5 ms·

Some unobjectionably good news, surely.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
b800h 2y ago
Just a shame that we're increasingly purchasing power from abroad as we don't seem to be very good at building nuclear power stations.
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  Most things get cheaper as you build more of them. However, those economies of scale never seem to kick in for nuclear as a) we don't build enough of them and b) the safety are requirements are always going up. Sizewell C is being built by EDF, a French company. And it seems that every time they go over-budget they hold their hand out and the British Government coughs up some more. I read that it is likely to cost in the region of £40 billion.
  - _benedict 2y ago
    Are you thinking of Hinkley Point C? My understanding was that there has been no additional funding provided. The project is way over budget, but it is EDF and its owner (the French taxpayer) who appear to be on the hook. The project is funded by a pre agreed electricity price for the plant once it is operational, and private investment. It is however likely to impact negotiations for Sizewell C which has not yet been greenlit, as funding terms amenable to the U.K. government and EDF have not been reached. EDF want terms that would cause cost overruns to be born by energy consumers, to avoid a repeat of Hinkley Point.
    - hermitcrab 2y ago
      Yes, I think I've confused Hinkley C with Sizewell C. Thanks. https://www.energylivenews.com/2024/08/02/uk-government-addresses-sizewell-c-costs/ https://www.energylivenews.com/2024/08/02/uk-government-addr...
  - rtpg 2y ago
    France built a bunch of them, they're still expensive and hard projects. People talk about economies of scales but there are only so many power plants you need to build in the world. I'm sure there are strategies that could, at the very least, make things predictable. I think the biggest trouble with huge projects isn't so much the cost as it is the uncertainty.
    - Neonlicht 2y ago
      Economies of scale work very well for wind farms funny that. If only the UK had a North Sea...
      - hermitcrab 2y ago
        Wind energy is great. But it only works when the wind is blowing...
- was_a_dev 2y ago
  We're not good at building nuclear power stations, partly because we haven't the skilled workforce to do so. A lot of the (finanical and time) investment for Hinkley Point C has been certifying and upskilling the workforce. Sizewell C is projected to be a much smoother and 'cheaper' operation, as it is a near clone of HPC. And the timing means the workforce will just transfer over to the new site.
Kognito 2y ago
Bittersweet. Glad to be moving away from coal, but the lack of serious investment in anything but wind energy has left the UK with the highest electricity prices in the developed world, factories and industry closing their doors, the most vulnerable in society choosing between heating or eating and a very real prospect of blackouts this winter. We dreamed of a future of energy abundance, almost too cheap to meter. We have the technology in nuclear to do just that and perhaps we will one day. So celebrate Britain turning off 500MW of emergency buffer supply and try your best to ignore the 50GW of coal power that China brought online in the 12 months of 2023 alone.
- inferiorhuman 2y ago
  left the UK with the highest electricity prices in the developed world https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/news/new-energy-price-cap-level-october-december-2024-starts-today https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/news/new-energy-price-cap-level-oct... Wha? Fair play if you think the US is not a developed country, but £0.255/kWh is towards the lower end of what electricity costs in California. Hawaii is at or above those rates.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    0.25 GBP per kWh ($0.33) is at the top end of prices on this list: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
    - inferiorhuman 2y ago
      https://www.pge.com/content/dam/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/residential-electric-rate-plan-pricing.pdf https://www.pge.com/content/dam/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/... https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/documents/billing_and_payment/rates/effective_rate_summary/efs_2024_09.pdf https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/documents/billing_and_payme... I'm pretty sure SDGE (San Diego) rates are higher than PG&E across the board, but I'm too lazy to look it up since PG&E covers a huge swath of California and is already eyewateringly expensive.
hermitcrab 2y ago
As long as we aren't just paying other people to mine/burn coal instead.
- seadan83 2y ago
  Not all coal is equal. Some burns more cleanly, some is easier to extract and process Though you make a good point it could be zero sum (or worse or better). Yet, it might be truly better to pay someone else to burn coal if its cleaner to process and burn compared to domestic supply.
  - hermitcrab 2y ago
    >if its cleaner to process and burn compared to domestic supply It won't be though, will it? They will buy it from the cheapest place they can, which will probably be a third world environmental disaster zone.
    - seadan83 2y ago
      The difference I raised is not necessarily dramatic. Mostly i wanted to point out the ease of extraction, processing, and quality are all variable. Context matters. Consider oil for example, when the price is high then low productivity oil wells that need high amounts of processing becomes economical. Somewhat similar concept FWIW, "global energy monitor" wiki has some interesting data: "Note that, perhaps counterintuitively, carbon dioxide emission factors are not necessarily lower for higher quality coals. For example, anthracite coal, which is the highest quality coal, produces more carbon dioxide per Btu than low-quality lignite. This is because anthracite lacks hydrogen, which is a small portion of the content of lower grade coals." [1] [1] https://www.gem.wiki/Estimating_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_coal_plants#Effect_of_plant_age_and_size_on_heat_rate https://www.gem.wiki/Estimating_carbon_dioxide_emissions_fro...
ClassyJacket 2y ago
Nah, people always spin this as "the horrible evil communist government is killing 800 JOBS!!!". Happened in Australia a few years ago - the parties on both sides only spoke about it as purely a negative thing because of loss of jobs, not a peep about carbon emissions or other pollution.
- Panzer04 2y ago
  Jobs are the dumbest argument anyway. It's obviously better to produce X with 0 jobs than X with 100 jobs. Most people just don't seem to understand that economically instead of accruing some benefit to 100 people, everyone else gains marginally instead. I absolutely hate political parties harping on about job creation, like that's the goal. No, the goal is value creation, hopefully for society as a whole, in the most efficient way possible.
  - macintux 2y ago
    The problem is that value creation is meaningless to people who are losing their jobs. Homelessness sucks.
    - Panzer04 2y ago
      Like it's impossible to get another job? We can't babysit people their whole lives, nor should we subsidise jobs that don't need to be done. I recognise I'm privileged in saying that, but even so the vast majority of people get by without special treatment to preserve their jobs (every worker in retail and hospitality). There is no reason, usually, to give special treatment to these jobs.
      - macintux 2y ago
        I'm just pointing out why, in your words, we see "political parties harping on about job creation".

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Just a shame that we're increasingly purchasing power from abroad as we don't seem to be very good at building nuclear power stations.

hermitcrab 2y ago
Most things get cheaper as you build more of them. However, those economies of scale never seem to kick in for nuclear as a) we don't build enough of them and b) the safety are requirements are always going up. Sizewell C is being built by EDF, a French company. And it seems that every time they go over-budget they hold their hand out and the British Government coughs up some more. I read that it is likely to cost in the region of £40 billion.
- _benedict 2y ago
  Are you thinking of Hinkley Point C? My understanding was that there has been no additional funding provided. The project is way over budget, but it is EDF and its owner (the French taxpayer) who appear to be on the hook. The project is funded by a pre agreed electricity price for the plant once it is operational, and private investment. It is however likely to impact negotiations for Sizewell C which has not yet been greenlit, as funding terms amenable to the U.K. government and EDF have not been reached. EDF want terms that would cause cost overruns to be born by energy consumers, to avoid a repeat of Hinkley Point.
  - hermitcrab 2y ago
    Yes, I think I've confused Hinkley C with Sizewell C. Thanks. https://www.energylivenews.com/2024/08/02/uk-government-addresses-sizewell-c-costs/ https://www.energylivenews.com/2024/08/02/uk-government-addr...
- rtpg 2y ago
  France built a bunch of them, they're still expensive and hard projects. People talk about economies of scales but there are only so many power plants you need to build in the world. I'm sure there are strategies that could, at the very least, make things predictable. I think the biggest trouble with huge projects isn't so much the cost as it is the uncertainty.
  - Neonlicht 2y ago
    Economies of scale work very well for wind farms funny that. If only the UK had a North Sea...
    - hermitcrab 2y ago
      Wind energy is great. But it only works when the wind is blowing...
was_a_dev 2y ago
We're not good at building nuclear power stations, partly because we haven't the skilled workforce to do so. A lot of the (finanical and time) investment for Hinkley Point C has been certifying and upskilling the workforce. Sizewell C is projected to be a much smoother and 'cheaper' operation, as it is a near clone of HPC. And the timing means the workforce will just transfer over to the new site.

Kognito 2y ago

Bittersweet. Glad to be moving away from coal, but the lack of serious investment in anything but wind energy has left the UK with the highest electricity prices in the developed world, factories and industry closing their doors, the most vulnerable in society choosing between heating or eating and a very real prospect of blackouts this winter. We dreamed of a future of energy abundance, almost too cheap to meter. We have the technology in nuclear to do just that and perhaps we will one day. So celebrate Britain turning off 500MW of emergency buffer supply and try your best to ignore the 50GW of coal power that China brought online in the 12 months of 2023 alone.

inferiorhuman 2y ago
left the UK with the highest electricity prices in the developed world https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/news/new-energy-price-cap-level-october-december-2024-starts-today https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/news/new-energy-price-cap-level-oct... Wha? Fair play if you think the US is not a developed country, but £0.255/kWh is towards the lower end of what electricity costs in California. Hawaii is at or above those rates.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  0.25 GBP per kWh ($0.33) is at the top end of prices on this list: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
  - inferiorhuman 2y ago
    https://www.pge.com/content/dam/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/residential-electric-rate-plan-pricing.pdf https://www.pge.com/content/dam/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/... https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/documents/billing_and_payment/rates/effective_rate_summary/efs_2024_09.pdf https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/documents/billing_and_payme... I'm pretty sure SDGE (San Diego) rates are higher than PG&E across the board, but I'm too lazy to look it up since PG&E covers a huge swath of California and is already eyewateringly expensive.

hermitcrab 2y ago

As long as we aren't just paying other people to mine/burn coal instead.

seadan83 2y ago
Not all coal is equal. Some burns more cleanly, some is easier to extract and process Though you make a good point it could be zero sum (or worse or better). Yet, it might be truly better to pay someone else to burn coal if its cleaner to process and burn compared to domestic supply.
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  >if its cleaner to process and burn compared to domestic supply It won't be though, will it? They will buy it from the cheapest place they can, which will probably be a third world environmental disaster zone.
  - seadan83 2y ago
    The difference I raised is not necessarily dramatic. Mostly i wanted to point out the ease of extraction, processing, and quality are all variable. Context matters. Consider oil for example, when the price is high then low productivity oil wells that need high amounts of processing becomes economical. Somewhat similar concept FWIW, "global energy monitor" wiki has some interesting data: "Note that, perhaps counterintuitively, carbon dioxide emission factors are not necessarily lower for higher quality coals. For example, anthracite coal, which is the highest quality coal, produces more carbon dioxide per Btu than low-quality lignite. This is because anthracite lacks hydrogen, which is a small portion of the content of lower grade coals." [1] [1] https://www.gem.wiki/Estimating_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_coal_plants#Effect_of_plant_age_and_size_on_heat_rate https://www.gem.wiki/Estimating_carbon_dioxide_emissions_fro...

ClassyJacket 2y ago

Nah, people always spin this as "the horrible evil communist government is killing 800 JOBS!!!". Happened in Australia a few years ago - the parties on both sides only spoke about it as purely a negative thing because of loss of jobs, not a peep about carbon emissions or other pollution.

Panzer04 2y ago
Jobs are the dumbest argument anyway. It's obviously better to produce X with 0 jobs than X with 100 jobs. Most people just don't seem to understand that economically instead of accruing some benefit to 100 people, everyone else gains marginally instead. I absolutely hate political parties harping on about job creation, like that's the goal. No, the goal is value creation, hopefully for society as a whole, in the most efficient way possible.
- macintux 2y ago
  The problem is that value creation is meaningless to people who are losing their jobs. Homelessness sucks.
  - Panzer04 2y ago
    Like it's impossible to get another job? We can't babysit people their whole lives, nor should we subsidise jobs that don't need to be done. I recognise I'm privileged in saying that, but even so the vast majority of people get by without special treatment to preserve their jobs (every worker in retail and hospitality). There is no reason, usually, to give special treatment to these jobs.
    - macintux 2y ago
      I'm just pointing out why, in your words, we see "political parties harping on about job creation".