Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jan 16, 2018 10:46 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mar 02, 2015 10:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 507
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31682529

This is quite a nice way of generating electricity. Well, it would be if it weren't for the price. The reason I post this is because:

Quote:
The cost would be funded by electricity bill-payers under the existing government scheme to promote home-grown, low-carbon energy.

Tidal Lagoon Power is in negotiations with the government over how much it can charge for its power.

It wants £168 per MWh for electricity in Swansea, reducing to £90-£95 per MWh from a second, more efficient lagoon in Cardiff.

The £90 figure compares favourably with the £92.50 price for power from the planned Hinkley nuclear station, especially as the lagoon is designed to last 120 years - at a much lower risk than nuclear.


This first one has a 320MW capacity, bur from here: http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/faqs.aspx says annual output = 495 GWh/year, which is an average of of just 56MW, for about £1 billion.

Rather than criticising the scheme*, can a MSR negotiate something similar for FOAK - or will it be sent to the back of queue as another nuclear build.

*A MSR won't provide nice jogging paths and artificial reefs for fishing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 03, 2015 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1326
Location: NoOPWA
alexterrell wrote:
*A MSR won't provide nice jogging paths and artificial reefs for fishing.

Why not? Build the MSR as a submerged complex with a jetty out and back. No prob, Bob!

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 04, 2015 6:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 507
KitemanSA wrote:
alexterrell wrote:
*A MSR won't provide nice jogging paths and artificial reefs for fishing.

Why not? Build the MSR as a submerged complex with a jetty out and back. No prob, Bob!


That might be OK in the US, but in Europe we want 6km long coastal jogging paths :)

That said, £1 billion makes for a very expensive jogging path.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 05, 2015 3:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2230
Why mess up the lagoons at such heavy cost?
The UK could just hang some turbines in the path of gulf stream ocean current and harvest the energy at lower cost. Ditto for the east coast of the US.
They could also try out the simple molten salt reactor as proposed by Moltex energy.
http://www.icheme.org/events/conference ... DE65FB.pdf
They have reactor grade plutonium to burn (in the MSR).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 05, 2015 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5057
The Environmental Impact Statement makes it quite clear that this proposal will chop up a variety of the rich marine life found in these sensitive areas, into little pieces. I'm not sure how chopping up the local fauna 4 times a day is going to help save the environment. A much bigger and less opinionated problem though is the limited resource. Even if we didn't mind chopping up some wildlife in the name of saving the entire planet, we won't actually achieve much power generation or emissions reduction since there's not much potential worldwide.

However Alex asked not to criticise the scheme so let's leave it at that.

For me it should be a performance based scheme and there should be some ties to the market for selling electricity. In Germany you get $250/MWh for your solar power even when the market for electricity is negative $/MWh. That's silly.

The idea is not bad though. Make it a market selling scheme with some $/MWh added to the market price, would make this quite attractive. Just spend it on something that has 10000 GWe of unsubsidized potential, not 10 GWe of forever subsidy needing tech.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 05, 2015 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 507
You'll note in the article that they claim the second scheme will only need £90 or so / MWh, and that this compares "favourably" with nuclear.

They are using the precedent set by EDF to justify their request for £165. I think £165 is set to give them a safe profit - but is still getting serious consideration from the Government.

It would be quite reasonable for a MSR company to request a similar amount for a FOAK - but with the expectations that the rate will drop for subsequent reactors. Of course, deployment time for a MSR will be longer because of certification.
Quote:
In Germany you get $250/MWh for your solar power even when the market for electricity is negative $/MWh. That's silly.


Trouble is, without a guaranteed price, no one will invest in high capital, low opex generation. That includes nuclear, solar and wind. Just invest in gas CGT with little financial risk.

And I get €287/MWh for my solar in Germany. That was put in three years ago and the trend is down.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group