TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
Start a Discussionhttps://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/tags/

Hinkley Point C: Back of the Napkin $ Analysis

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by SageBrush, Jun 22, 2017.

  1. SageBrush

    SageBrush 2018: Drain the Sewer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    4,486
    Location:
    Colorado
    Hinkley Point C (HPC) is supposed to cost 18B UK to build;
    Spend 60% of that amount (~ 10B UK) using domestic firms;
    Have the entire cost of construction borne by the foreign owners;
    And agree to a 92.5 UKP per MWh wholesale price for 35 years.

    HPC is expected to have a generation capacity of 3.2 million kW. I have used 100% capacity utilization for my napkin math although that is no doubt excessive. Then I calculated how much extra the UK will pay for the electricity generation for each 1 pence extra than alternatives would cost. I suspect that wind can be built at 3 -4 pence a kWh, but I'll leave that for another topic

    Annual generation is 28 Billion kWh a year, so each year a pence extra costs 280 Million UKP. If my guess is correct that the UK will end up paying some 6 pence per kWh more than other clean alternatives, the country will have given back the 10B UKP in about 6.5 years before interest in considered, and then will be on the hook for an extra 1.68 Billion UKP a year for the next 28 years or so.

    And for what ?
    To have a nuclear waste 'problem' ?
    To have a massive terrorist target ?
    To have another nuclear accident possibility ? I wonder who is covering insurance.
    To avoid developing a domestic wind industry ?

    I'd like to know if my math is wrong, because this decision just seems insane. Trumpish, even.
    My cynical side says this is politicians listening to the construction firms who will benefit handsomely during the construction years, and my even more cynical side says the Brits are betting on 3-10x cost over-runs that will either kill the project before it ever generates a watt or infuse that fold more money into the economy to make the financials something less than an embarrassment.

    Any errors on my side ? Opposing opinions ?
     
  2. RubberToe

    RubberToe Supporting the greater good

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,691
    Location:
    Pasadena, Ca
    Break out that napkin again, latest estimate added another couple billion $ to the estimated cost:

    Cost of Hinkley Point C rises by 8%, EDF says
     
    • Informative x 1
    • Like x 1
  3. thegruf

    thegruf Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,370
    Location:
    UK
    We've already got a nuclear waste problem, honestly this wont make it much worse
    probably unlikely terrorist but an obvious military target
    accidents are always possible, though you would like to think current technology better than 50 years ago

    last point probably requires more discussio
    There's already quite a lot of wind power around and whilst it's clean and harmless, though aesthetically questionable in some sites, the wind of course is not constant. This in turn necessitates the ability to switch on/off other parts of the grid to compensate. Nuclear of course is the master of near instant mass power availability and is one of the biggest arguments in favour of it.

    Solar PV and storage undoubtedly the way to go.
    Distribtued
    Resilient
    negligible waste, and waste is recyclable

    not power utility friendly, at least in their current form though
     
  4. SageBrush

    SageBrush 2018: Drain the Sewer

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    4,486
    Location:
    Colorado
    I'm under the impression the exact opposite is true
     
    • Like x 2
  5. GoTslaGo

    GoTslaGo Learning Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,899
    Location:
    NV

Share This Page