BWRX-300 Remember the Name. It will Change Your Life!
The First Of A Kind [FOAK] GE-Hitachi's 300 MW Small Modular Reactor [SMR] will be operational in 2028. A few years later, the Nth Of A Kind [NOAK] will be available at an overnight cost of £452 million.
The UK uses 340 TWh of electricity each year. 144 BWRX-300 SMR [at 40 to 50 sites in groups of 3 or 4] can supply all of the UK's 24/7, low-carbon electricity for an overnight cost of £65 billion.
New South Wales generates about
73,000 GWh of pretty dirty electricity every year. 6,500 TWh is from wind and
solar, but there’s 60,000 GWh still generated from fossil fuels; 57,500 GWh
from black coal.
------------------------------//------------------------------ Nuclear Power Generation in Ukraine 1970 to 2019. Somewhere in the media, every day of every year since April 1986, some anti-nuclear hype is foisted upon the general public. But how many premature deaths have been saved and cases of respiratory ailments prevented by nuclear power generation in the Ukraine, displacing the burning of coal?
At 15.5 per TWh, that's 45,614 premature deaths saved. At 10,427 per TWh, that's 30,685,000 cases of LSR prevented. --------------------//-------------------- Look forward to a BBC documentary on this very subject. --------------------//--------------------
"...Tesla’s Powerpacks are lithium-ion batteries, similar
to a laptop or a mobile phone battery........In a Tesla Powerpack, the base
unit is the size of a large thick tray. Around sixteen of these are inserted
into a fridge-sized cabinet to make a single Tesla “Powerpack” ........With 210
kilowatt-hour per Tesla Powerpack, the full South Australian installation is
estimated to be made up of several hundred units..."
"...A control system will also be needed to dictate the battery’s charging and discharging. This is both for the longevity of battery as well to maximise its economic benefit........For example, the deeper the regular discharge, the shorter the lifetime of the battery, which has a warranty period of 15 years..."
To store 3.4 TWh of energy, for delivery over 31 days, would
require 97,143 Energy Vault Plants, with a lifespan of 30 years. At
US$7.5 million [£5.85 million], they would have a capital cost of: £568 billion.
But for the
60 years [The design life of a Nuclear Power Plant]Energy Vault Plants would
have to be built 2X. The capital cost, to rectify 1 month of low-wind
The 13.5 GW of onshore wind, with a capital cost of £15 billion and the 8.5 GW of offshore wind, with a capital cost of £21 billion, can now be backed up by storage to provide 24/7 electricity, for an additional capital cost of £150 billion.
That's a total capital cost of just £186 billion for renewables + storage to supply 54 TWh per year of 24/7 electricity, for their 25/30 year lifespan.
There is a consideration though, that £186 billion would finance the capital cost of 8 Hinkley Point C nuclear power plants, which would generate 202 TWh of 24/7 electricity every year, for their 60 year design lives.
For the renewables + storage to supply for 60 years a capital cost factor of X2.4 needs to be applied to wind power and X2 to storage. taking the capital cost to - £386 billion.
Renewables + storage will be 2X the capital cost for the generation of about 1/4 of the amount of 24/7, low-carbon electricity nuclear power plants will generate.
It would appear 24/7 electricity from renewables + storage still has a way to go.
billion over 10 years, will average out at £8.3 billion per year.
latest offshore wind farm, 3.6 GW Dogger Bank, using the gigantic and very
latest GE 12 MW offshore wind turbines, has a capacity factor of 54%, compared
to the 38.5% capacity factor for the UK’s current 8.4 GW of offshore wind
This is a tremendous 40 % ‘technological gain’ and it would be
irresponsible to anticipate bettering a 54% capacity factor over the next 10
billion per year of capital investment, as a pro-rata proportion of Dogger Bank’s capital cost of £9.0
billion, would finance 3.32 GW of cutting-edge wind turbine technology. 3.32 GW would only be able to
supply 4,150,000 households in the first year and 33.2 GW of capacity, after 10 years of construction, would only be able to supply 41,500,000 households.
57,000,000 households is exaggerating the capability of what £83 billion of investment will deliver for the voting public and for the investment community, by 37%.
That is surely
unacceptable in political and financial terms and should be addressed
forthwith. ------------------------------//------------------------------ PS: It's a bit misleading to talk about 41,500,000 households, when there are only 27,000,000 in the UK. The 54% capacity factor for Dogger Bank was calculated from a BEIS household-usage figure of 3,781 kWh per year. After the capital expenditure of £83 billion, 33.2 GW of offshore wind at 54% capacity factor will be able to supply, on average, 157 TWh of intermittent electricity each year. Th UK uses about 360 TWh per year, but it has to be of the 24/7 variety. So £83 billion invested in offshore wind, will, apparently, supply 44% of the UK's electricity generation. But - to get it to 24/7 'quality': For every 10 MW of wind power added....at least 8 MW of backup power must also be dedicated However, that's another capital cost investment in gas-fired power plants, which will create many more jobs, but won't do a lot for Labour's 'Net Zero-Carbon' policy. Another blog post story, for another time.
Onshore wind has by far the lowest
capital cost per MWh of generation, of any renewable technology. Do you have any idea of the capital
cost of 35 GW of onshore wind?
What about the capital cost of the
equivalent 10.5 GW of nuclear power?
35 GW of onshore wind is 65
Whitelee-sized windfarms. They would have a capital cost £39.00 billion and
would generate intermittent electricity, for their 22.5-year lifespan and
occupy 3,445 km² of land.
10.5 GW of nuclear power is 3.22 Sizewell C-sized nuclear power plants [npps]. They would have a capital cost of
£51.53 billion and would generate 24/7 electricity, for their 60-year design
life from sites occupying 2.16 km² [1/1600th of the area].
The capital cost of onshore wind for 60 years of generation increases by a ratio of 60:22.5 and rises to £104.00 billion 2X the
capital cost of nuclear.