Solar ... In the news

Consequently, the crucial question now for the government is where is Plan B? How do we ensure carbon targets are met even if Hinkley Point and the nuclear projects that were meant to follow it falter?

The answer, thankfully, is staring the government in the face.

There was a different sort of surprise earlier this year, an extremely welcome one. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) quietly confirmed that it expects renewable power deployment to be significantly higher than previously thought beyond 2020, primarily due to the plummeting cost and surging popularity of solar power and storage technologies.

BEIS' projections now expect cumulative new build renewables capacity from 2016 to 2035 to reach 45GW, marking a sharp increase in the 2015 projection for 33GW of new capacity. The energy supply gap that would be created by Hinkley Point delays is already narrower than feared just a few months ago.

Better still, another happy surprise could come later this autumn with the results of the government's latest clean power contract auction for offshore wind projects. The rumour is the bids will be extremely competitive, promising to deliver offshore wind at a price well below the guaranteed rates being offered to Hinkley Point. The government should be able to purchase a lot more clean power capacity than expected for the same outlay, narrowing any Hinkley-related supply gap still further.

Such an encouraging outcome would still come with some sizeable challenges in tow, however. The temptation to take advantage of increasingly cost competitive offshore wind should not be used as an excuse to curb overall support for clean energy, nor as a justification for continuing to deny onshore wind, solar, marine energy, and even small modular reactor and carbon capture technologies a viable route to market. If it is foolhardy to put too many eggs in the nuclear basket it is equally risky to make the same mistake with offshore wind.

In addition, increased reliance on renewables would inevitably demand accompanying investment in the smart grids and energy storage systems, to ensure a renewables-heavy grid remains stable.

In another welcome coincidence, this is precisely the ground the government's Clean Growth Plan should cover. Climate Minister Claire Perry's decision to strengthen the strategy over the summer suddenly looks prescient; she could do with the flexibility a more ambitious plan would offer in the event the Hinkley project delays start to make Southern Trains look like an exemplar of reliability.

The paradox of Hinkley Point remains that the UK should work hard to deliver the project, while simultaneously working to prove that emerging clean technologies mean it was never required. And that somewhat bizarre outcome shouldn't surprise anyone.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

then take inot account the very low intermittency costs of uk pv at less than 2pounds/mwh, with potential for a minus figure of around 4pounds wirth the rollout of storage.

michaels wrote: »

I think there is a severe lack of understanding of this point - possibly at all levels. The 'obvious conclusion' is that because there is no PV on winter evenings and at night that pv is completely of no use when looking at how much thermal generation capacity is required - ie 'You can have as much PV as you want but it will not reduce the number of power stations required by even one'

quite remarkable that uk pv is heading for half the price of nuclear already, perhaps 50pounds/mwh, and of course already vastly cheaper in the us at around 30dollars/mwh.