10:24 With renewables the market price goes down in general. No it won't be a good thing for the tax payer unless we need an overwehlming amount of electricity suddenly and constant rising. And who says the strike price won't readjusted again? Hinkley Point C is already well above 50b$ and it is supposed to rise again and again till it is finished as stated by the parties involved. There is no upside to Hinkley points finances and won't be...
It's costing a fortune to build because in Britain bureaucracy makes literally everything cost 10x what it should. I work in fire safety for the local council, and it costs us £70 to put a sticker on a fire door. Sounds ridiculous, but there are 25 different certification and regulatory agencies that govern an activity such as this.
For some reason we have to build a smaller model of each section of Hinkley, then it has to be tested, proved safe then they can build the actual part.
The idea behind this massive and unnecessary bureaucracy is to create government dependent jobs, thus creating good, well behaved comrades. Lest we forget: War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
Construction overruns and planning hell is the norm across all UK construction projects, with comparable European infrastructure construction projects often having a total cost of less than just the planning component in the UK.
@@peopleofearth6250 you seem to misunderstand what a qualification is and what a complaint is. It is well established in the literature, in the data and agreed by general consensus that the UK has unusually expensive and protracted planning regs. If you disagree, cite evidence or request my evidence, what you're doing is being rude, childish and unconstructive. Read more
@@LudvigIndestrucable It doesn't matter how valid or invalid your complaint is. You're not in a position to change anything, otherwise you would've already done so. Go improve yourself and shut up.
Biggest problem with Hinkley Point is the amount of time staff stay in the canteen 4 hours out of 12 hours and its typical of a British building projects to many people on the take
Maaate, the American Manhattan Project came out of the British Tube Alloys Project!!! Britain and Canada actively participated in the Manhattan Project and only after WW2, when the US excluded the UK from their nuclear program, was Britain forced to carry on alone, becoming the third nuclear weapons power in the late 50s after the US and the Soviet Union.
Trying to build the biggest plant possible is a mistake. Standardize a smaller design and build as many as needed for less cost and easier maintenance.
If you mean small like SMR's, they can't provide base load current, only certain areas benefit from them, costs are higher than for big reactors. Another problem with them is none built so far. I have hard time understanding what is wrong with cheap, built in time reactors from South Korea, Russia and China if they are willing to export.
@@codaalive5076 there is a certain amount of not invented here with that. Individually they can’t but collectively they can provide baseline while allowing one or two being offline for maintenance. I live in a province with two massive plants that are monstrously complex and expensive to run. Having say 5-10 smaller identical plants would be better.
@@rannyacernese6627 Don't you think 5-10 smaller plants would be waaay more expensive to build and run than 2 big plants? Many videos about SMR's look like commercials to me, i hope they are not another dead end like EPR, AP1000, etc.
@@codaalive5076 initially yes, long term with standardized parts and maintenance would be less expensive. Sadly everyone looks at build cost as the only number that matters.
Assuming that Hinkley Point C will operate for 60 years, costing 60bn€, with a capacity of 80%, it would cost 44,6€/MWh or 4,46ct per kWh, just to pay itself off. Very expensive.
You have to add in the risk of politicians closing the plant without compensation. That has been a common thing around the world. NAO describes in detail how the base cost has been inflated 4-6 times even though they don't say directly its for this reason. But nobody should be fooled. But then again a complete UK nuclear supply chain is also included in the price. That does not come cheap.
@@laurenssalens2377nope that‘s why they are expecting 17 cent per kwh when it launches and the deconstruction of that thing will be a nightmare for our grandchildren 😅
Rosatom's "ВВЭР" is a standardized reactor with 3 distinct generations (ВВЭР-1000, ВВЭР-1200, ВВЭР-ТОИ), which is already is being constructed in multiple countries. Currently it is on a 60-month construction cycle from first concrete to commercial launch, which has already been done. It will probably be world-wide standard nuclear reactor by virtue of being a fact, after all political mess will calm down.
There are a few organizations trying to do this (IAEA, WNA, etc.) and there has been some success (USA and Canada have regulators have agreed to do some joint reviews of specific designs), but we are a long way from a global standard where one country recognizes the safety review of another. Countries are very reluctant to give up regulatory control to someone else. The aircraft industry could be a good model here though, since there usually aren't country-specific variants of the A380, for example.
In software development, Linus's law is the assertion that 'given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow'. Therefore, if the reactor designs were published under a suitable Creative Commons Licence, then all performance aspects including safety can be scrutinised and improvements offered. The Elites and their desire for one world government (with them at the top) has nothing to offer humankind other than stagnation. Everyman’s innate inborn drive to make the world better for our next generation is the only guiding spirit we need. Make the Elites obsolete, they are the last thing we need. I suggest: Attribution-ShareAlike: CC BY-SA Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to ("not more restrictive than") the license that governs the original work. (See also Copyleft.) Without share-alike, derivative works might be sublicensed with compatible but more restrictive license clauses, e.g. CC BY to CC BY-NC.)
Regulatory Engineer - Increases in safety requirements are one directional. There is no chance of reversing cost directions. Renewables are low risk and can easily supply 80%, the remaining market isn't suitable for Nuclear without lots of new transmission and storage, but if you have enough transmission and storage 100% renewables is possible.
There is.a remote chance that nuclear is safe because of the regulations. With far less regulation and expensive technology Chernobyl was safe, until it wasn't. Here in Germany we where very close to a catastrophe at the plant in Brunsbüttel when the operators management tried to hide the problem from the authorities and avoid a very noticeable blackout while some systems failed and the backup didn't work as intended. Bad management, questionable quality control and a lack of training for the personal is a risk!
Tony, I would completely reject your asumption, it is wrong on renewables, they are unsuited for large scale grid supply because of practical and technical deficiencies and only run at current levels with the support of gas generation. Nuclear is mismanaged and over regulated. Hinkley Point C is proving very expensive but to put it in perspective, Drax power station, with government approval, is planning to add Carbon Dioxide removal equipment which costs nearly as much as Hinkley and will significantly reduce Drax's available power output.
@@iareid8255 Drax doing something stupid and expensive does not justify doing something else stupid and expensive I reject your assumption that renewables cannot supply large scale. They currently provide 50% of generation in the UK and many other countries, thats pretty large scale, and there are many plans for further new capacity. That current approach will work for around 80%, after that we need more storage and transmission capacity to have wide area capture to deal with intermittency. More expensive consistent sources like tidal and geo will help, along with some Nuclear. As will smart grid. Ultimately Nuclear is inherently unsafe and abating those risks so that populations and voters are satisfied is expensive, this is why it is expensive in the UK, noone trusts the gov't or the Nuclear industry. You can under regulate to save money but then the power station won't get built because there are too many objections and risks. Renewables just don't have these issues, but yet on-shore wind was banned in 2015 by allowing blocking by a single objection. its really not in the same ball park. Its just not feasible economically and politically to build large scale Nuclear. France has done, and does not want to continue with it, they are pushing renewables more today. Of course there are still factions wanting Nuclear, but they are moving to renewables by lack of action on Nuclear.
@@VolkerHett Yes you can make anything safe by throwing money at it, and that is what UK Nuclear has done. In order to satisfy all stake holders these expensive things need to be done to get it built. You can save money by regulating less, but then the planning approval is more likely to not get approval with more substantial objections based on real risks, that planners are not qualified to assess.
Tony, I agree with your opening statement but no in it's entirety. Hinkley is probably more expensive had we not chosen the route we did with a new style reactor. That said once it is commissioned we can look forward to about fifty years of stable and reliable power. The equivalent in wind would be eighteen gigawatts capacityagainst Hinkley's three or so. (3 x 3 x 2 - 35% availabilty times 2 builds). I will amplify what I said about wind not being suitable for large scale grid supply (50% in the U.K. is an exageration and includes Drax which is a consistent and continual generator) You cannot balance supply and demand with wind, it's output is what the wind gives. It has no inertia necessary for a stable frequency. It has no reactive power input for a stable grid voltage. It has no short circuit current level support for appropriate and timely grid protection. It has no mblack start capability required to re start a failed grid which would be inevitable with too much wind capacity connected. It is largely assumed that because a device can generate electricity then that's fine, but it is far more complex and essentially renewables are not equivalent to conventional generators nor can they replace them. Many countries have tried but none have come anywhaere near and the inevitable result is an unstable grid and expensive unit cost to the consumer. Incidentally, from French Nuclear News :- Government policy, set under a former administration in 2014, aimed to reduce nuclear's share of electricity generation to 50% by 2025. This target was delayed in 2019 to 2035, before being abandoned in 2023. In February 2022 France announced plans to build six new reactors and to consider building a further eight.
Very explanatory video, thank you. The UK needs a Special Commission for: - Revision of the excessive safety factors. - Streamlining of the administration and system design processes (Removal of bureaucracy). - Keeping construction and financing of UK nuclear power plants within the EU countries. In this manner the UK can avoid cost overruns and construction delays when developing future nuclear power plants. Regards, Anthony
I read somewhere that if we replace all petrol and diesel cars in the UK with EVs, we will need 6 more Hinckley Cs to provide the power to recharge them.
Hinkley Point C has 2 EPR's under construction, why do you compare it to OL3, its a singular EPR :D no wonder the budget is twice as big, since there is 2 EPR's.
China costs agreed but the control and understanding of the of early warning system is very worrying. Some of the phones calle to the British were worrying
Nuclear costs 6x what renewables do and takes 10 years to bring online. Hinkley was estimated at £9 billion, but it’s already 10x over budget at £92 billion. China is installing renewables at a rate of 5 nuclear power station equivalents per week. The only possible reason for nuclear power now is to make fuel for nuclear bombs.
Why oh why do we not get Rolls Royce to build small gen sets? They have built very reliable power plants for the submarines. Stop wasting fine and money with EDF etc
All naval reactors are fast reactors, using 90% U-235. It's an incredibly inefficient use of that, considering most PWR use 3% and plants like CANDU can use down to natural levels of 0.7%.
The RR SMRs are only at the 2nd generic design approval gate after 9 years. They told Boris they would go live in 2028, now they say mid 2030s… not to mention this isn’t a passively safe design. So right now it’s not got off the drawing board. Otherwise known as a disaster. Oh and the submarine design has nothing in common with the SMR, and none of the submarines reactors have ever been decommissioned.
@@marcusoutdoors4999 not passively cooled because it's 470MWe, not one of those tiny SMRs. How quickly they can design and produce a reactor is related to funding. They have had to scale back hiring people because of the uncertainty. It's easy to sit in your armchair doing nothing meaningful with your life and call it a disaster when it's anything but.
Inflation. You have to buy stuff, stuff is more expensive. Lawsuits. The environmentalists cause problems in court. Politicians , they need their cut. Any other questions?
Make me wonder how long will it be till UK starts buying Thorium Molten Salt Reactor from China, it will be interesting to see what kind of a spin they will throw on that to justify their purchase.
excellent video. On a completely unrelated note: what is the name of the classical music piece at the beginning of the video (0:00 - 0:25)? I've heard it before and have not been able to find out the name.
When solving a problem, in this case the energy revolution, a scientific analysis should start with the fundamentals, so also for the question which energy source(s) could replace fossil fuels. The first question to answer in the selection process is to verify what the present global fossil fuel energy consumption quantity is which needs to be replaced. The second question is: what energy source could replace the same quantity or at least a SIGNIFICANT part of this quantity. At this moment around 4% of global primary energy comes from nuclear power to produce electric energy. The known global uranium ores that are economically exploitable suffice for around one (1) century of the current production electric energy as stated by the World Nuclear Association. Now keep in mind that electricity is only 20% of the World Total Final Energy consumption (TFC), so at present nuclear power provides less than one (1) percent of the TFC. Even a non scientific trained person can see that nuclear will never play a significant role in the energy revolution.
You are correct only if we continue with nuclear power systems that are only 5% radiologically efficient, that generate large amounts of energetic waste, can't burn thorium, and that further thorium and uranium reserves are not found. Each of these propositions is highly unlikely. Modern nuclear fuel cycles are aiming for 30% or better efficiency. At this stage thorium reserves are largely untapped. Uranium reserves are to all intents and purposes limitless if seawater extraction could be perfected. All things considered, there are ample uranium and thorium reserves, that in conjunction with renewables, could power the planet for several thousand years. This is ample time to perfect fusion energy that will need some inputs from fission until tritium breeding is assured. None of this requires much in the way of new nuclear technology. The existing French and Canadian programs already have a high burn up rate with lots of potential for improvement. The Chinese are making big advances with molten salt technology with a number of prototypes in operation. They have also just approved an engineering MSR prototype and expect to have their first operational systems running by 2030. This opens the way for nuclear power in dry climates such as much of Africa, central Asia and Australia, as these systems use very little cooling water. It is interesting to me that currently China is buying up most of the world supply of thorium ore (monazite - about 10,000 tons a year). Monazite was previously treated as nuisance mining waste. China clearly sees some value in this otherwise next to useless material.
@@jimgraham6722 there is loads of thorium around. 1000s of tons are just waste from mining rare earth minerals we love for laptops to EVs. india and norway also have large reserves. also to note reactor designs that are molten chloride salt / uranium / thorium hybrid reactors are being developed that will take high level reactor waste as feedstock. there are 100s of years worth of fuel just sitting at powerstations in storage as their life for classic solid fuel reactors is finished.
Are you sure that China is building the _same_ reactors? Same safety standards? Hinkley Point is not the only nuclear project that became a financially disaster. Olkiluoto and Flamanville both went way over budget. Flamanville was plant to start operating in 2012 and they hope to start it this year (2024!!) Maybe nuclear with modern safety standards is not such a good idea after all...
Asianometry has a good video on it. Long story short nuclear power projects in Korea, Japan, and China have similar safety standards to ours that they follow. The big difference is cost of labour and strength of opposition.
@@12pentaborane The big difference is economies of scale. China is building 20 nuclear reactors rather than just one, which means component parts are multiple and share unit costs.
With solar panels getting better and cheaper every year and home battery storage also becoming the standard, who is going to buy the energy from this nuclear power plant?
Big systems like states will not count on battery storage for a long, long time. Three countries in the world can make ~1400MW reactors in ~5 years, only one belongs to the Western sphere of influence. I red US-Nato will make the other two suffer badly, meaning we might not see one more big reactor built in the West.
@@Signal_Glow In the Netherlands the government is handing out incentives for large scale battery storage. In 2025 €100.000.000 is available and another €200.000.000 is available in 2026. Bullding such systems is a matter of months, not years. Our country has so many solar panels and windmills that next day electricity prices are often negative during larges parts of the day, most often so on saturday and sunday when demand is lower. Even coal power plants, which run pretty cheap here, have trouble staying profable at this point. So how does a practically unstoppable nuclear reactor fit into this, and how does building one every 5 years solve anything when the power demand is low most of the day?
@@SolAce-nw2hf Most countries need nuclear reactors to provide base load current, read about it. One or ten billions is very little money for batteries and approximately three times bigger infrastructure that would allow solar and wind power. You probably know who is making us solar panels, or parts for them, how much energy is used. Wind turbines/blades have similar problems, ask Germans where their blades end. Coal plants might be cheap, deaths, pollution and destruction of the environment aren't. Note that we are using atmosphere as a dumpster for CO2, methane and other harmful gases. Since "there is no more Nord Stream" we went back to coal, despite being one of the dirtiest fuels ever used. The biggest problem i see with nuclear reactor in the West is time needed to build them. Our leaders don't even consider having them made by South Korea or Russia, the only two countries in the world capable of building ~1400MW one in 5-7 years, sticking to the bugget. Westinghouse needs 20+ years, i recall time to build EPR is also 20-30 years. Small modular reactors are hot topic, as far as i know only Russians built one so far, various startups are only talking for the last 15 years or so.
magnox was a terrible idea from the getgo. Somehow the brits doubled down and spent billions on fixing it, but never worked as promised. the UK really needs to get on board with molten salt designs.
The problem with Britain and building projects goes fast wider than just this, there's a culture of "you can't do this and you can't do that". Anyone who tries to make any real head way gets stopped and forced to battle a never creasing wall of pen pushers. As well a lot of people who are involved at all levels and departments just don't have the drive to get a job started or completed, it's easier to sit about all day and discuss what to do rather than just getting up and doing it.
For the price of Hinkley Point C, the UK could have replaced essentially all its nuclear and fossil generation capacity with wind and solar. Even if that would be running at a fraction of the capacity, it would be cheaper and built faster.
It actually doesn't, in the Netherlands we just paid €40 billion extra to connect an wind park. If we build them after each other (like the German konvoi reactors) it can be possible for less than 8 billion. Also nuclear emits 3x less co2 than wind and 6x less than solar
@@erik7853 how much co2 nuclear emits is subject to intense debate. Only with very selective use of data you can come to your numbers. The average cost per megawatt of onshore windpower in Germany is 890k. Which also means 1GW of installed capacity is below a billion. Solar is even cheaper. Also Germany alone built 2.5GW in wind in solar just in the last 2 months. Even with a low capacity factor it is much cheaper I agree that the EPR design was very expensive, but generally you need to build a lot of reactors to control the costs somewhat - as with the KONVOIs. The simplified EPR2 design in France might be a lot cheaper. I am not ideologically anti-nuclear, I just see the enormous costs of recent reactors.
Bases on the 2023 prices of Wind on shore 40 bn Pound would equate routhly to 40 GW wind generator power in germany, this ist more than ten times the power of Hinkley Point C. www.windguard.de/veroeffentlichungen.html?file=files/cto_layout/img/unternehmen/veroeffentlichungen/2023/Kostensituation%20der%20Windenergie%20an%20Land%20Stand%202023.pdf
Q: Why is is so expensive to build things like this in China? A: Wuhan Instituts of Virology... do I need to say any more? Because we know how those cost saving, corner cutting methods worked out when thier bio weapon leaked out!
dunno why the Brits did not just build a bunch of CANDU reactors. Nope, gotta build Magnox, Breeder reactors, Windscale, and then let EDF and the Chinese in.
CGN's exact level of involvement in financing the project is unclear. They've withheld their last few payments saying EDF is responsible for the cost overruns. The UK government previously bought out a portion of the ownership, but not the construction. So China's not out yet, but their role is reduced from earlier.
SWEDEN SOUGHT HELP FROM BRITAIN AGAINST INDIA BECAUSE SWEDEN THOUGHT BRITAIN STILL IS A GREAT POWER. FINALLY THEY JOINED NATO. INDIA IS SHOW SWEDEN WHAT IT MEANS TO SEEK "POWERFUL" HELP FOR ITS CORRUPTION.
Apart from regulatory issues, which should have been foreseen, this doesn't really explain the cost blowouts. One should also look at the failed NuScale project and do a good for "gencost csiro". It's probably time that nuclear advocated accept the fact that nuclear will always be more expensive than renewables backed with storage.
Its still cheaper actually if you build them smart and dont change the design and funding multiple times in the process. Look to litterally every other country than the west. You also probably have no idea what the emission is form renewables+storage, way more than nuclear i can tell you.
@@saumyacow4435 it isnt. If you look at copper etc. Nuclear uses wat more. This is the study: unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf
Has EDF actually built one of these reactors that actually works yet? Last i hard they had completed just one of the five they are building, and not only does it not work yet, but they re refusing to say how long it will be before it works, and how much it will cost!
It's partly my fault. I had a Somerset MP who wanted to make his mark and during a time where they were closing down coal stations I tried to persuade him we should go nuclear. He agreed, so he got to work in Parliament and Hinckley Point was the final outcome of his lobbying. Actually I still think it was the right thing to do. Yes it was a total balls up, but like you say in the video, it has created a new interest in our nuclear industry where further plants will now be built. You have to start somewhere and you also have to learn by your mistakes.
Britain, why do you keep doing this when geothermal is a fraction of the cost, can be completed in about 24 months and has no environmental issues. Someone call Eavor or Quase and get on the schedule.
China's National Nuclear Safety Administration granted an operating licence for unit 4 of Fangchenggang nuclear power plant in China's Guangxi Autonomous Region. It is the second of two China General Nuclear designed Hualong One (HPR1000) reactors at the site. Loading of fuel into the 1180 MWe pressurised water reactor's is about to start. The Fangchenggang plant is to house six reactors. China, known for manufacture of solar components, has 38 nuclear power reactors in operation and 19 under construction. China increased its number of operating reactors by more than TEN times since 2000 and plans to bring five units into commercial operation this year. China is the FASTEST GROWING nuclear power generator in the world. Beijing plans to DOUBLE its nuclear capacity, building more than 150 new reactors by 2035. NUCLEAR is the zero carbon future; China understands this.
I have been commenting on your channels for months on this very subject. How many failures does it take to accept that new nuclear in western developed countries while possible, is massively expensive? No PR Thorium, gen 4 reactor, or build it in a factory dream will change any of that.
In the mean time China and other eastern countries has been building new nuclear plants cheap. I'm actually curious why this is the case. Heck, even in Taiwan where I live, our cost per kWh for nuclear is 2x lower then renewables, not including batteries.
@@1Ministras renewables last 20 years, a nuclear reactor 100 years. Looks at the electricity prices between states with nuclear and without. Renewables SEEM cheaper, but after taking into account all the extra monetary and material cost a different conclusion will be found. Gas peaker backup plants Battery storage Only 20 year lifetime Land occupation (1000x more) Materials required
American criticism of regulations!!!!!U.S.green zealots hold up most of the projects planned in the US for years ,like the under ground rail system in New York or the high speed rail in California.
From day one, many of the experts predicted that Hinkley would turn out to be a monumental cock up. On a more positive side, the modular reactors being developed by Rolls Royce and others, seem to be the future.
No China not work like that they are now build nuclear power stations in Saudi Arabia I think it's 7 but thay will build they take 7 years to build a nuclear power stations so and will get this down to 5 years in time we are to slow at anything we do now in the UK now
UKs halcyon days for high tech engineering are long gone. If you want a complex job like nuclear energy, France, Canada, China and South Korea are in the lead. UK would have been well advised to go with CANDU a system well suited to the UKs climate and circumstances. However, the not invented here syndrome, and less suitability for making bombs probably put them off.
The UKs own version of the Manhattan Project was the Manhattan project. The British shared their vast knowledge with America. In return America refused to give the British access to the nuke. Forcing the British to start their own nuclear weapons program. Americas always miss this unfortunate fact out 🤭
I do not think it is a good idea for Great Britain, or any nation for that matter, to invest in water cooled SMRs. These smaller versions have significantly inferior thermal efficiencies, due to smaller diameter water transferral pipes that lose heat more rapidly, causing less of the water to be converted to steam by the turbines. Also, the smaller volume of the cores leads to greater neutron leakage, further decreasing efficiency. For these reasons, the EPR offers 36% thermal efficiency, versus the NuScale VOYGR which offers only 30%. Another problem with LWR SMRs is the multiples of vital components required, in comparison to the single ones necessary for a Gigawatt Scale reactor. For example, building one EPR, such as each of the units under construction at Hinkley Point C, requires installing a single massive water transferral pipe and a single giant steam turbine. To achieve the rated generating capacity of a single EPR would require utilizing 20 NuScale VOYGR units. Even if VOYGR had equivalent thermal efficiency to EPR, such a plant would require a total of 20 water transfer pipes and 20 steam turbines. Investing in LWR SMRs is a recipe for disaster, as they will require extra time for crafting multiple numbers of crucial auxiliary components, not to mention multiple pressure vessels. It would be a far better idea for every nation to pursue Gigawatt scale water cooled reactors as their primary focus, as France, South Korea, Canada, and Poland are doing. The British government would be well advised to put as many of their technical and financial resources as possible, into ensuring the timely delivery of the Sizewell C EPRs.
@@jamesag4135 your having a laugh about energy storage. The largest battery storage in Europe is in Yorkshire. It can store enough electricity for 300k houses for a whole two, yes two hours..
Please do the research in the future we will need maybe 3 time the energy for Ai and EV and 5G use lot of energy nuclear power is the green more green than solar or wind power you go to your garden pick up big rocks in the UK and you got lot of uranium in that rock just government not let you no the truth
The site where Hinkley C is being built has been extensively flooded twice since roman times.Anyone fancy a Fukushima type disaster?Conclusion this reactor is not safe-nobody can calculate when this area will again flood.
While awaiting the development of nuclear power, it is imperative that we proceed with the construction of 3-4 new gas power stations to compensate for the shortfall. Given their relatively short construction timelines, this approach is sensible. Additionally, I recommend discontinuing any further investment in wind and solar energy. These industries are niche and entail high costs. The focus should be on ensuring a steady and reliable power supply. Furthermore, I propose advancing investments in oil and gas exploration within the UK to enhance our domestic energy security. Regardless of the approach chosen, immediate action is essential, and prolonged discussions should be avoided....😤
Much like the "British High Speed Rail" plan, which never came to be. Largely due to political + industrial incompetence. China could have completed both projects for half the price in half the time, but then that would have left no oppertunity to cheat the tax payers.
The U.K. has an extremely limited experienced nuclear CONSTRUCTION workforce, and the safety OVERDESIGN was unnecessary and very constly. There is also a limited supply chain for nuclear construction. The U.S. built 100 reactors in a 10 year period in the 60s/70s, those builds averaged 36 months, are completely safe, and are runniing today, some reaching 60 years of operation, and will be extended / are being extended another 20 years. Nuclear is the ONLY energy that REPLACES, not just supplements, fossil fuel energy.
@@robertpatrick3350 I have a sincere prayer that the UK massively expands and improves its nuclear construction industry, and I think it is very doable. Overcoming obstacles is the key to success; recognizing obstacles is a first step. Cheers!
The china will over take the US with nuclear power by 2030 and thay are building 150 new nuclear power stations by 2035 thay will using more nuclear power than the rest of the world combined by 2035 and thay build new nuclear power stations in 7 years and will get it down to 5 years
@@clarkkent9080 IF YOU listen to the full documentary, YOU couls see the fact ; This proves how in France they can CHEAPLY build a Nuclear power Station just TWO YEARS?
@@carlbarron1186 How about providing me just one fact where a New Nuclear commercial power plant in the Gw range is actually built in France in just 2 years.
Let me describe how ignorant you are - China has more than 80 nuclear power plants in operation and under construction, many of which have been working perfectly for decades. China is the world's largest nuclear power generation country, and its nuclear power generation technology, nuclear power plant construction technology, and nuclear power plant operation and management technology are far ahead of the world.Whether your country can have a nuclear power plant with Chinese technology is not your country's decision, let alone yours. Your government should first ask China whether it is willing.
What a joke. China has been generating nuclear power since 1984. They now have 55 plants in operation and another 22 under construction. The most in the world. They are one of the leading powerhouse in nuclear power generation. Anglo Saxons can't build shit. Not nuclear plant, not high speed rail, not ev, not commercial ships. China already built 45thousand km of high speed rail while UK struggles with their HS2. All you guys are good at is to smear China out of jealousy. Besides leading the world in building nuclear plants, China has a 70% share in the global commercial ship building business. Just last week, Qatar placed an order for 18 LNG carriers worth 6 billion dollars with China. They trust no one else to do this mega contract. Certainly not UK.
Join me and the community on Patreon for ad-free early access and much more! patreon.com/AtomicBlender
Are you aware of the wigner effect as discovered by Eugene wigner? It states that no solid in the universe can contain radiation indefinitely
10:24 With renewables the market price goes down in general. No it won't be a good thing for the tax payer unless we need an overwehlming amount of electricity suddenly and constant rising. And who says the strike price won't readjusted again?
Hinkley Point C is already well above 50b$ and it is supposed to rise again and again till it is finished as stated by the parties involved. There is no upside to Hinkley points finances and won't be...
It's costing a fortune to build because in Britain bureaucracy makes literally everything cost 10x what it should. I work in fire safety for the local council, and it costs us £70 to put a sticker on a fire door. Sounds ridiculous, but there are 25 different certification and regulatory agencies that govern an activity such as this.
For some reason we have to build a smaller model of each section of Hinkley, then it has to be tested, proved safe then they can build the actual part.
The idea behind this massive and unnecessary bureaucracy is to create government dependent jobs, thus creating good, well behaved comrades.
Lest we forget: War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
Construction overruns and planning hell is the norm across all UK construction projects, with comparable European infrastructure construction projects often having a total cost of less than just the planning component in the UK.
Then stop complaining.
@@peopleofearth6250 planning regulations are overly onerous, therefore it should not be complained about?
Are you high?
@@LudvigIndestrucable You are not qualified to complain about anything. Go improve yourself.
@@peopleofearth6250 you seem to misunderstand what a qualification is and what a complaint is.
It is well established in the literature, in the data and agreed by general consensus that the UK has unusually expensive and protracted planning regs. If you disagree, cite evidence or request my evidence, what you're doing is being rude, childish and unconstructive.
Read more
@@LudvigIndestrucable It doesn't matter how valid or invalid your complaint is. You're not in a position to change anything, otherwise you would've already done so. Go improve yourself and shut up.
Biggest problem with Hinkley Point is the amount of time staff stay in the canteen 4 hours out of 12 hours and its typical of a British building projects to many people on the take
This is exactly it and when they do finally get to do some work it all gets halted because a scaff tag fell off a podium or some dumb nonsense
Workers say "play hide and seek for a thousand ££ a week
i mean they are securing their own job😅
Maaate, the American Manhattan Project came out of the British Tube Alloys Project!!! Britain and Canada actively participated in the Manhattan Project and only after WW2, when the US excluded the UK from their nuclear program, was Britain forced to carry on alone, becoming the third nuclear weapons power in the late 50s after the US and the Soviet Union.
Trying to build the biggest plant possible is a mistake. Standardize a smaller design and build as many as needed for less cost and easier maintenance.
If you mean small like SMR's, they can't provide base load current, only certain areas benefit from them, costs are higher than for big reactors. Another problem with them is none built so far. I have hard time understanding what is wrong with cheap, built in time reactors from South Korea, Russia and China if they are willing to export.
@@codaalive5076 there is a certain amount of not invented here with that. Individually they can’t but collectively they can provide baseline while allowing one or two being offline for maintenance. I live in a province with two massive plants that are monstrously complex and expensive to run. Having say 5-10 smaller identical plants would be better.
@@rannyacernese6627 Don't you think 5-10 smaller plants would be waaay more expensive to build and run than 2 big plants? Many videos about SMR's look like commercials to me, i hope they are not another dead end like EPR, AP1000, etc.
@@codaalive5076 initially yes, long term with standardized parts and maintenance would be less expensive. Sadly everyone looks at build cost as the only number that matters.
Absolulely !!
Assuming that Hinkley Point C will operate for 60 years, costing 60bn€, with a capacity of 80%, it would cost 44,6€/MWh or 4,46ct per kWh, just to pay itself off. Very expensive.
You have to add in the risk of politicians closing the plant without compensation. That has been a common thing around the world. NAO describes in detail how the base cost has been inflated 4-6 times even though they don't say directly its for this reason. But nobody should be fooled.
But then again a complete UK nuclear supply chain is also included in the price. That does not come cheap.
Is this price including decomissioning and operating costs?
@@laurenssalens2377 remember to ask that for solar and wind also!
80% capacity factor is very pessimistic for a modern PWR
@@laurenssalens2377nope that‘s why they are expecting 17 cent per kwh when it launches and the deconstruction of that thing will be a nightmare for our grandchildren 😅
Anyone else think we need to create a global safety design standard for reactors and stick with it?
Rosatom's "ВВЭР" is a standardized reactor with 3 distinct generations (ВВЭР-1000, ВВЭР-1200, ВВЭР-ТОИ), which is already is being constructed in multiple countries. Currently it is on a 60-month construction cycle from first concrete to commercial launch, which has already been done.
It will probably be world-wide standard nuclear reactor by virtue of being a fact, after all political mess will calm down.
There are a few organizations trying to do this (IAEA, WNA, etc.) and there has been some success (USA and Canada have regulators have agreed to do some joint reviews of specific designs), but we are a long way from a global standard where one country recognizes the safety review of another. Countries are very reluctant to give up regulatory control to someone else.
The aircraft industry could be a good model here though, since there usually aren't country-specific variants of the A380, for example.
The only problem is that it could prevent innovation.
In software development, Linus's law is the assertion that 'given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow'. Therefore, if the reactor designs were published under a suitable Creative Commons Licence, then all performance aspects including safety can be scrutinised and improvements offered.
The Elites and their desire for one world government (with them at the top) has nothing to offer humankind other than stagnation. Everyman’s innate inborn drive to make the world better for our next generation is the only guiding spirit we need. Make the Elites obsolete, they are the last thing we need.
I suggest: Attribution-ShareAlike: CC BY-SA
Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to ("not more restrictive than") the license that governs the original work. (See also Copyleft.) Without share-alike, derivative works might be sublicensed with compatible but more restrictive license clauses, e.g. CC BY to CC BY-NC.)
NuScale's small reactors will be that, so they can mass produce and sell them as quickly as they make them.
Regulatory Engineer - Increases in safety requirements are one directional. There is no chance of reversing cost directions. Renewables are low risk and can easily supply 80%, the remaining market isn't suitable for Nuclear without lots of new transmission and storage, but if you have enough transmission and storage 100% renewables is possible.
There is.a remote chance that nuclear is safe because of the regulations. With far less regulation and expensive technology Chernobyl was safe, until it wasn't.
Here in Germany we where very close to a catastrophe at the plant in Brunsbüttel when the operators management tried to hide the problem from the authorities and avoid a very noticeable blackout while some systems failed and the backup didn't work as intended.
Bad management, questionable quality control and a lack of training for the personal is a risk!
Tony,
I would completely reject your asumption, it is wrong on renewables, they are unsuited for large scale grid supply because of practical and technical deficiencies and only run at current levels with the support of gas generation.
Nuclear is mismanaged and over regulated. Hinkley Point C is proving very expensive but to put it in perspective, Drax power station, with government approval, is planning to add Carbon Dioxide removal equipment which costs nearly as much as Hinkley and will significantly reduce Drax's available power output.
@@iareid8255 Drax doing something stupid and expensive does not justify doing something else stupid and expensive I reject your assumption that renewables cannot supply large scale. They currently provide 50% of generation in the UK and many other countries, thats pretty large scale, and there are many plans for further new capacity. That current approach will work for around 80%, after that we need more storage and transmission capacity to have wide area capture to deal with intermittency. More expensive consistent sources like tidal and geo will help, along with some Nuclear. As will smart grid.
Ultimately Nuclear is inherently unsafe and abating those risks so that populations and voters are satisfied is expensive, this is why it is expensive in the UK, noone trusts the gov't or the Nuclear industry. You can under regulate to save money but then the power station won't get built because there are too many objections and risks. Renewables just don't have these issues, but yet on-shore wind was banned in 2015 by allowing blocking by a single objection. its really not in the same ball park.
Its just not feasible economically and politically to build large scale Nuclear. France has done, and does not want to continue with it, they are pushing renewables more today. Of course there are still factions wanting Nuclear, but they are moving to renewables by lack of action on Nuclear.
@@VolkerHett Yes you can make anything safe by throwing money at it, and that is what UK Nuclear has done. In order to satisfy all stake holders these expensive things need to be done to get it built. You can save money by regulating less, but then the planning approval is more likely to not get approval with more substantial objections based on real risks, that planners are not qualified to assess.
Tony,
I agree with your opening statement but no in it's entirety.
Hinkley is probably more expensive had we not chosen the route we did with a new style reactor. That said once it is commissioned we can look forward to about fifty years of stable and reliable power. The equivalent in wind would be eighteen gigawatts capacityagainst Hinkley's three or so. (3 x 3 x 2 - 35% availabilty times 2 builds).
I will amplify what I said about wind not being suitable for large scale grid supply (50% in the U.K. is an exageration and includes Drax which is a consistent and continual generator)
You cannot balance supply and demand with wind, it's output is what the wind gives.
It has no inertia necessary for a stable frequency.
It has no reactive power input for a stable grid voltage.
It has no short circuit current level support for appropriate and timely grid protection.
It has no mblack start capability required to re start a failed grid which would be inevitable with too much wind capacity connected.
It is largely assumed that because a device can generate electricity then that's fine, but it is far more complex and essentially renewables are not equivalent to conventional generators nor can they replace them. Many countries have tried but none have come anywhaere near and the inevitable result is an unstable grid and expensive unit cost to the consumer.
Incidentally, from French Nuclear News :-
Government policy, set under a former administration in 2014, aimed to reduce nuclear's share of electricity generation to 50% by 2025. This target was delayed in 2019 to 2035, before being abandoned in 2023.
In February 2022 France announced plans to build six new reactors and to consider building a further eight.
Very explanatory video, thank you.
The UK needs a Special Commission for:
- Revision of the excessive safety factors.
- Streamlining of the administration and system design processes (Removal of bureaucracy).
- Keeping construction and financing of UK nuclear power plants within the EU countries.
In this manner the UK can avoid cost overruns and construction delays when developing future nuclear power plants.
Regards,
Anthony
I read somewhere that if we replace all petrol and diesel cars in the UK with EVs, we will need 6 more Hinckley Cs to provide the power to recharge them.
A) Check your numbers, that number is massively inflated B) Then don't build overpriced nuclear plants and invest in proper renewables
Four times increase of nuclear generation by 2050 ... is not likely, so hurry up!.
Hinkley Point C has 2 EPR's under construction, why do you compare it to OL3, its a singular EPR :D no wonder the budget is twice as big, since there is 2 EPR's.
Because its the same design plus british design changes.
"It costs 40 Billion"
WHAT AN OPENING...
When I think of the price I remember. It does not have to make any money and is worth subsidizing if the coal and gas is not burnt in its stead.
China costs agreed but the control and understanding of the of early warning system is very worrying. Some of the phones calle to the British were worrying
And its only the building costs. Add in decommissioning costs and you will understand why currently nuclear has no future.
All the costs associated with decommissioning are included within the strike price funding mechanism.
However they do supply energy once working. Unlike part time energy generators, wind and solar and have a lot longer useful life. 😂
Nuclear costs 6x what renewables do and takes 10 years to bring online. Hinkley was estimated at £9 billion, but it’s already 10x over budget at £92 billion. China is installing renewables at a rate of 5 nuclear power station equivalents per week. The only possible reason for nuclear power now is to make fuel for nuclear bombs.
Conclusion: just scrapped the project, UK got no money to support the rising price tags of the project.
Why oh why do we not get Rolls Royce to build small gen sets? They have built very reliable power plants for the submarines. Stop wasting fine and money with EDF etc
All naval reactors are fast reactors, using 90% U-235. It's an incredibly inefficient use of that, considering most PWR use 3% and plants like CANDU can use down to natural levels of 0.7%.
@@12pentaborane Good thing RR's design is not just the submarine plant design then.
The RR SMRs are only at the 2nd generic design approval gate after 9 years. They told Boris they would go live in 2028, now they say mid 2030s… not to mention this isn’t a passively safe design. So right now it’s not got off the drawing board. Otherwise known as a disaster.
Oh and the submarine design has nothing in common with the SMR, and none of the submarines reactors have ever been decommissioned.
@@marcusoutdoors4999 not passively cooled because it's 470MWe, not one of those tiny SMRs. How quickly they can design and produce a reactor is related to funding. They have had to scale back hiring people because of the uncertainty. It's easy to sit in your armchair doing nothing meaningful with your life and call it a disaster when it's anything but.
Fantastic video, absolutely on point
Excessive Red Tape + Militant Unions = Inflated Costs & Delays
Workers would only get trodden on if there wasn't any unions on site
Inflation. You have to buy stuff, stuff is more expensive. Lawsuits. The environmentalists cause problems in court. Politicians , they need their cut.
Any other questions?
Who care about the cost? It's a future energy asset which will power a country for decades, even a century if properly maintained
Make me wonder how long will it be till UK starts buying Thorium Molten Salt Reactor from China, it will be interesting to see what kind of a spin they will throw on that to justify their purchase.
Nice video ❤❤
excellent video.
On a completely unrelated note: what is the name of the classical music piece at the beginning of the video (0:00 - 0:25)? I've heard it before and have not been able to find out the name.
It's called 'Darude Sandstorm'
Everything in the UK goes over budget, who remembers the london dome
When solving a problem, in this case the energy revolution, a scientific analysis should start with the fundamentals, so also for the question which energy source(s) could replace fossil fuels.
The first question to answer in the selection process is to verify what the present global fossil fuel energy consumption quantity is which needs to be replaced. The second question is: what energy source could replace the same quantity or at least a SIGNIFICANT part of this quantity.
At this moment around 4% of global primary energy comes from nuclear power to produce electric energy. The known global uranium ores that are economically exploitable suffice for around one (1) century of the current production electric energy as stated by the World Nuclear Association. Now keep in mind that electricity is only 20% of the World Total Final Energy consumption (TFC), so at present nuclear power provides less than one (1) percent of the TFC.
Even a non scientific trained person can see that nuclear will never play a significant role in the energy revolution.
You are correct only if we continue with nuclear power systems that are only 5% radiologically efficient, that generate large amounts of energetic waste, can't burn thorium, and that further thorium and uranium reserves are not found.
Each of these propositions is highly unlikely. Modern nuclear fuel cycles are aiming for 30% or better efficiency. At this stage thorium reserves are largely untapped. Uranium reserves are to all intents and purposes limitless if seawater extraction could be perfected.
All things considered, there are ample uranium and thorium reserves, that in conjunction with renewables, could power the planet for several thousand years. This is ample time to perfect fusion energy that will need some inputs from fission until tritium breeding is assured.
None of this requires much in the way of new nuclear technology. The existing French and Canadian programs already have a high burn up rate with lots of potential for improvement. The Chinese are making big advances with molten salt technology with a number of prototypes in operation. They have also just approved an engineering MSR prototype and expect to have their first operational systems running by 2030. This opens the way for nuclear power in dry climates such as much of Africa, central Asia and Australia, as these systems use very little cooling water.
It is interesting to me that currently China is buying up most of the world supply of thorium ore (monazite - about 10,000 tons a year). Monazite was previously treated as nuisance mining waste. China clearly sees some value in this otherwise next to useless material.
@@jimgraham6722 there is loads of thorium around. 1000s of tons are just waste from mining rare earth minerals we love for laptops to EVs. india and norway also have large reserves. also to note reactor designs that are molten chloride salt / uranium / thorium hybrid reactors are being developed that will take high level reactor waste as feedstock. there are 100s of years worth of fuel just sitting at powerstations in storage as their life for classic solid fuel reactors is finished.
The Uk is totally hopeless in building anything. Admit it.
That's most reasonable take from this video. If there is one worry I have for the Anglosphere in general it's we can't build big anymore.
Correct. Hopeless.
indeed. £2.2 billion for a tunnel under the thames that is not even 1 mile long. As its for cars though, somehow its well spent money?
Are you sure that China is building the _same_ reactors? Same safety standards? Hinkley Point is not the only nuclear project that became a financially disaster. Olkiluoto and Flamanville both went way over budget. Flamanville was plant to start operating in 2012 and they hope to start it this year (2024!!) Maybe nuclear with modern safety standards is not such a good idea after all...
Asianometry has a good video on it. Long story short nuclear power projects in Korea, Japan, and China have similar safety standards to ours that they follow. The big difference is cost of labour and strength of opposition.
@@12pentaborane The big difference is economies of scale. China is building 20 nuclear reactors rather than just one, which means component parts are multiple and share unit costs.
@@JA-pn4ji they also have vertical project integration. there is 1 body responsible for everything instead of the multiple agencies that the uk has.
With solar panels getting better and cheaper every year and home battery storage also becoming the standard, who is going to buy the energy from this nuclear power plant?
Big systems like states will not count on battery storage for a long, long time. Three countries in the world can make ~1400MW reactors in ~5 years, only one belongs to the Western sphere of influence. I red US-Nato will make the other two suffer badly, meaning we might not see one more big reactor built in the West.
@@Signal_Glow In the Netherlands the government is handing out incentives for large scale battery storage. In 2025 €100.000.000 is available and another €200.000.000 is available in 2026.
Bullding such systems is a matter of months, not years.
Our country has so many solar panels and windmills that next day electricity prices are often negative during larges parts of the day, most often so on saturday and sunday when demand is lower.
Even coal power plants, which run pretty cheap here, have trouble staying profable at this point.
So how does a practically unstoppable nuclear reactor fit into this, and how does building one every 5 years solve anything when the power demand is low most of the day?
@@SolAce-nw2hf Most countries need nuclear reactors to provide base load current, read about it.
One or ten billions is very little money for batteries and approximately three times bigger infrastructure that would allow solar and wind power. You probably know who is making us solar panels, or parts for them, how much energy is used. Wind turbines/blades have similar problems, ask Germans where their blades end.
Coal plants might be cheap, deaths, pollution and destruction of the environment aren't. Note that we are using atmosphere as a dumpster for CO2, methane and other harmful gases. Since "there is no more Nord Stream" we went back to coal, despite being one of the dirtiest fuels ever used.
The biggest problem i see with nuclear reactor in the West is time needed to build them. Our leaders don't even consider having them made by South Korea or Russia, the only two countries in the world capable of building ~1400MW one in 5-7 years, sticking to the bugget. Westinghouse needs 20+ years, i recall time to build EPR is also 20-30 years. Small modular reactors are hot topic, as far as i know only Russians built one so far, various startups are only talking for the last 15 years or so.
magnox was a terrible idea from the getgo. Somehow the brits doubled down and spent billions on fixing it, but never worked as promised. the UK really needs to get on board with molten salt designs.
tax payer funded but profits go to rich people share holders , its a big scam
The problem with Britain and building projects goes fast wider than just this, there's a culture of "you can't do this and you can't do that". Anyone who tries to make any real head way gets stopped and forced to battle a never creasing wall of pen pushers. As well a lot of people who are involved at all levels and departments just don't have the drive to get a job started or completed, it's easier to sit about all day and discuss what to do rather than just getting up and doing it.
For the price of Hinkley Point C, the UK could have replaced essentially all its nuclear and fossil generation capacity with wind and solar. Even if that would be running at a fraction of the capacity, it would be cheaper and built faster.
Wrong
@@tadetadeno. Imagine how much generation capacity 50bn buys you.
It actually doesn't, in the Netherlands we just paid €40 billion extra to connect an wind park. If we build them after each other (like the German konvoi reactors) it can be possible for less than 8 billion.
Also nuclear emits 3x less co2 than wind and 6x less than solar
@@erik7853 how much co2 nuclear emits is subject to intense debate. Only with very selective use of data you can come to your numbers.
The average cost per megawatt of onshore windpower in Germany is 890k. Which also means 1GW of installed capacity is below a billion. Solar is even cheaper.
Also Germany alone built 2.5GW in wind in solar just in the last 2 months. Even with a low capacity factor it is much cheaper
I agree that the EPR design was very expensive, but generally you need to build a lot of reactors to control the costs somewhat - as with the KONVOIs. The simplified EPR2 design in France might be a lot cheaper. I am not ideologically anti-nuclear, I just see the enormous costs of recent reactors.
Bases on the 2023 prices of Wind on shore 40 bn Pound would equate routhly to 40 GW wind generator power in germany, this ist more than ten times the power of Hinkley Point C.
www.windguard.de/veroeffentlichungen.html?file=files/cto_layout/img/unternehmen/veroeffentlichungen/2023/Kostensituation%20der%20Windenergie%20an%20Land%20Stand%202023.pdf
I hope it does not eat into the NHS budget and the other savings from not paying the European Union anymore.
46 AND COUNTING. I HAVE SAID AROUND 50.
To truly know you have to go and do any work there for any jobs and you will be able to answer all questions (paperwork exercise & large overheads)
Its £46 billions the end and we going to have electricity now or never.
Q: Why is is so expensive to build things like this in China? A: Wuhan Instituts of Virology... do I need to say any more? Because we know how those cost saving, corner cutting methods worked out when thier bio weapon leaked out!
Ask Dr Faucci, he funded the gain of function....
dunno why the Brits did not just build a bunch of CANDU reactors. Nope, gotta build Magnox, Breeder reactors, Windscale, and then let EDF and the Chinese in.
China has been excluded from the project, important fact that you have failed to point out.
CGN's exact level of involvement in financing the project is unclear. They've withheld their last few payments saying EDF is responsible for the cost overruns. The UK government previously bought out a portion of the ownership, but not the construction. So China's not out yet, but their role is reduced from earlier.
SWEDEN SOUGHT HELP FROM BRITAIN AGAINST INDIA BECAUSE SWEDEN THOUGHT BRITAIN STILL IS A GREAT POWER. FINALLY THEY JOINED NATO. INDIA IS SHOW SWEDEN WHAT IT MEANS TO SEEK "POWERFUL" HELP FOR ITS CORRUPTION.
Yeah, but take in context. You guys could spend $500,000,000 on a zebra crossing.
During best day's of britian there are 54 countries under Colonisation
How to learn the hard way. What a melee of muck ups.
Apart from regulatory issues, which should have been foreseen, this doesn't really explain the cost blowouts. One should also look at the failed NuScale project and do a good for "gencost csiro". It's probably time that nuclear advocated accept the fact that nuclear will always be more expensive than renewables backed with storage.
Its still cheaper actually if you build them smart and dont change the design and funding multiple times in the process. Look to litterally every other country than the west. You also probably have no idea what the emission is form renewables+storage, way more than nuclear i can tell you.
@@erik7853 Nuclear is inherently expensive. Also those emissiins you're talking about. What consumes the most concrete and steel? Nuclear.
@@saumyacow4435 it isnt. If you look at copper etc. Nuclear uses wat more. This is the study: unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf
What about the value of it?
Has EDF actually built one of these reactors that actually works yet? Last i hard they had completed just one of the five they are building, and not only does it not work yet, but they re refusing to say how long it will be before it works, and how much it will cost!
Olkiluoto is working!
@@AngelicaAtomic but it cost 3 times its original budget, and how many years behind schedule is it?
It's partly my fault. I had a Somerset MP who wanted to make his mark and during a time where they were closing down coal stations I tried to persuade him we should go nuclear. He agreed, so he got to work in Parliament and Hinckley Point was the final outcome of his lobbying. Actually I still think it was the right thing to do. Yes it was a total balls up, but like you say in the video, it has created a new interest in our nuclear industry where further plants will now be built. You have to start somewhere and you also have to learn by your mistakes.
Is the nuc price of this plant agreed as £125 per mg watt.. Seldom is the price of electricity reaches this in England.
NuScale SMRs :( Don't remind me! I bought shares at some 9.90 in January 2023 ...
Well, it's good that the UK is out of the European Union, so nuclear power doesn't have to be held back by EU regulations.
Britain, why do you keep doing this when geothermal is a fraction of the cost, can be completed in about 24 months and has no environmental issues. Someone call Eavor or Quase and get on the schedule.
The Geology of Britain is poorly suited to geothermal.
3rd generation AGS geothermal can go anywhere. Check out Eavor and Quaise Energy.
China's National Nuclear Safety Administration granted an operating licence for unit 4 of Fangchenggang nuclear power plant in China's Guangxi Autonomous Region. It is the second of two China General Nuclear designed Hualong One (HPR1000) reactors at the site. Loading of fuel into the 1180 MWe pressurised water reactor's is about to start. The Fangchenggang plant is to house six reactors. China, known for manufacture of solar components, has 38 nuclear power reactors in operation and 19 under construction. China increased its number of operating reactors by more than TEN times since 2000 and plans to bring five units into commercial operation this year. China is the FASTEST GROWING nuclear power generator in the world. Beijing plans to DOUBLE its nuclear capacity, building more than 150 new reactors by 2035. NUCLEAR is the zero carbon future; China understands this.
I have been commenting on your channels for months on this very subject. How many failures does it take to accept that new nuclear in western developed countries while possible, is massively expensive? No PR Thorium, gen 4 reactor, or build it in a factory dream will change any of that.
In the mean time China and other eastern countries has been building new nuclear plants cheap. I'm actually curious why this is the case. Heck, even in Taiwan where I live, our cost per kWh for nuclear is 2x lower then renewables, not including batteries.
It is expensive, because we never do it. If we start building and do one like every year the costs will lower drastically
@@erik7853 Nuclear will always be significantly more expensive than renewables. Renewables will never need such high safety standards.
@@1Ministras renewables last 20 years, a nuclear reactor 100 years. Looks at the electricity prices between states with nuclear and without.
Renewables SEEM cheaper, but after taking into account all the extra monetary and material cost a different conclusion will be found.
Gas peaker backup plants
Battery storage
Only 20 year lifetime
Land occupation (1000x more)
Materials required
And th public pickup the tab for the "Cleanup"
American criticism of regulations!!!!!U.S.green zealots hold up most of the projects planned in the US for years ,like the under ground rail system in New York or the high speed rail in California.
Every nuke plant ever built
No
Who is this guy?
From day one, many of the experts predicted that Hinkley would turn out to be a monumental cock up. On a more positive side, the modular reactors being developed by Rolls Royce and others, seem to be the future.
In the world, better to say.
The Chinese must be heaving a sigh of relief that the Brits kicked them off this project, and they even got a multimillion-dollar compensation.
Fair point... HPC probably won't end up being profitable for a very long long. But it could be helpful for subsequent projects (if they ever happen)
No China not work like that they are now build nuclear power stations in Saudi Arabia I think it's 7 but thay will build they take 7 years to build a nuclear power stations so and will get this down to 5 years in time we are to slow at anything we do now in the UK now
Incompetent engineer s
UKs halcyon days for high tech engineering are long gone.
If you want a complex job like nuclear energy, France, Canada, China and South Korea are in the lead.
UK would have been well advised to go with CANDU a system well suited to the UKs climate and circumstances. However, the not invented here syndrome, and less suitability for making bombs probably put them off.
dodgy government crony contracts
Government preferred contractors.
The UKs own version of the Manhattan Project was the Manhattan project.
The British shared their vast knowledge with America.
In return America refused to give the British access to the nuke.
Forcing the British to start their own nuclear weapons program.
Americas always miss this unfortunate fact out 🤭
Thatcher.
I do not think it is a good idea for Great Britain, or any nation for that matter, to invest in water cooled SMRs.
These smaller versions have significantly inferior thermal efficiencies, due to smaller diameter water transferral pipes that lose heat more rapidly, causing less of the water to be converted to steam by the turbines. Also, the smaller volume of the cores leads to greater neutron leakage, further decreasing efficiency. For these reasons, the EPR offers 36% thermal efficiency, versus the NuScale VOYGR which offers only 30%.
Another problem with LWR SMRs is the multiples of vital components required, in comparison to the single ones necessary for a Gigawatt Scale reactor. For example, building one EPR, such as each of the units under construction at Hinkley Point C, requires installing a single massive water transferral pipe and a single giant steam turbine. To achieve the rated generating capacity of a single EPR would require utilizing 20 NuScale VOYGR units. Even if VOYGR had equivalent thermal efficiency to EPR, such a plant would require a total of 20 water transfer pipes and 20 steam turbines.
Investing in LWR SMRs is a recipe for disaster, as they will require extra time for crafting multiple numbers of crucial auxiliary components, not to mention multiple pressure vessels.
It would be a far better idea for every nation to pursue Gigawatt scale water cooled reactors as their primary focus, as France, South Korea, Canada, and Poland are doing. The British government would be well advised to put as many of their technical and financial resources as possible, into ensuring the timely delivery of the Sizewell C EPRs.
Where as renewables are getting cheaper.
And provide energy on a part time basis..... So a slight issue.....
Energy storage and not all renewables are time sensitive.
@@jamesag4135 your having a laugh about energy storage. The largest battery storage in Europe is in Yorkshire. It can store enough electricity for 300k houses for a whole two, yes two hours..
Please do the research in the future we will need maybe 3 time the energy for Ai and EV and 5G use lot of energy nuclear power is the green more green than solar or wind power you go to your garden pick up big rocks in the UK and you got lot of uranium in that rock just government not let you no the truth
The site where Hinkley C is being built has been extensively flooded twice since roman times.Anyone fancy a Fukushima type disaster?Conclusion this reactor is not safe-nobody can calculate when this area will again flood.
While awaiting the development of nuclear power, it is imperative that we proceed with the construction of 3-4 new gas power stations to compensate for the shortfall. Given their relatively short construction timelines, this approach is sensible. Additionally, I recommend discontinuing any further investment in wind and solar energy. These industries are niche and entail high costs. The focus should be on ensuring a steady and reliable power supply. Furthermore, I propose advancing investments in oil and gas exploration within the UK to enhance our domestic energy security. Regardless of the approach chosen, immediate action is essential, and prolonged discussions should be avoided....😤
Much like the "British High Speed Rail" plan, which never came to be. Largely due to political + industrial incompetence. China could have completed both projects for half the price in half the time, but then that would have left no oppertunity to cheat the tax payers.
All the vultures want a bite of the money and regulate it to death.
The U.K. has an extremely limited experienced nuclear CONSTRUCTION workforce, and the safety OVERDESIGN was unnecessary and very constly. There is also a limited supply chain for nuclear construction. The U.S. built 100 reactors in a 10 year period in the 60s/70s, those builds averaged 36 months, are completely safe, and are runniing today, some reaching 60 years of operation, and will be extended / are being extended another 20 years. Nuclear is the ONLY energy that REPLACES, not just supplements, fossil fuel energy.
The Uk industry has more capabilities than you are aware of and are in possession of functional keyboards.
No U.S. commercial reactor larger than 500Mw output took 36 months.
@@robertpatrick3350 I have a sincere prayer that the UK massively expands and improves its nuclear construction industry, and I think it is very doable. Overcoming obstacles is the key to success; recognizing obstacles is a first step. Cheers!
The china will over take the US with nuclear power by 2030 and thay are building 150 new nuclear power stations by 2035 thay will using more nuclear power than the rest of the world combined by 2035 and thay build new nuclear power stations in 7 years and will get it down to 5 years
Bbbbut every expert in the YT comments says Nuclear is the future!
Brexit.
This proves how in France they can CHEAPLY build a Nuclear power Station just TWO YEARS whilst in UK they waste #TAXPAYERS being too SLOW.
Do you have any actual facts to back up that Cheaply and two year claim?
@@clarkkent9080 IF YOU listen to the full documentary, YOU couls see the fact ; This proves how in France they can CHEAPLY build a Nuclear power Station just TWO YEARS?
@@carlbarron1186 How about providing me just one fact where a New Nuclear commercial power plant in the Gw range is actually built in France in just 2 years.
Honestly, what has england become…
Chinese products are cheap but poorly made and of questionable quality. I would never accept Chinese reactors in my country!
Let me describe how ignorant you are - China has more than 80 nuclear power plants in operation and under construction, many of which have been working perfectly for decades. China is the world's largest nuclear power generation country, and its nuclear power generation technology, nuclear power plant construction technology, and nuclear power plant operation and management technology are far ahead of the world.Whether your country can have a nuclear power plant with Chinese technology is not your country's decision, let alone yours. Your government should first ask China whether it is willing.
What a joke. China has been generating nuclear power since 1984. They now have 55 plants in operation and another 22 under construction. The most in the world. They are one of the leading powerhouse in nuclear power generation. Anglo Saxons can't build shit. Not nuclear plant, not high speed rail, not ev, not commercial ships. China already built 45thousand km of high speed rail while UK struggles with their HS2. All you guys are good at is to smear China out of jealousy. Besides leading the world in building nuclear plants, China has a 70% share in the global commercial ship building business. Just last week, Qatar placed an order for 18 LNG carriers worth 6 billion dollars with China. They trust no one else to do this mega contract. Certainly not UK.
The problem with this world is that intelligent people are always full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
Poet Charles Bukowski
@@kamsunleong6648 well said
What a ridiculous country 🤦♂
😂😂😂
Stop complaining. If you don't like something then leave wherever it is you currently are and move somewhere else.
Corruption
Comparing china to anywhere else is like comparing a skyscraper to a glue and popsicle stick building
Actually Russia is the absolute leader in this field, not china
If they can't beat you, they will slander you with dirty words and hurt you with fake news. It's a disease, a Western disease.
哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 funny drug dealers。。。。。you are not giod at anything but dealling drugs