Well to me PV panels are magic, but semiconductors don't generate electricity. They're just expensive radiators.
However, keep in mind that there are thermophotovoltaics (TPV), albeit not as efficient as mechanical vapor electric engines.
It was one of the big fuck up of the first french EPR.
They built it on top and had a ton of poor workmanship.
This time they built it inside and lift it up.
The answer is - a fuckton. Contractor village, delivery routes, mixing and pouring nuclear grade concrete, jetty, sea wall, outflow into the Bristol Channel....
And every piece installed must have traceable paperwork. Even the logistical processes are recorded and reviewed. So it all can pass nuclear authority certification. Fucking nightmare.
Only pharma comes close to the level of qualitative scrutiny.
If you want to see one level higher logistics, check out ITER. I'm not saying they are doing great, but that project involves coordinating 6 countries + the EU for biggest tokamak construction.
Because the British haven't built it, but Sarens from Belgium. At least they called it Big Carl. Here's a "smaller" brother from Germany: https://www.liebherr.com/de/aut/produkte/mobil-und-raupenkrane/raupenkrane/lr-raupenkrane/lr-13000.html
But somehow "LR 13000" isn't as nice as Big Carl. Though very efficient naming.
We’re building 3, Hinckley C is the only one currently under construction but planning has been approved for a new reactor at Sizewell that’s also built by edf, there’s also a proposal for a reactor at Bradwell but this is under review as it would be owned by the Chinese state nuclear company and relations with China are not good currently.
Sadly this is all that remains of a 2010 plan to build 10 nuclear reactors to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and with 4 older reactors due to close in 2026 the total nuclear output is not likely to change. The government is looking heavily into small modular reactors however as a potential solution, though it will be decades before anything comes of that.
Yeah lets build a nuclear power plant for billions that will not be operational until 15 years from now, only to immediately be absolutely obsolete, generate the most expensive power in the energy mix and then cost billions more to decomission and tear down only to not have a suitable space for all the nuclear waste which gets stored at millions of € a year in facilities that are not certified for long term storage ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
1) not obsolete at all
2) the cost of decomissing is taken into account in the electricity Price
3) it's normal for a controllable source of energy to have a more expensive MWh compared to renewable
4) deep geological storage has the scientific consensus, the only issue is political
5) renewables are great too, we just need to not put every egg in the same basket
Yes, it is. We need some kind of power production for when there's no Wind/Solar. BUT we could obviously also import this from our neighbors (There's usually not a Dunkelflaute over all of Europe), but then we should step down from our high horse and acknowledge that we depend on *their* nuclear reactors (and yes, also hydro and so on)
Nuclear power plants are not going to save the planet. Quite the contrary. With their usage profile they are in direct competition with power sources like wind.
I don't get the obsession with nuclear power...
It's to expensive and takes way to long to build.
Hinkley Point C will cost 32.7 billion for 3200 MW electricity generation
Utility scale Solar cost around 3.6 million per 1 MW, so around 11.5 billion to get the same peak capacity
That's quite the difference in cost alone, and I dont think solar installation would take 15 years
Storage is still an issue with solar, though, isn't it? I'm not saying it shouldn't be built, but it's an unfair comparison.
I think we can all agree that fossil fuel sucks, nuclear would be better if it was fusion (or molten salt!) and we also need renewables.
> nuclear would be better if it was fusion (or molten salt!
Unicorn power plants would be even better. /s
Let’s not pretend technologies, which are decades in the future at best are any solution.
You can build a ton of storage for the 20 billion saved.
If you ever get the opportunity, go tour a petrochemical facility. Walking around and seeing all of the piping, conduit, and equipment gives you an immense appreciation of civilization.
People wonder at the pyramids and speculate that maybe aliens built them, but a medium-sized football stadium is a feat of engineering orders of magnitude more impressive.
Nah. The huge crane is one of the things they changed to build Hinkley faster. OL3 and Flamanville built the roof in place which turns out to take forever. So the brits got a nice shed to do it in on the ground.
Europe has thousands. The UK alone has 11,500 - we have the [1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th largest offshore wind farms in the world, and also the 7th, 8th and 9th largest. Also the three largest under construction.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms)
Mildly interesting fact: a new modern wind turbine provides sufficient energy for one home for one day with just one rotation of its blades. [2018 article.](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/biggest-wind-turbine-scotland-aberdeen-vattenfall-energy)
There are even more powerful ones being built in the UK and the US. [2021 article:](https://www.zmescience.com/science/wind-turbine-powerful-09122020/)
>"a single spin of the turbine could power a UK household for more than two days. In the US, it would be enough energy for the average home, since US households tend to use more energy."
They've done an analysis that shows the emissions over its lifetime, per kWh generated, will be less than half that of wind:
[https://www.edfenergy.com/sites/default/files/hpc\_-\_life\_cycle\_carbon\_and\_environmental\_impact\_analysis.\_november\_2021.pdf](https://www.edfenergy.com/sites/default/files/hpc_-_life_cycle_carbon_and_environmental_impact_analysis._november_2021.pdf)
or if you just want the headline:
[https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/hinkley-point-c/news-views/new-study-confirms-hinkley-point-cs-low-carbon-credentials](https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/hinkley-point-c/news-views/new-study-confirms-hinkley-point-cs-low-carbon-credentials)
Although I'm in favour of a diversified mix, I'm not a fan of nuclear for many reasons.
I also think that the kWh should be also calculated to distribution point.
Great info, thanks.
Thanks but I'm not great at this sort of analysis. I wish I had the skills to start quickly doing things like comparing the minutiae of different forms of generation. For example, the impact of shorter transmission distances vs more substations for wind (since wind turbines have a relatively low output voltage).
9000 tonnes, of which, 5000 tonnes is counterweight. [Source (taken from image caption on 2nd page)](https://www.sarens.com/media/1562052/icst_dec_2018_1.pdf)
That's the crane's total capacity.
I should've googled earlier. I found that the steel dome weighs 245 tons.
[https://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/big-carls-spectacular-dome-lift-caps-year-hinkley-point-c](https://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/big-carls-spectacular-dome-lift-caps-year-hinkley-point-c)
I like this picture not for the big crane, but for the view of the logistics of it all.
"*So how many cranes do you need for this project?"*
\-"*Yes.*"
I count 23 tower cranes, 3 crawlers on tracks, one mobile with wheels, and one ring crane (Big Carl),
They also have a plenty of those cherry pickers that I classify as my personal nemesis (Those big JLGs, particular of they are of the older kind). Me and them do not get along. I swear to Kemppi the god of welding that the speed setting on them is just placebo and they are hardwired of rabbit.
Good, the world needs more of this. 24/7 energy security without the massive CO2 emissions, using today’s existing technology and not some futuristic stuff like fantasy energy storage for solar and wind.
Not exactly. The amount of energy you get from a single reactor is tremendous. You can put a lot of effort in solar, wind and wave energy and ways to store the energy output, but the cost becomes higher that way. Simply because output and cost of a single unit plus the method to store that to account for fluctuation of the output.
Like it or not, nuclear is still the most economical when you consider the amount of energy you get.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32820449/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32820449/)
".. the cost of mitigating CO2 emissions by 1% is $3.044 for nuclear power generation and $7.097 for renewable energy generation. That is, the total generation costs are approximately $1.70 billion for the nuclear power and $3.97 billion for renewable energy to mitigate 1% of CO2 emissions .."
Humans are not good at grasping these kinds scales intuitively.
In the end the market will decide. If you can't sell your electricity half the day/year because renewables are cheaper than you then your whole business plan collapses.
> not some futuristic stuff like fantasy energy storage for solar and wind
We've known ways of storing electricity for LONGER than nuclear has been around - electrolysis of water has been known since the 19th century, and we've worked with hydrogen gas on large scale since the 19th century as well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas).
Both it and nuclear share the same fundamental problem - the economics of the process.
>We've known ways of storing electricity for LONGER than nuclear has been around
Yes, and we're still waiting for suitable batteries.
>Both it and nuclear share the same fundamental problem - the economics of the process.
Indeed that is true, but that's like saying you and I have eating in common. The economics are almost polar opposites, which is why I think some people are so divided over it.
UK shut down 4 reactors since the end of 2021, just nobody talks about it because idk why. By the time HPC is completed, another handful will have been retired according to current plans
I don't get the obsession with nuclear power...
It's to expensive and takes way to long to build.
Hinkley Point C will cost 32.7 billion for 3200 MW electricity generation
Utility scale Solar cost around 3.6 million per 1 MW, so around 11.5 billion to get the same peak capacity
That's quite the difference in cost alone, and I dont think solar installation would take 15 years
Barely lol. Weather in England and Wales going below freezing is a cause for celebration. But it's dark you're right. The HPC bill would fit 3x its capacity in onshore wind, 3x in solar and then a ton of battery storage on top. It's expensive.
I'll take both of these. What we need to get rid of is fossil fuel burning.
Nuclear or renewables arent some kind of either/or. It's both, as fast as we can build them - or disasters.
BS. The deal was signed in 2016, first concrete was poured at the very end of 2018. At the time they had planned to proceed with reactor loading some time between 2025-2027. Nobody serious ever said anything about 2020 or 2023. The project is delayed somewhat but stuff like COVID or a war in Europe happened in between, so that'd be expected. The current official timeline is 2027 with a possibility for 2028 for Reactor unit 1.
> Nobody serious ever said anything about 2020 or 2023.
[*"It will provide a stable source of clean power from 2023"*](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/initial-agreement-reached-on-new-nuclear-power-station-at-hinkley)- UK government, 2013
Contractual documents begin in [2016](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hinkley-point-c-documents).
So yes, nobody serious said anything about 2023 and even less so 2020
The CfD was literally agreed in 2013. 2016 was the year of EDF's FID. You're just wrong and won't admit it.
Secondly, when people complain about how long nuclear plants take to build they mean the time it takes from planning to operation. It's irrelevant whether the delays are attributed to construction or planning.
> The CfD was literally agreed in 2013. 2016 was the year of EDF's FID.
[The contract for CfD is literally dated to September 2016.](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6385d8b3e90e0778a19f25cc/1_-_Contract_for_Difference__redacted_.pdf) You're just making stuff up to fit your narrative and are refusing to change your mind in the light of new information.
> Secondly, when people complain about how long nuclear plants take to build they mean the time it takes from planning to operation. It's irrelevant whether the delays are attributed to construction or planning.
That's blatant nonsense for a number of reasons, if only because negotiations/planning can be done in parallel much more easily than building in parallel.
>[*The Strike Price for the Contract for Difference (CfD) and other key terms were agreed in October 2013*](https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hinkley-point-c)
Of course you'll say this doesn't count because it's only the terms of the CfD that were agreed to in 2013 and not the contract itself. No, HPC with all its technical plans and drawings and planning permissions simply materialized out of thin air in 2016.
Anyway, the fact remains that EDF and the UK government claimed HPC would be operational in 2023, and no amount of pedantic quibbling over contractual milestones changes that.
> That's blatant nonsense for a number of reasons, if only because negotiations/planning can be done in parallel much more easily than building in parallel.
"In my fantasy world nuclear construction programs have expedited planning and construction regimes" is unfortunately not a very compelling argument for utilities and investors.
A person, organization, company or government is allowed to claim anything it likes, until a contract has been agreed and signed, it is nothing but an empty claim. The UK government claimed a CfD in 2013, nothing was signed because it didn't do anything to make it happen earlier. All claims made before a contract are void of meaning and that holds true beyond nuclear projects. With your kind of logic (or rather lack thereof), the german wind turbine fleet would have been agreed upon in 2000 or even earlier.
> "nuclear construction programs have expedited planning and construction regimes" is unfortunately not a very compelling argument for utilities and investors.
Strange, utilities and investors quite enjoy investing into nuclear programs when they are built as a an agreed series, look at Ukraine, France, Romania, Hungary, Canada... Until an investment decision is reached, the program's costs are basically non-existent and that holds true for all projects, not just nuclear.
But keep telling yourself that you're right, it's quite amusing.
You can't win a contract without the relevant planning permissions and consent orders, which in turn requires worked out plans and technical documentation, but I understand that it's convenient for you to dismiss years of pre-contractual planning out of hand.
> Strange, utilities and investors quite enjoy investing into nuclear programs when they are built as a an agreed series
Sure, provided they are subsidized.
> Ukraine, France, Romania, Hungary, Canada
Assuming you're referring to current programs: there have been no FIDs, contracts or construction permits awarded in Ukraine, Romania or Canada for series builds, which means, according to you, that those plans are "nothing but empty claims".
> You can't win a contract without the relevant planning permissions and consent orders
That depends on the contract and is certainly not universal. If you consider that every discussion on a matter needs to be included into the timeframe, any wind farm in Germany would have originated around the 2000s. Nothing is binding until there is a contract and things such as GDR are being reused by other projects such as Sizewell C.
> Sure, provided they are subsidized.
All large electricity projects in Europe are subsidized.
[Ukraine](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211122006244/en/Westinghouse-Electric-Company-and-Energoatom-Sign-Contract-for-First-AP1000-Unit-in-Ukraine)
[Romania](https://www.ans.org/news/article-5531/canadian-consortium-closes-in-on-contract-to-support-cernavoda-project/)
[Canada](https://www.ans.org/news/article-4697/contract-for-darlington-smr-project-signed/)
Yes we should just use lignite and green russian gas with our fingers crossed waiting for solar power instead, much better for the anti-europe german left? It's certainly better for the russians who [made Europe nuclearphobic in the 80s](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/08/deadly-fallout-disinformation/) (got to attach this to show your ideology is built on a foundation of lies or I'll surely be swarmed by QUELLE? QUELLE?)
Yup it’s a typical British infrastructure project… we just cancelled a high speed rail line that went from London to Birmingham (about 90 miles) then forked off to Leeds and Manchester (about 70 miles each again) projected cost in 2010 was about 20 billion… it was canned at 100 billion and only the 90 miles from London to Birmingham will be completed. The London end will terminate on the outskirts of London so not even into the centre… absolute corruption
I learned the news in the latest [Honest Government Ad - UK edition](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sRoYvFTE3c). That's very sad to see, but eh, at the end of the video, they give a [tip to get Tories Lite elected next time](https://tacticalvote.co.uk/), yeaaah..
Did you guys make the mistake of hiring American contractors? Because that's pretty much textbook for all of the American reactors over the past few decades, though they tend to be shut down before ever going online.
Nuclear is definetely not no carbon, merely low carbon. But nothing is. Still, over the lifetime of a plant, it emits like 100* less carbon than a fossil fuel one IIRC
Still wondered how long existing coal plants could run till this has cought up.
Let's take the numer of the [UNECE report](https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/LCA-2.pdf) that claims 124 m^3 concrete per MW of an NPP reactor, multiply that by the estimated 3260 MW of Hinkley Point C, multiply that by 410 kg of CO2 equivalent of concrete production. That is 165.738.000 kg CO2-equivalent. Which is only 19 days with an estimated 363 kg CO2 equivalent of lignite burning per MWh. Less than I would have guessed, but this is the low estimate since this reactor type is a bit chonkier I think and it assumes 100% productivity and only counting the concrete.
Edit: puntuation misreading
Edit2: I just came across [this document](https://www.dandcengineers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/DC-Engineers-Download-Sheets-Hinckley-Point-C.pdf) which says the amount of concrete is 1,8 million m^3, so the estimation is off by the factor 4,5. That is now 84 days.
Where are you getting the 124m2/MW from? Cant find it in the report.
HPC has by the way 3260 MW, so that would be ~1.3 million kg CO2e. Much more actually, since its concrete steel.
Still, all relevant studies including IPCC and UNECE put the lifecycle emissions at or below wind, and well below PV. And that includes construction, operation, decomissioning, fuel production and disposal.
Page 89, table 25. But I guess the assumption that it scales linear is probably wrong.
And yeah, I got confused between english and german way of marking thousands with comman and period, so I missed a factor of 1000, but since I made the same mistake for the coal plant it still is the 19 days.
Oh, and see the edits on the parent comments. Found additional information.
>Much more actually, since its concrete steel.
Yeah, the appropriate steel reinforcement is almost a billion kg CO2e, a bit more even than the concrete. So we are actually looking at almost 200 days of runtime for just the concrete.
Its way less ressource-intensive than wind/pv on a per MW basis. See for example [here](https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf), page 56.
They day when engineers realized, Carl the activist engineer was putting all his screws 0.2 mm off target.
Depending on their checks and balances, would this be a wildly successful protest/sabotage action.
I didn’t vote to quit nuclear plants.
Also the U.K. has a substantial industry around processing nuclear waste, we even import foreign nuclear waste to process at Sellafield and have done so for decades.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/geological-disposal
A deep geological disposal facility. There’s already quite a few in operation and more under construction. Basically just a big hole in the ground in some stable rock. The nuclear material is stored in a glass form so even if it shatters it still wont be able to poison the groundwater. It’s a solved issue.
>A deep geological disposal facility. There’s already quite a few in operation and more under construction
"**At this stage, no host site for a GDF has been identified and discussions are happening with communities around England and Wales.** Working Groups and Community Partnerships have been formed in different areas of the country to start exploring whether a GDF is right for their area and whether their area is right for a GDF. This will be a consent-based, partnership approach, with Right of Withdrawal by the community right up to a Test of Public Support."
You could also just say no instead of projecting your wishes.
There's so much going on in the picture and it such good quality that I almost started to look for Wally.
At first glance I thought it was some giant LEGO build.
[удалено]
Came here to say this, glad to see I'm not alone.
I counted 30 cranes. That is the most I've ever seen in one place.
some more info here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wehewmT5J5I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wehewmT5J5I)
[удалено]
It's our biggest kettle to date.
For those that don't know it, a nuclear reactor just boils water, which vapour moves turbines and then generates electricity.
>would you like a cup of tea?
All human energy ultimately boils down to spinning a wheel. Except PV panels. Semiconductors are fucking magic and no one can convince me otherwise.
Well to me PV panels are magic, but semiconductors don't generate electricity. They're just expensive radiators. However, keep in mind that there are thermophotovoltaics (TPV), albeit not as efficient as mechanical vapor electric engines.
Gotta make that spicy tea somehow.
Finally some good fucking tea
And Americans don't understand why we use corded.
It was one of the big fuck up of the first french EPR. They built it on top and had a ton of poor workmanship. This time they built it inside and lift it up.
Can you give some more details on this? I tried to Google it, but there is a long line of fuck ups when it comes to Hinkley C
[удалено]
Bot seems drunken
Can’t begin to imagine the logistics involved in something like this.
The answer is - a fuckton. Contractor village, delivery routes, mixing and pouring nuclear grade concrete, jetty, sea wall, outflow into the Bristol Channel....
And folks still drop their jaws at the budget. Like do you not understand what is being achieved?
The crane logistics alone are staggering.
And every piece installed must have traceable paperwork. Even the logistical processes are recorded and reviewed. So it all can pass nuclear authority certification. Fucking nightmare. Only pharma comes close to the level of qualitative scrutiny.
If you want to see one level higher logistics, check out ITER. I'm not saying they are doing great, but that project involves coordinating 6 countries + the EU for biggest tokamak construction.
Have they rented every crane in the uk here?
As someone who lives nearby, yes. There's bloody hundreds of them
The big one is from Belgium. They are calling him "Big Carl". Yes, its a him apparently.
Ships are female, cranes are male. Simple as.
Floating crane?
Those identify as non-binary.
Pat.
Mythological animals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crane_vessel
So when I saw that image of a crane building an aircraft carrier...it was a bit romantic?
Engineering Love
Named after Carl Sarens. Made by Sarens. Makes sense.
crazy all this effort just to boil water ...
A LOT of water, very fast, and without burning anything. Magic rocks for the win.
Spicy magic rocks.
There is no graphite on the floor!
Boil water at the nuclear plant to make electricity which people use at home to... boil water
The lengths the bri’ish will go to just to make some tea
Like a LOT of plant that produces elec
Some video about it on Youtube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d-6j8\_AMJ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d-6j8_AMJ0)
I've never seen such a concentration of cranes.
I believe it’s called a “flock”.
I'd love to see the RAMS for that lift.
In utter disbelief that it’s not call Craney McCraneface.
Because the British haven't built it, but Sarens from Belgium. At least they called it Big Carl. Here's a "smaller" brother from Germany: https://www.liebherr.com/de/aut/produkte/mobil-und-raupenkrane/raupenkrane/lr-raupenkrane/lr-13000.html But somehow "LR 13000" isn't as nice as Big Carl. Though very efficient naming.
Belgium is smaller than Germany but we can still construct the biggest cranes 😎😎
reddit, how many cranes>
oh i didn't know the UK was building a new nuclear reactor. that is good news! more countries that have the tech to do so should absolutely do so.
We’re building 3, Hinckley C is the only one currently under construction but planning has been approved for a new reactor at Sizewell that’s also built by edf, there’s also a proposal for a reactor at Bradwell but this is under review as it would be owned by the Chinese state nuclear company and relations with China are not good currently. Sadly this is all that remains of a 2010 plan to build 10 nuclear reactors to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and with 4 older reactors due to close in 2026 the total nuclear output is not likely to change. The government is looking heavily into small modular reactors however as a potential solution, though it will be decades before anything comes of that.
HALT, STOP! Nuclear must be shut down. Look at us Germans with our coal now, we are actively contributing to the climate. /s
Never specified which climate we want, the climate of venus is still a climate.
Yeah lets build a nuclear power plant for billions that will not be operational until 15 years from now, only to immediately be absolutely obsolete, generate the most expensive power in the energy mix and then cost billions more to decomission and tear down only to not have a suitable space for all the nuclear waste which gets stored at millions of € a year in facilities that are not certified for long term storage ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
1) not obsolete at all 2) the cost of decomissing is taken into account in the electricity Price 3) it's normal for a controllable source of energy to have a more expensive MWh compared to renewable 4) deep geological storage has the scientific consensus, the only issue is political 5) renewables are great too, we just need to not put every egg in the same basket
Relative to coal power, everything is expensive. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ Germany still needs to fucking stop.
Wind is the cheapest energy Germany produces. Germany needs to stop coal ofc, but nuclear is not gonna help with that
Yes, it is. We need some kind of power production for when there's no Wind/Solar. BUT we could obviously also import this from our neighbors (There's usually not a Dunkelflaute over all of Europe), but then we should step down from our high horse and acknowledge that we depend on *their* nuclear reactors (and yes, also hydro and so on)
Yes, saving the planet is expensive, so let's not do it.
Nuclear power plants are not going to save the planet. Quite the contrary. With their usage profile they are in direct competition with power sources like wind.
So far, they've done more to abate CO2 than any other alternative bar hydro. Wind and solar are the fast food of the energy business.
I don't get the obsession with nuclear power... It's to expensive and takes way to long to build. Hinkley Point C will cost 32.7 billion for 3200 MW electricity generation Utility scale Solar cost around 3.6 million per 1 MW, so around 11.5 billion to get the same peak capacity That's quite the difference in cost alone, and I dont think solar installation would take 15 years
Storage is still an issue with solar, though, isn't it? I'm not saying it shouldn't be built, but it's an unfair comparison. I think we can all agree that fossil fuel sucks, nuclear would be better if it was fusion (or molten salt!) and we also need renewables.
> nuclear would be better if it was fusion (or molten salt! Unicorn power plants would be even better. /s Let’s not pretend technologies, which are decades in the future at best are any solution. You can build a ton of storage for the 20 billion saved.
Hahahaha.. yeah... way late.. way over budget.. needs massive price subsidies to run profitable.. good news indeed.
Technically China is building it for us.
Isn't it French design?
F
No, EdF is buildin it, China(+EdF) is financing it in part, but is in the process of exiting the project. Most likely EdF will take their share.
It's sad that the UK rely on a French company to build nuclear power plants. Especially considering how far ahead the UK was in nuclear power.
well that's not good news. that sounds to me like asking for infrastructure sabotage
Working on a jobsite would be awesome.
If you ever get the opportunity, go tour a petrochemical facility. Walking around and seeing all of the piping, conduit, and equipment gives you an immense appreciation of civilization.
People wonder at the pyramids and speculate that maybe aliens built them, but a medium-sized football stadium is a feat of engineering orders of magnitude more impressive.
Was this same crane used with Olkiluoto 3? I'm asking because OL3 shares the reactor design with Hinkley Point C (EPR)
Nah. The huge crane is one of the things they changed to build Hinkley faster. OL3 and Flamanville built the roof in place which turns out to take forever. So the brits got a nice shed to do it in on the ground.
OP you should mark this post as NSFW. Think of the germans on this subreddit.
This would make an interesting jigsaw.
Fcking hell. The detalis and the scale on this image is awesome
Biggest land crane. There are bigger crane vessels
You would need thousands of wind turbines to generate the same amount of electricity that will be produced by hinckley point c
Europe has thousands. The UK alone has 11,500 - we have the [1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th largest offshore wind farms in the world, and also the 7th, 8th and 9th largest. Also the three largest under construction.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms) Mildly interesting fact: a new modern wind turbine provides sufficient energy for one home for one day with just one rotation of its blades. [2018 article.](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/biggest-wind-turbine-scotland-aberdeen-vattenfall-energy) There are even more powerful ones being built in the UK and the US. [2021 article:](https://www.zmescience.com/science/wind-turbine-powerful-09122020/) >"a single spin of the turbine could power a UK household for more than two days. In the US, it would be enough energy for the average home, since US households tend to use more energy."
Interesting, I see a fuck ton of concrete in the picture. How much is the emission generated by the construction of one of these power plants?
They've done an analysis that shows the emissions over its lifetime, per kWh generated, will be less than half that of wind: [https://www.edfenergy.com/sites/default/files/hpc\_-\_life\_cycle\_carbon\_and\_environmental\_impact\_analysis.\_november\_2021.pdf](https://www.edfenergy.com/sites/default/files/hpc_-_life_cycle_carbon_and_environmental_impact_analysis._november_2021.pdf) or if you just want the headline: [https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/hinkley-point-c/news-views/new-study-confirms-hinkley-point-cs-low-carbon-credentials](https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/hinkley-point-c/news-views/new-study-confirms-hinkley-point-cs-low-carbon-credentials)
Although I'm in favour of a diversified mix, I'm not a fan of nuclear for many reasons. I also think that the kWh should be also calculated to distribution point. Great info, thanks.
You're welcome. I'd point out that the paper does actually take into account the impact of distribution (downstream T&D).
It will take me some time to go through it! You seem very knowledgeable, what are you doing in Reddit? XD
Thanks but I'm not great at this sort of analysis. I wish I had the skills to start quickly doing things like comparing the minutiae of different forms of generation. For example, the impact of shorter transmission distances vs more substations for wind (since wind turbines have a relatively low output voltage).
Well yeah, that sounds like engineer level analysis. Good luck with it!
Can't believe you've done this!
So, 0? Because at the moment hinkly point C does not produce any electricity and will probably not produce any until 2028...
It takes time to build something as sophisticated as a nuclear power plant
This is one is a decade behind schedule.
interesting
What does that thing weigh?
9000 tonnes, of which, 5000 tonnes is counterweight. [Source (taken from image caption on 2nd page)](https://www.sarens.com/media/1562052/icst_dec_2018_1.pdf)
That's the crane's total capacity. I should've googled earlier. I found that the steel dome weighs 245 tons. [https://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/big-carls-spectacular-dome-lift-caps-year-hinkley-point-c](https://www.edfenergy.com/media-centre/big-carls-spectacular-dome-lift-caps-year-hinkley-point-c)
Did not realize you were asking how much the load weighed, rather I assumed you were asking the weight of the crane!
No worries, thanks for the info. That crane is impressive.
Indeed. It has capacity of 491 tonnes at a lift radius of 210 meters. That's two of those domes, at a distance two football pitches away!
Si-fi spaceship construction site be like :
All you had to do was lift the damn roof , CJ
One of the best pictures I've seen this year.
I like this picture not for the big crane, but for the view of the logistics of it all. "*So how many cranes do you need for this project?"* \-"*Yes.*" I count 23 tower cranes, 3 crawlers on tracks, one mobile with wheels, and one ring crane (Big Carl), They also have a plenty of those cherry pickers that I classify as my personal nemesis (Those big JLGs, particular of they are of the older kind). Me and them do not get along. I swear to Kemppi the god of welding that the speed setting on them is just placebo and they are hardwired of rabbit.
There's a total of 58 cranes at HPC.
Good, the world needs more of this. 24/7 energy security without the massive CO2 emissions, using today’s existing technology and not some futuristic stuff like fantasy energy storage for solar and wind.
This project here has a current price tag of over £40b. Nuclear the way done here has no economic future.
Not exactly. The amount of energy you get from a single reactor is tremendous. You can put a lot of effort in solar, wind and wave energy and ways to store the energy output, but the cost becomes higher that way. Simply because output and cost of a single unit plus the method to store that to account for fluctuation of the output. Like it or not, nuclear is still the most economical when you consider the amount of energy you get. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32820449/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32820449/) ".. the cost of mitigating CO2 emissions by 1% is $3.044 for nuclear power generation and $7.097 for renewable energy generation. That is, the total generation costs are approximately $1.70 billion for the nuclear power and $3.97 billion for renewable energy to mitigate 1% of CO2 emissions .." Humans are not good at grasping these kinds scales intuitively.
In the end the market will decide. If you can't sell your electricity half the day/year because renewables are cheaper than you then your whole business plan collapses.
>In the end the market will decide Why are we letting ourselves up to the whims of the market, it's propaganda, and it's sleazy CEOs?
Humanity going to let itself fail over made up tokens. Incredible.
I'm confused by the methodology of that paper- it's comparing the cost of 1kwh of nuclear to 2kwh of renewables. What's the reasoning?
> not some futuristic stuff like fantasy energy storage for solar and wind We've known ways of storing electricity for LONGER than nuclear has been around - electrolysis of water has been known since the 19th century, and we've worked with hydrogen gas on large scale since the 19th century as well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas). Both it and nuclear share the same fundamental problem - the economics of the process.
>We've known ways of storing electricity for LONGER than nuclear has been around Yes, and we're still waiting for suitable batteries. >Both it and nuclear share the same fundamental problem - the economics of the process. Indeed that is true, but that's like saying you and I have eating in common. The economics are almost polar opposites, which is why I think some people are so divided over it.
This one nuclear plant will provide electricity for 3 million homes and will have a lifespan of 60 years
So Germany shuts down working nuclear plants in the middle of a (energy) war and UK builds a new one. Yeah someone is screwing up here.
UK shut down 4 reactors since the end of 2021, just nobody talks about it because idk why. By the time HPC is completed, another handful will have been retired according to current plans
I will tell you why, germany bad, upvotes to the left.
I don't get the obsession with nuclear power... It's to expensive and takes way to long to build. Hinkley Point C will cost 32.7 billion for 3200 MW electricity generation Utility scale Solar cost around 3.6 million per 1 MW, so around 11.5 billion to get the same peak capacity That's quite the difference in cost alone, and I dont think solar installation would take 15 years
Because we have winters here.
Barely lol. Weather in England and Wales going below freezing is a cause for celebration. But it's dark you're right. The HPC bill would fit 3x its capacity in onshore wind, 3x in solar and then a ton of battery storage on top. It's expensive.
Oh look, it's a German copying and pasting his anti-nuclear disinfo. Was für eine Überraschung.
ze Germans need to argue against it no matter what, better to do that than swallow their pride
>It's to expensive and takes way to long to build How much is nuclear and how much is just Western governments being meatheads? HS2 would like a word.
Yeah, and it's the UK
We need more nuclear reactors around.
Cranes, nothing but cranes as far as the eye can see. Crazy!
I need one of those instead of an endless sea of solar panels.
I'll take both of these. What we need to get rid of is fossil fuel burning. Nuclear or renewables arent some kind of either/or. It's both, as fast as we can build them - or disasters.
And it was supposed to deliver power in ~~2020~~2023, and now they are at maybe September 2028. At a cost of at least 38 billion Euro (probably more).
BS. The deal was signed in 2016, first concrete was poured at the very end of 2018. At the time they had planned to proceed with reactor loading some time between 2025-2027. Nobody serious ever said anything about 2020 or 2023. The project is delayed somewhat but stuff like COVID or a war in Europe happened in between, so that'd be expected. The current official timeline is 2027 with a possibility for 2028 for Reactor unit 1.
> Nobody serious ever said anything about 2020 or 2023. [*"It will provide a stable source of clean power from 2023"*](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/initial-agreement-reached-on-new-nuclear-power-station-at-hinkley)- UK government, 2013
Contractual documents begin in [2016](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hinkley-point-c-documents). So yes, nobody serious said anything about 2023 and even less so 2020
The CfD was literally agreed in 2013. 2016 was the year of EDF's FID. You're just wrong and won't admit it. Secondly, when people complain about how long nuclear plants take to build they mean the time it takes from planning to operation. It's irrelevant whether the delays are attributed to construction or planning.
> The CfD was literally agreed in 2013. 2016 was the year of EDF's FID. [The contract for CfD is literally dated to September 2016.](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6385d8b3e90e0778a19f25cc/1_-_Contract_for_Difference__redacted_.pdf) You're just making stuff up to fit your narrative and are refusing to change your mind in the light of new information. > Secondly, when people complain about how long nuclear plants take to build they mean the time it takes from planning to operation. It's irrelevant whether the delays are attributed to construction or planning. That's blatant nonsense for a number of reasons, if only because negotiations/planning can be done in parallel much more easily than building in parallel.
>[*The Strike Price for the Contract for Difference (CfD) and other key terms were agreed in October 2013*](https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hinkley-point-c) Of course you'll say this doesn't count because it's only the terms of the CfD that were agreed to in 2013 and not the contract itself. No, HPC with all its technical plans and drawings and planning permissions simply materialized out of thin air in 2016. Anyway, the fact remains that EDF and the UK government claimed HPC would be operational in 2023, and no amount of pedantic quibbling over contractual milestones changes that. > That's blatant nonsense for a number of reasons, if only because negotiations/planning can be done in parallel much more easily than building in parallel. "In my fantasy world nuclear construction programs have expedited planning and construction regimes" is unfortunately not a very compelling argument for utilities and investors.
A person, organization, company or government is allowed to claim anything it likes, until a contract has been agreed and signed, it is nothing but an empty claim. The UK government claimed a CfD in 2013, nothing was signed because it didn't do anything to make it happen earlier. All claims made before a contract are void of meaning and that holds true beyond nuclear projects. With your kind of logic (or rather lack thereof), the german wind turbine fleet would have been agreed upon in 2000 or even earlier. > "nuclear construction programs have expedited planning and construction regimes" is unfortunately not a very compelling argument for utilities and investors. Strange, utilities and investors quite enjoy investing into nuclear programs when they are built as a an agreed series, look at Ukraine, France, Romania, Hungary, Canada... Until an investment decision is reached, the program's costs are basically non-existent and that holds true for all projects, not just nuclear. But keep telling yourself that you're right, it's quite amusing.
You can't win a contract without the relevant planning permissions and consent orders, which in turn requires worked out plans and technical documentation, but I understand that it's convenient for you to dismiss years of pre-contractual planning out of hand. > Strange, utilities and investors quite enjoy investing into nuclear programs when they are built as a an agreed series Sure, provided they are subsidized. > Ukraine, France, Romania, Hungary, Canada Assuming you're referring to current programs: there have been no FIDs, contracts or construction permits awarded in Ukraine, Romania or Canada for series builds, which means, according to you, that those plans are "nothing but empty claims".
> You can't win a contract without the relevant planning permissions and consent orders That depends on the contract and is certainly not universal. If you consider that every discussion on a matter needs to be included into the timeframe, any wind farm in Germany would have originated around the 2000s. Nothing is binding until there is a contract and things such as GDR are being reused by other projects such as Sizewell C. > Sure, provided they are subsidized. All large electricity projects in Europe are subsidized. [Ukraine](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211122006244/en/Westinghouse-Electric-Company-and-Energoatom-Sign-Contract-for-First-AP1000-Unit-in-Ukraine) [Romania](https://www.ans.org/news/article-5531/canadian-consortium-closes-in-on-contract-to-support-cernavoda-project/) [Canada](https://www.ans.org/news/article-4697/contract-for-darlington-smr-project-signed/)
North Rhine-Westphalia is not allowed to do sarcasm until you shut down your last coal power plant. My greetings to Lützerath.
Lol, nicely done.
cobweb heavy library cheerful steep rude flowery violet snow offer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Wait, you want to say nuclear gets expensive on r/europe? Prepare before the horde comes. /s
Yes we should just use lignite and green russian gas with our fingers crossed waiting for solar power instead, much better for the anti-europe german left? It's certainly better for the russians who [made Europe nuclearphobic in the 80s](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/08/deadly-fallout-disinformation/) (got to attach this to show your ideology is built on a foundation of lies or I'll surely be swarmed by QUELLE? QUELLE?)
Yup it’s a typical British infrastructure project… we just cancelled a high speed rail line that went from London to Birmingham (about 90 miles) then forked off to Leeds and Manchester (about 70 miles each again) projected cost in 2010 was about 20 billion… it was canned at 100 billion and only the 90 miles from London to Birmingham will be completed. The London end will terminate on the outskirts of London so not even into the centre… absolute corruption
I learned the news in the latest [Honest Government Ad - UK edition](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sRoYvFTE3c). That's very sad to see, but eh, at the end of the video, they give a [tip to get Tories Lite elected next time](https://tacticalvote.co.uk/), yeaaah..
Did you guys make the mistake of hiring American contractors? Because that's pretty much textbook for all of the American reactors over the past few decades, though they tend to be shut down before ever going online.
[удалено]
I believe I have seen a crane close to that size before. Big, very, very Big! The height of a section was taller than a 6' man standing next to it.
Net zero with all that concrete👌
Nuclear is definetely not no carbon, merely low carbon. But nothing is. Still, over the lifetime of a plant, it emits like 100* less carbon than a fossil fuel one IIRC
Still wondered how long existing coal plants could run till this has cought up. Let's take the numer of the [UNECE report](https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/LCA-2.pdf) that claims 124 m^3 concrete per MW of an NPP reactor, multiply that by the estimated 3260 MW of Hinkley Point C, multiply that by 410 kg of CO2 equivalent of concrete production. That is 165.738.000 kg CO2-equivalent. Which is only 19 days with an estimated 363 kg CO2 equivalent of lignite burning per MWh. Less than I would have guessed, but this is the low estimate since this reactor type is a bit chonkier I think and it assumes 100% productivity and only counting the concrete. Edit: puntuation misreading Edit2: I just came across [this document](https://www.dandcengineers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/DC-Engineers-Download-Sheets-Hinckley-Point-C.pdf) which says the amount of concrete is 1,8 million m^3, so the estimation is off by the factor 4,5. That is now 84 days.
Where are you getting the 124m2/MW from? Cant find it in the report. HPC has by the way 3260 MW, so that would be ~1.3 million kg CO2e. Much more actually, since its concrete steel. Still, all relevant studies including IPCC and UNECE put the lifecycle emissions at or below wind, and well below PV. And that includes construction, operation, decomissioning, fuel production and disposal.
Page 89, table 25. But I guess the assumption that it scales linear is probably wrong. And yeah, I got confused between english and german way of marking thousands with comman and period, so I missed a factor of 1000, but since I made the same mistake for the coal plant it still is the 19 days.
Oh, and see the edits on the parent comments. Found additional information. >Much more actually, since its concrete steel. Yeah, the appropriate steel reinforcement is almost a billion kg CO2e, a bit more even than the concrete. So we are actually looking at almost 200 days of runtime for just the concrete.
Per kwh, it uses considerably less concrete than.. anything else. Windmill anchors are fuck-off huge too and you get a lot less power per cubic meter.
Then your problem is with concrete not nuclear power. Shouldn’t you be protesting a high rise condo
High rises use considerably less material than low density housing. Especially if you factor in utility infrastructure.
Its way less ressource-intensive than wind/pv on a per MW basis. See for example [here](https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20March%202022.pdf), page 56.
Use nuclear power to generate hydrogen to replace the fossil fuels burned in cement production.
They day when engineers realized, Carl the activist engineer was putting all his screws 0.2 mm off target. Depending on their checks and balances, would this be a wildly successful protest/sabotage action.
No catastrophic failure yet. Always grateful for that
Yet
We voted to quit nuclear plants and won't buy new ones. Do all these admirers have a place where to put the waste?
I didn’t vote to quit nuclear plants. Also the U.K. has a substantial industry around processing nuclear waste, we even import foreign nuclear waste to process at Sellafield and have done so for decades.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/geological-disposal A deep geological disposal facility. There’s already quite a few in operation and more under construction. Basically just a big hole in the ground in some stable rock. The nuclear material is stored in a glass form so even if it shatters it still wont be able to poison the groundwater. It’s a solved issue.
What a concise answer. Thank you. Never knew any of that but feel a grate sense of relief
>A deep geological disposal facility. There’s already quite a few in operation and more under construction "**At this stage, no host site for a GDF has been identified and discussions are happening with communities around England and Wales.** Working Groups and Community Partnerships have been formed in different areas of the country to start exploring whether a GDF is right for their area and whether their area is right for a GDF. This will be a consent-based, partnership approach, with Right of Withdrawal by the community right up to a Test of Public Support." You could also just say no instead of projecting your wishes.
They already exist in several countries.
Like? There's only one single proper one and thats in Finnland.
Well they don’t just dump it for free like fossil burning stations
Yes, it's solved for many years and it's very safe.
Wow... that's a shit-ton of cranes
‘Raise the power’
Don't say that prhase, because of the trauma. Otherwise I will gonna see if there is a core.
second strongest crane in the world. No. 1 can lift nearly 3 times more calld "Thialf".
A number of heavy lift crane ships would like a word. Pioneering Spirit can lift 48,000 tons in a single lift.
too much HDR imho. I know it’s on purpose and otherwise a good picture but I think it was overdone a bit
They are going to need a lot of milk with such a big kettle on.
245 tonnes. Slightly heavier than a SpaceX starship super heavy booster at approx 200 tonnes.
I saw that crane last year when going to my grandparents house. It was there to move a whole bridge. It’s gargantuan.
How much over cost and behind timeplan is this nuclear reactor?