributed there is no single call-to-action to which the government can respond.
I used to agree with you that nuclear power (and radiation) was in principle OK as long as the plants were well maintained. I changed my mind when I found out that 50 - 150 mg ingested was was enough to chemically kill a person (i.e. through poisoning not through radiation). Then when you consider we will have to look after tons of this waste for hundreds of years to come, nuclear power starts to look less attractive.
3GW won't produce as much energy s 3GW of Nuclear power because the wind isn't always blowing. The capacity factor for windpower is around 30% and for nuclear power it's around 70% meaning:
In order to produce the same amount from wind as from 3GW Nuclear you would need 7GW of Wind power.
But I agree with you. Wind is far better than nuclear power.
The we put in 6GW of wind. Still cheaper. In reality we need a good mix of renewables that provide "free" fuel on our doorstep.
Really love the video and how it was done! Please more videos like this one ,because these kinds of questions and problems are really importat! Greetings from Lithuania!
I vote we don't build it, instead build a wind farm off the coast from Trumps golf course.
+brian whittle Yes, I´d almost consider becoming a British citizen to be able to vote for that ;-)
Excellent analysis. I disagree on one point though: the damage caused is immeasurable. I think you can measure it. Just count how many people have died with nuclear power (either directly or though cancer later). I think most people would be surprised to find that nuclear power isn't just safe compared to coal but is actually the safest form of energy there is. www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/
What about all those you can't count who have cancer but haven't been accepted as a victim?
South Africa is considering making a similar nuclear mistake. The problem with nuclear is large expensive projects attract large influential companies - or even countries trying to sell the very expensive (and very profitable) construction services. When Russia comes knocking and tries to sell you a nuclear deal, its a whole different ball game from when an unknown company tries to sell you a few wind turbines.
So, now it seems i have about reached the point where i said i would want to watch all your videos, one year ago. keep it going!
Another excellent video....Thanks.....
Have you heard of Orison. They are a home plug and play battery. You just have to plug it in your wall socket and it knows when to charge and discharge its electric power.
Don't forget that both wind and solar are not eternal and both also have pretty environment harming recycling process. Batteries and an enormous amounts of various composites that go into wind turbines need to be recycled every 20 years while the heavy metals used in PV panels are still unknown how to deal with at all. Those are exceptionally environmental harming and no one is really bothering to think what will happen after some 15 years from now.
I love being told not to forget something so painfully obvious that only someone displaying deliberate ignorance or indeed actual stupidity would not be aware of. In this particular episode I am not questioning the validity of nuclear power, merely the economics of the technology, about which I am yet to be convinced is sustainable and economically viable.
What is now beyond any question now is that renewables, including end of life processes and recycling, by far the cheapest method of producing electricity.
Speaking of new designs of Nuclear power, how's ITER going?
€15 billion, and only 500 MW, 1/6 th of Hinckley Point C's expected output - it won't even be capable of generating power for the grid either!
If only a small amount of funds that have been pumped into fusion over the years had been pumped into molten salt reactors, we'd have safe, much cleaner and much cheaper nuclear power.
Hmmm. Maybe if ITER is successful we will focus more at fusion.
+John514 maybe, there's lots of very exciting fusion research at the moment, and not all of it tokamak based.
However, fusion is less well understood, and many unknowns and challenges remain. We are a long way from a practical fusion power station.
Fission, on the other hand is the best way forward for dealing with our legacy of nuclear waste, but it does have to be the right kind of fission reactor.
+David Powell India and China are both investing in molten salt. Fusion might never actually work :(
***** I wouldn't go as far as never, but short of a game changing breakthrough, I don't think it is just around the corner either.
Hitting the nail directly on the head. sound bit of info, thanks.
I actually worked on some engineering projects for EDF Nuclear in the UK, and I have to say that the delays have nothing to do with nuclear technology. The same EPR design has been built on time and within schedule a number of times in China, this is more the incompetence and inability of the UK and French governments in trying to work together on large engineering projects.
+rock3tcat (ⵙⴰⵔⵓⵅ) The two Chinese reactors (on one site) ended up being about 1 year late, so not quite on schedule. And they are not actually running yet. The first one is being tested right now, to start up next year.
£92.5/MHW now seems cheap given Europes reliance on Russian gas. Wholesale prices now >£400/MWH. It’s also worth noting that electricity was more than £100/MHW since September 2021 because Europe has had long term wind speeds below average. It’s not just war in Ukraine and sanctions.
Ironic you didn't mention the accident at Sellafield. Though no one died directly from it, no clean up was attempted either after a Large release. Still, he is only really listing the bigger accidents. I have heard that it is difficult to get epidemiological data for the populations around both Sellafield and 3 mile. Health privacy concerns are cited in the UK.
Here here Robert! It would be cheaper (& safer) to put solar panels on every property and business in the Uk with a Tesla-type power wall for each domestic property than build that power station... When will politicians see sense?
This is what happens when you see the government as solution to all the worlds problems, things just get worse. The same logic that could be used to say Nuclear is much safer than the 3 old plants that failed, could also be used to point out that there are cleaner coal technologies now. Wind turbines are blights on the country side and even the sea side and they require far more space than one power plant to equal the power output.
how often to wind turbines ruin your views of the ocean??
+Alex Kahn Examples of damages sea views.
All links are locations not even anywhere near each other.
www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.1413236,0.3474664,3a,15y,57.84h,89.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBf6bSWGhwd9JMB9Y7XujGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3659257,1.4446448,3a,15y,63.99h,89.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZQZLbcLGDy2LvVXm7MLkBg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.547623,-3.1030094,3a,15y,343.64h,90.45t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-nKr3i_LzUnA%2FVZgDtNZPRkI%2FAAAAAAAAAIA%2FW5cDeYcnEvIL7tRzOz4Tmw8KlhPxAKASw!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2F-nKr3i_LzUnA%2FVZgDtNZPRkI%2FAAAAAAAAAIA%2FW5cDeYcnEvIL7tRzOz4Tmw8KlhPxAKASw%2Fw203-h101-n-k-no%2F!7i10240!8i5120
You're from the UK so you don't really ever deal with oil spills. They ruin not just the view or your beach but the whole Goddamn cities economy. Here are some examples www.google.com/search?q=Oil+spill&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD9P6e5sXMAhUJFz4KHQl7BRMQ_AUICCgC&biw=360&bih=559
Alex Kahn You sure that comment was intended for me?
£92.50 per MW is Just over 9.2 pence per kw. Sounds cheap compared to household consumer prices.
I know this is 2 months old but i just recently found your channel, keep up the good work Kryten.
One thing i don't think you really mentioned is that EDF would be paying the cost of building the power plant, unless it gets completed the UK Government will have payed nothing at all, it was for this reason that the very high £92.50 per Megawatt hour was guaranteed to EDF or it just wouldn't have earnt them enough in revenue to be worth building it in the 1st place.
I do agree though that the money, regardless of who is paying would be better spent in other ways like reducing the costs in mass producing solar panels or wind turbines so that every household/farm etc could make use of the technology.
Japan has spent roughly 1 trillion yen ($7.3 billion) annually on the damage caused by the meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant that occurred 12 years ago, and the final price tag is still uncertain.
The 3 nuclear failures you describe were anything but catastrophic!
+topbanana188 I totally disagree, Fukushima is on going, if you go to the doc's and he or she tells you, you have cancer and you only have six months to live. Maybe it was caused by Fukushima, or Chernobyl, maybe it was just bad luck or bad genetics. But either way you cannot prove it was because of Fukushima, but neither can any one disprove it either. And here lies the problem, and they know nobody can prove their illness was caused by a nuclear accident. So we will never know the full extent of the damage. Chernobyl is still uninhabitable to human life, the USSR is a massive land mass, it can live without the bit of contaminated land. The UK is tiny by comparison, we just could not afford to lose Somerset or Devon. Also it must be said, that if it was not for great human sacrifice on behalf of some very brave Russian men, the whole Chernobyl thing would have been on a monumental scale even larger than it was. And had it have not happened under a communist regime, lets say it happened in Health & Safety Britain, instead of men dumping Lead ingots into the fire to calm things down, in the UK they would still be filling out the risk assessment, and method statement forms.
+topbanana188 I think it's fair to say that Chernobyl was pretty catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of people permanently displaced, cities left empty, horrific levels of childhood cancer still ongoing, endlessly rebuilding massive containment systems as the core is still pumping out radioactivity, a cost that is incalculable and will continue to be a massive problem for 100's of years, I think calling that catastrophic is almost an understatement.
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima also did untold damage to the industries global reputation, so when they go wrong, they go wrong big time.
That was the perfectly valid point I was making.
The waste is one of the key reasons why I wouldn't have one "in my back garden" in both the real and metaphorical sense. The second key reason is that every power station of any type needs to be maintained and/or at least checked regularly, plus if you think about this further? You end up considering how much water (or if a domestic-sized nuclear power station was possible, air or sealed tube liquid cooling) would be used and onwards. It's quite the rabbit hole and one that quickly makes any sane person wholeheartedly conclude no.
Worse when one considers how there are overgrown or otherwise untidy gardens, so if a person couldn't or wouldn't maintain their garden (for whatever reason) how could we trust them to look after a small nuclear power plant? It only takes one person to be lax...
Anyway, that's just my take on it and my overall reticence. Keep up the good work! :)
In Russia or not - Chernobyl was not the disaster that it was heading very quickly towards, thousands of people where sent on suicide missions to the plant to prevent the whole of Europe and Russia becoming a radioactive, uninhabitable wasteland for the next ten thousand years, it was only down to the bravery of the men on the ground and the lack of humanitarianism in the Kremlin that this was prevented, and It was estimated that this was prevented by around 19 hours. Truth is we haven't seen a worst scenario Nuclear powerplant disaster yet and when we do this planet will change forever !
The Civil Nuclear Constabulary who protect nuclear power stations etc are funded by the energy companies who run the plants, not by the taxpayer (at least, directly). They're a resource that can, if required, be utilised away from their normal operating areas so effectively the taxpayer gains some benefit from it for free.
Uranium mining is pretty dangerous too... Hinkley is a classic example of what the Americans call "bait & switch". They bait you with promises of cheap, clean electricity new technologies, and so forth, and then switch the bait for a dud like Hinkley.