Wind Turbines

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy has been awarded £33.6 million to develop its small modular reactor for the UK market. GE Hitachi was awarded the funding from the Future Nuclear Enabling Fund towards the costs of the first two steps of the generic design assessment (GDA) for its BWRX-300 small modular reactor (SMR).26 Jan 2024


The BWRX-300 is a design for a small modular nuclear reactor proposed by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH). The BWRX-300 would feature passive safety, in that neither external power nor operator action would be required to maintain a safe state, even in extreme circumstances.


300MW
 
The first unit is forecast to cost $1 billion, which is pretty cheap for nuclear. Hinkley is going to be closer to $40 billion for 3200MWe, or four times the price.
 
The first unit is forecast to cost $1 billion, which is pretty cheap for nuclear. Hinkley is going to be closer to $40 billion for 3200MWe, or four times the price.
The idea is to make parts in "bulk" which brings the price down and also reduces the time taken for a loan based builds / installation to start showing profit. That is significant on projects like Hinkly where as much as possible is UK sourced and the jobs that go with it help.

10x1is less than 40
 
The idea is to make parts in "bulk" which brings the price down and also reduces the time taken for a loan based builds / installation to start showing profit. That is significant on projects like Hinkly where as much as possible is UK sourced and the jobs that go with it help.

10x1is less than 40
I'd assumed people thought about units. 300MW is roughly a tenth of 3200MW. So ten of these SMRs would be needed to match Hinkley at a price of $10 billion.

Of course I don't believe they'll be that cheap, but I'd be delighted to be wrong.
 
Build time and inflation also figures in Hinckley. It needs significant money early on, It often figures in the reason for increasing project costs. ;) Same as projects like HS2.
 
Windpower is currently generating over 10GW.

More than Nukes, gas, hydro and bio put together.

More fossil fuel saved.

Earlier today it touched 15GW.
 
Renewable energy will this year shrink fossil fuels’ reigning share of the global electricity market for the first time. That is the key finding of Ember-climate.org, a leading energy think tank based in London, which on Wednesday published its first comprehensive Global Electricity Review analysing data from 215 countries. Renewables expanded by an average of 3.5 percent a year during the past decade, compared with an annual 1.5 percent in the previous decade, as prices for photovoltaic panels and wind turbines climbed down and their productivity soared...this year, said Ember, they will also roll back fossil fuels’ market share by 2 percent – the beginning of a decade-long process of knocking them out of electricity production altogether in three dozen developed economies.

Ember estimates that renewable generation this year will add a gargantuan 1,221 terawatt hours of electricity supply, compared with 513 TWh added last year. [The] prediction relies on hydroelectric power recovering from five years of drought, and nuclear power continuing to provide just over 9 percent of the global mix. “The energy transition that’s happening in Germany is in large part because of the anti-nuclear movement. [It] helped launch the citizen energy movement, which has installed solar and wind farms, biogas plants, and really made possible the near-exponential expansion of renewable energy there.”

Last year China created about 29 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, twice those of the United States. But it also installed half the world’s solar panels and 60 percent of the world’s wind turbines, easily rating as the green energy transition leader. It manufactures as much as 85 percent of the solar panels the rest of the world installs. It is also a leader in the electrification of transport and heating, two of the most polluting sectors of the economy after electricity production. Last year it put more electric vehicles on the road and heat pumps into homes than the rest of the world combined, and was responsible for almost all new electricity demand.

“Right now the very broad spread of renewables, and especially solar, is partly based on the very large subsidies China is giving to photovoltaic infrastructure,” energy analyst Miltiadis Aslanoglou told Al Jazeera; “Its goal is to dominate and wipe any competitors off the map so that in the coming years it will have a technology monopoly.” The European Union and the US, leading markets for Chinese photovoltaics, are both beneficiaries and victims, Aslanoglou said.

Not unlike China, Europe and the US have opted for state-led solutions.
The EU’s 2020 Recovery and Resilience Fund set aside 270 billion euros ($290bn) in subsidies and loans for renewable energy installations and grid upgrades. Two years later, US President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act set aside $783bn in renewable energy and climate change mitigation measures. “The energy transition is inevitable and not something you should delay or something you can prevent. If something creates a new dependence, you have to manage the tradeoffs.”
 
More than Nukes, gas, hydro and bio put together.
Because there are not enough nuke sources so comparing is pointless.
These reactors are also thorium based. That may well make placement more flexible as they can be shut down easily.

What happened to Rolls Royce sketches? It's a market that it would be well worth getting into. More JCB ventilator cases, Dyson ventilators and nightingales that in real terms were places for people to die in. Fortunately not needed. I hate this style of politics.
 
These reactors are also thorium based. That may well make placement more flexible as they can be shut down easily.
Imaginary reactors are very flexible in location. No one is predicting commercial thorium power before 2030-35.

By then they'll be up against sodium batteries and PV that's even cheaper than it is now. Betting on nuclear is like announcing a new breed of faster cart horses after the Model A has been announced.
 
Few are considering how much electrical power output will need to grow. This is some ways makes statements relating to current consumption pointless.
Time to thorium - a lot of efforts are being put into it. The UK is being more conventional nuke station hence the cost.

Sodium batteries - sodium sulpher maybe. It has disadvantages compared with lithium. I have been associated with a company that has been working on them for many years aimed at off grid storage. Current state pass but one disadvantage of these is the need to keep them hot.
 
Few are considering how much electrical power output will need to grow. This is some ways makes statements relating to current consumption pointless.
An idea of UK intent
The strategy will see a significant acceleration of nuclear, with an ambition of up to 24GW by 2050 to come from this safe, clean, and reliable source of power. This would represent up to around 25% of our projected electricity demand. Subject to technology readiness from industry, Small Modular Reactors will form a key part of the nuclear project pipeline.

Before starting out with conventional nuke thorium was considered to need money invested as research into them stopped a long time ago. The reason often stated being the need for bombs. Nuke station planning goes back to Blair's days and to some extent even earlier. We have had problems finding companies prepared to provide them otherwise we would be further ahead. Cost and returns for them figure. An argument often used to justify wind

Personally I also wonder how HGV's will be powered to move up to 44tonnes around. 44 is the current road to rail limit. It's dependant on the number of axles used to carry it. None electrified trains could also have implications. Hydrogen is being evaluated.

I expected some comment about sodium sulpher but in real terms wondered what other couples have been looked at by the same company. Sodium + what. I read the wiki on sodium a while ago. The main drive is much reduced material costs and some couples mentioned don't sound too good. Some similar to lithium performance.
 
An idea of UK intent
The strategy will see a significant acceleration of nuclear, with an ambition of up to 24GW by 2050 to come from this safe, clean, and reliable source of power. This would represent up to around 25% of our projected electricity demand.
It won't, because if we wanted those nuclear plants to be online by 2050 we'd need to be planning them now. It's only 26 years away. Hinkle Point C was announced in 2010 and is currently due for 2027, so maybe before 2030.

Personally I also wonder how HGV's will be powered to move up to 44tonnes around. 44 is the current road to rail limit
Electric HGVs are already a thing. Although I'm not sure why anyone thinks 150kW is a big charger, the US is looking at MW chargers for HGVs on longer routes.


Hydrogen trains however are failures.


They're going to be replaced by battery trains, which are also already a thing. There's a London pilot scheme going on as well.

 
It won't, because if we wanted those nuclear plants to be online by 2050 we'd need to be planning them now. It's only 26 years away. Hinkle Point C was announced in 2010 and is currently due for 2027, so maybe before 2030.
Plenty of time for thorium / modular versions to be sorted out. There is a demand hence the interest.

Electric HGVs are already a thing. Although I'm not sure why anyone thinks 150kW is a big charger, the US is looking at MW chargers for HGVs on longer routes.
Max charging rate can be a problem that needs battery cooling. The particular vehicle mentioned is rather niche.
Electric HGVs are already a thing.
A modern 33tonne vehicle will use ~60L of diesel for a 200km range. You can work out 200miles for yourself. Also for range against speed look at MG's cars web site. They give the info. Ok for cars but a feature of any battery vehicle.
Hydrogen trains however are failures.
I said evaluation not commercial use. No point unless there is loads available. It's essentially sorted but needs that.

You also mentioned PV. Your likely to here complaints about China in that area. I may not take much notice of that having been involved facing the same problem when Japan was accused of the same sort of thing. One major problem competing is they had the volumes. All sorts of side effects. Also for pure PV and nothing else storage is needed. It uses up land. Excellent idea on houses but similar problems. Roof systems are coming along that don't involve fitting over the usual roofing. They may not catch. Perhaps due too many houses having solar eventually. Pass.
 
Actually water absorbs a lot but then when used in hydro electric it then gets released back into the atmosphere by the billion tons. So much for green energy

I've been following up on this, posted on another thread. According to some reports, hydroelectric can release more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. Especially in tropical climates, where most of the planned renewables will be hydro. It's a bit depressing!

 
Back
Top