Solar ... In the news

You know there's something wrong with the UK government's policy towards PV, when Australian households are getting 6.3p to 9.7p/kWh, and the UK which needs 6p, gets 4p.

Australian utility increases solar feed-in tariff

gefnew wrote: »

HPC Audit commission review
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40372613
what do you all think
regards
gefnew

I have strong views on this (no ...... really!)

I'm not 100% against nuclear, it's cleaner than coal and low carbon, and as part of a mix, it takes some of the pressure off balancing supply and demand and storage - BUT!

It has to be economic, and in this context (money saving), that means compares favourably with the alternatives, which would be RE, or perhaps RE + storage + the cost of gas capacity.*

* That's additional gas capacity v's nuclear, but not the cost of gas generation, as this would be the same (RE v's nuclear), it's just that we'd need more gas capacity due to the variability of RE.

I'd also argue from the green & ethical side that nuclear needs to be more than just comparable to RE on cost, as I'd personally be willing to pay a premium to avoid nuclear, but that's not an economic argument that I can impose on everyone, so I think the MSE element trumps the G&E part on here (for now).


When the HPC deal was announced in 2012 it wasn't good, but I don't think it was terrible. It compared favourably against off-shore wind contracts at the time, was similar to on-shore wind, and ahead of PV. However there is a massive, gargantuan problem with those comparisons, those are RE costs in 2012, with rapidly falling cost curves, and 15yr subsidy deals allowing for rapid replacement, v's the 35yr deal for HPC, which would not start for about 15yrs (v's 2012).

By 2016 when the deal was reviewed, we already had PV and on-shore wind contracts at £80/MWh (whilst HPC's £92.50 needed 3yrs of inflation added to it), and off-shore wind contracts were now being issued at £120/MWh v's the £160 from 2012.

Today, we have Scotttish Renewables advising that some on-shore wind is now possible at £50/MWh, we have German PV contracts now at £50/MWh (€57/MWh), and they are very comparable to the UK, as they were issuing €91 contracts when we issued £80.

Off-shore contracts in the April CfD (results Sept) are widely reported to be at (or below) HPC prices, in fact these contracts for delivery in 2021 had a bid max cap of £105/MWh (HPC now about £100/MWh).

The government has reducing bid caps for future contracts of £100, and £85 (for mid to late 2020 delivery, similar to HPC delivery date). The importance of this can not be understated - the future CfD auctions for off-shore wind, for delivery around the time HPC comes on line, will have a bid max of £85/MWh, v's the £92.50 for HPC (I believe they base figures on 2012). So our own government expects bids to be below £85/MWh for off-shore wind.

Again, worth repeating that the RE contracts are for 15yrs, with expectations (common sense) suggesting that new contracts at that point in time will be even cheaper, but HPC is a 35yr deal.

Due to falling estimations (by the NAO) of future wholesale prices, the estimated subsidy for HPC has risen from £6bn to £30bn. This may seem hard to believe in just 4yrs (2012 estimate v's 2016) but it's quite simple:
Previously the were comparing the £92.50/MWh subsidy against a wholesale price reaching £85/MWh in 2030, so around £7/MWh subsidy top up on average.

By 2016 they had reduced the estimated future price peak to £70 in 2027, and £60 by 2035, so around £32/MWh subsidy top up.

The revised prices reflect the lower RE costs, and the amount of functioning RE generation still in operation, but having fallen out of subsidy (such as PV and on-shore wind farms still generating well, but into yr 16 when subsidies have ended).


So that's the basic facts.

NigeWick wrote: »

I am 100% against nuclear if for no other reason than the ongoing cost of decommissioning and storing the waste. Then as I've said before, there is the unlikely but real threat to our energy security if there's an accident or (cyber) attack by morons. I am a great believer in local generation and storage. Still too expensive for most people but by the time HPC comes on line (if it ever does) I suspect solar & batteries/V2G will be competitive.

TBH it upsets me a bit that I can't quite say I'm 100% against nuclear yet. I'm certainly 90% against (and 100% against HPC), but if the more rational pro-nuclear commentators are correct, and £50/MWh nuclear is possible, then that would help with the CO2 issue. But as fast as 'cheap' nuclear is being suggested - Westinghouse APR's, S. Korean nuclear industry, Thorium and SMR's, we seem to hear bad news too - unpopular in S. Korea and France with the public, Westinghouse bust, Thorium still not delivering*.

So I'm quietly confident that nuclear will not offer an economical contribution going forward. And neither is BNEF with their prediction of a very small growth in nuclear generation to 2040, leading to an actual reduction in the percentage of worldwide generation from 10% down to 9%, due to the rise in total leccy consumption (wind and solar grow from 6% today to 34% by 2040).

I'm looking forward to the day I can say 100%, just like you, and on a purely personal level, I'm there already.

* A Navitron forumite who was working in the nuclear fusion industry has now changed jobs due to drop in funding, which may impact Thorium too. Basically, whilst both solutions may come to fruition eventually, it's looking like they won't be competitive against RE in the future. So nice solution to 'old school' nuclear fission, but too late to compete against the new energy revolution that has swept in.