General > General Technical Chat
Germany shutting down last nuclear power plants on April 15th
nctnico:
--- Quote from: Neutrion on April 17, 2023, 11:31:26 am ---
--- Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 03:48:28 pm ---AFAIK hydrogen storage in salt caverns is being build to store 36000 metric tonnes of hydrogen (as a start). The empty gas fields can potentially hold many times that much. So there isn't a practical limit in terms of storage capacity that is and/or can be made available in the NL.
The calculation has many factors. Nuclear, solar and wind are more or less on par where it comes to price per kWh to generate in the NL; around 4 euro cents per kWh. Transport costs through the grid are about the same or higher. This already shows that just looking at generation costs is going to skew any comparison if you don't take transport costs into account. Roundtrip efficiency for hydrogen is around 50% but is likely to improve significantly over time. But even at 50% efficieny, you are only looking at a price increase ballpark 33% at the consumer end because the transport costs are still the same (excluding taxes which make the relative cost for storage even smaller). Alternatively the hydrogen can also be used for an industrial process or vehicle that needs hydrogen anyway. On top of that, the NL intends to import and distribute hydrogen through the several sea ports it has which have direct pipeline connections deep into Europe.
And again, the nuclear power plants aren't intended to just produce hydrogen. Hydrogen production is supposed to happen when there is excess energy or when the hydrogen supply runs low. The nuclear power plants will primarily be feeding the grid.
--- End quote ---
But this is the point, the 4 cents/kWh is only valid for old nuclear plants. You can not base the calculation on that. (And we of course COMPLETELY exclude the waist storage price for tens of thousends years)The prices in Olkiluoto if you count with 8,5 billion euro cost and 50 years of working would be around three times of the 4 cents.. I also read some 11billion Euro may Siwastaya can check that. Hinkley point C is not ready yet but already way over the planned costs.
--- End quote ---
There are litterally hundreds of nuclear power plants on the world and the majority is build within planning and budget. If you look closer at the power plants you mentioned, you'll see that incompetent governments where duped into greenlighting projects that where cleverly setup to leach as much money from those governments as possible. Maybe even on purpose by people within those governments to setup the projects for failure. The exception doesn't make the rule though.
As I wrote before: the time the waste is extremely radioactive, is relatively short. Order of magnitude 100 to 200 years. Not the millenia environmentalists tend to claim; their claims are based on wanting to wait until the radiation is zero but that isn't part of their FUD story. And neither is the fact that nuclear waste consists of toxic metals which remain toxic until the end of the the earth's existence.
Where it comes to H2 storage: Hystock mentions a 98% roundtrip efficiency for underground storage. So for every euro worth of hydrogen you pump in, you get 0.98 euro worth of hydrogen out.
Someone:
--- Quote from: nctnico on April 17, 2023, 08:22:23 pm ---
--- Quote from: Neutrion on April 17, 2023, 11:31:26 am ---
--- Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2023, 03:48:28 pm ---AFAIK hydrogen storage in salt caverns is being build to store 36000 metric tonnes of hydrogen (as a start). The empty gas fields can potentially hold many times that much. So there isn't a practical limit in terms of storage capacity that is and/or can be made available in the NL.
The calculation has many factors. Nuclear, solar and wind are more or less on par where it comes to price per kWh to generate in the NL; around 4 euro cents per kWh. Transport costs through the grid are about the same or higher. This already shows that just looking at generation costs is going to skew any comparison if you don't take transport costs into account. Roundtrip efficiency for hydrogen is around 50% but is likely to improve significantly over time. But even at 50% efficieny, you are only looking at a price increase ballpark 33% at the consumer end because the transport costs are still the same (excluding taxes which make the relative cost for storage even smaller). Alternatively the hydrogen can also be used for an industrial process or vehicle that needs hydrogen anyway. On top of that, the NL intends to import and distribute hydrogen through the several sea ports it has which have direct pipeline connections deep into Europe.
And again, the nuclear power plants aren't intended to just produce hydrogen. Hydrogen production is supposed to happen when there is excess energy or when the hydrogen supply runs low. The nuclear power plants will primarily be feeding the grid.
--- End quote ---
But this is the point, the 4 cents/kWh is only valid for old nuclear plants. You can not base the calculation on that. (And we of course COMPLETELY exclude the waist storage price for tens of thousends years)The prices in Olkiluoto if you count with 8,5 billion euro cost and 50 years of working would be around three times of the 4 cents.. I also read some 11billion Euro may Siwastaya can check that. Hinkley point C is not ready yet but already way over the planned costs.
--- End quote ---
There are litterally hundreds of nuclear power plants on the world and the majority is build within planning and budget.
--- End quote ---
All the low "priced" nuclear is from life extension, by carving out the capital expenses and saying they are already paid for (and to be paid in future). Forgetting that those projects had extremely expensive energy costs while operating:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator
So by one economic assessment it does make sense to continue extending operating licenses and run those capital intensive installations into the ground, but it's a sleight of hand to say that the energy is cheap. Only the marginal cost of ongoing operation is cheap.
Back on real figures over plant lifetimes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png
Nuclear generated electricity is expensive, and not getting cheaper despite what the industry has been promising. New build is uneconomic if you only want the electricity, life extension is about the same cost as well sited renewables (but with radically different political outcomes).
Siwastaja:
--- Quote from: nctnico on April 17, 2023, 08:22:23 pm ---There are litterally hundreds of nuclear power plants on the world and the majority is build within planning and budge
--- End quote ---
There are only a handful built after 2000, though. The few successful are in China. Hundreds of financial success stories are from 1960's to 1980's. The art seems to be partially lost. You can't ignore the current track record and just say "hey, all those who failed were just bad implementations, there's nothing wrong with the principle." If this is true, why so many fail? Something has truly changed in how nuclear power is implemented since 1980's. Especially if you want to see more nuclear, this can't be ignored, because poor track record is preventing investments as we speak.
Neutrion:
--- Quote from: Siwastaja on April 18, 2023, 05:13:53 am ---
--- Quote from: nctnico on April 17, 2023, 08:22:23 pm ---There are litterally hundreds of nuclear power plants on the world and the majority is build within planning and budge
--- End quote ---
There are only a handful built after 2000, though. The few successful are in China. Hundreds of financial success stories are from 1960's to 1980's. The art seems to be partially lost. You can't ignore the current track record and just say "hey, all those who failed were just bad implementations, there's nothing wrong with the principle." If this is true, why so many fail? Something has truly changed in how nuclear power is implemented since 1980's. Especially if you want to see more nuclear, this can't be ignored, because poor track record is preventing investments as we speak.
--- End quote ---
It is not the "art" is lost, it is just made sure it will be made safer than those old plants. And that costs money in the whole complexity of the process.
Talking about incompetent governments:If Finnland, UK and France are all incompetent well, than we can agree that most of the governments are incompetent so they shoul not touch such projects.
And in China we can not see the true costs, so I wouldn't bet on those being successful.
--- Quote from: nctnico on April 17, 2023, 08:22:23 pm --- And neither is the fact that nuclear waste consists of toxic metals which remain toxic until the end of the the earth's existence.
Where it comes to H2 storage: Hystock mentions a 98% roundtrip efficiency for underground storage. So for every euro worth of hydrogen you pump in, you get 0.98 euro worth of hydrogen out.
--- End quote ---
Heavy metals are toxic, even lead. And they stay toxic even without radiation.
With H2 I meant the full process of production, and storage, but even at around 50% full efficiency of power - gas - power, it will be much cheaper than a new nuclear plant.
Germany just signd some agreement with Norway and Denmark to buy green H2 so we might have to take a look at those plants. (In planning I suppose?)
nctnico:
But that still makes Germany reliant on importing energy. There is a large geopolitical aspect to having your own energy supply.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version