Is the Government being honest about the cost of energy?

Ben84

albyota wrote: »

It would be useful to get some opinions as to what we actually need / want / can afford / as to priority / cost / risk / etc...

listed below are some of the choices, please feel free to add to the list. The comments / reasons are taken from comments on different threads on MSE.

Wind = doesn't work when its not windy + NIMBY + ugly + Noisy + expensive = still need all our existing GAS, OIL, COAL power stations.
Solar PV = What in the UK, where we get very little sun, + not much use at 5.30pm in winter. = still need all our existing GAS, OIL, COAL power stations.
Tidal / barrage = .......well thats not gonna happen and yet we are completely surrounded by the sea with tides in & out every single day.
River Hydro / Pumped Storage i.e. Hydro reservoirs powered by PV & wind = needs land, costly + no investment.
Fracking = earthquakes + expensive to mine = fossil fuel = CO2
North sea Gas = dimishing resource + getting more expensive = CO2
Oil = dimishing resource + getting more expensive = CO2
LNG milford haven = at the mercy of other countries buying power + fossil fuel = CO2
Biomass / rapeseed oil = land given up to grow a fuel = cost of growing foods increases, will be warm but we'll starve.
Nuclear = clean electricity, expensive to build + expensive to clean up + NIMBY + have we learnt from chernobil and Fukishima no investment + 8 to 10 years away.

any others?

Geothermal? It seems good on just about every count, with the only sticking point being the need for a suitable location with hot rocks or water not too deep below the surface.

There's also energy from waste? The relative positives and negatives depend on what kind of waste you're burning in the plant. Sawmill waste wood is probably ok, household rubbish is very suspect.

Also, biomass isn't all bad. Some of the materials are waste products from growing food or wood. However, sending it up the chimney as smoke means you're not composting it. That might be bad on a large scale.

Martyn1981

Hiya Ben, you probably know all this already, but ...

Geothermal, there have been several thoughts on building an interconnector between the UK and Iceland. This would be particularly useful as it could add a predictable renewable to the largely unpredictable UK mix. See article and click on 'click here':-

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/how-the-supergrid-could-help-keep-the-lights-on-7640771.html

Waste, can't think of the programme I watched, but it was looking at the burning of all types of general waste with the use of a plasma arc (I think?) powered from the generation gained from burning the waste. US based test plant I think. Can burn, dare I say anything, with very little waste product. Not sure how feasible this really is.

Biomass, watching that new tv series 'The Genius of Invention', episode one was all about Drax. Near the end they mentioned that one of the 6 boilers was being converted to run on biomass rather than coal. What surprised me, and I hope I didn't mishear this, but they said that another boiler would be converted each year till 3 (of the 6) was running on biomass. That is far faster (and sooner) than I was expecting.

Lots of very interesting stuff going on, and this decade should really stand out.

Mart.

rogerblack

spgsc531 wrote: »

Nuclear 16.6% of total generation 2011
Solar PV 0.64% of total generation 2011

Unfortunately, this is a problem.

Those are peak powers.
You actually have to divide by around 9-10 to get actual average power for solar.

As to post 18 - yes, I was intentionally ignoring those factors, and seeing if the originally quoted article was even close to reasonable, hence using numbers from it, and figures from that era, rather than taking more into account.

spgsc531

rogerblack wrote: »

Unfortunately, this is a problem.

Those are peak powers.
You actually have to divide by around 9-10 to get actual average power for solar.

Huh?

rogerblack wrote: »

As to post 18 - yes, I was intentionally ignoring those factors, and seeing if the originally quoted article was even close to reasonable, hence using numbers from it, and figures from that era, rather than taking more into account.

Of course you were..

What you actually said was:

rogerblack wrote: »

Or doing the numbers accurately....

Which you didn't

rogerblack wrote: »

As to post 18 - yes, I was intentionally ignoring those factors, and seeing if the originally quoted article was even close to reasonable, hence using numbers from it, and figures from that era, rather than taking more into account.

So...you used figures from that era...but then say rather than taking more figures into account?

I would just stop digging if I was you...

Martyn1981

rogerblack wrote: »

As to post 18 - yes, I was intentionally ignoring those factors, and seeing if the originally quoted article was even close to reasonable, hence using numbers from it, and figures from that era, rather than taking more into account.

Hiya Roger, actually I understand why you were trying to point out how the subsidies stacked up on a kWh v's kWh basis. But I don't think that is fair in this situation, since the additional information is just too important to ever leave out.

Yes the original subsidy for PV was much higher than the current level of subsidy for nuclear, but the nuclear subsidy is paid on vast amounts of units, and remains high after 50 years of support.

Whereas the PV subsidy is largely to launch the industry, and is paid on an extremely small amount of units.

Given that after only 3 years of UK support (perhaps 5 to 10 years of international support) PV costs are already comparable to nuclear and off-shore wind, I feel that relatively small amount of support is highly justified.

I do apologise to you for suggesting £8bn is a small amount, but in context I feel it is justified. That is about 10% of the de-commissioning cost of nuclear, I stress that point since de-commissioning generates no leccy for the money, and that cost is on top of the subsidies that nuclear gets for generating, and against which I've been comparing PV.

Clearly some people (appreciate not including yourself) will compare the PV costs to current generation. But it's crucial to remember that PV can become quite substantial in the UK, perhaps 50% of the planned new nuclear generation. And it can do that with subsidies on par with nuclear, and still falling.

To fairly compare PV against nuclear we would really have to guesstimate 40 year costs going forward divided by total generation, and I'm willing to risk saying that PV is about to pull ahead now given current subsidy levels, and nuclear de-commissioning costs.

Just to re-cap (sorry), but whilst 40p is a lot more than 10p (simplified numbers), if the 40p is on a small amount of generation, and helps to quickly achieve 9p or less on a large amount of generation, then it should be viewed as a long term investment, rather than criticised on a short term basis. I might now go even further, and suggest that this is a medium term investment given that subsidies have fallen much further and faster than I'd ever imagined possible.

Mart.

PS. I enjoy bouncing these numbers and thoughts of you, hope you don't think I'm having a go. M.

rogerblack

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Roger, actually I understand why you were trying to point out how the subsidies stacked up on a kWh v's kWh basis. But I don't think that is fair in this situation, since the additional information is just too important to ever leave out..

Oh - I don't disagree with this at all - and a more nuanced look is vital.
Using 2011 figures, and only considering one year of decommisioning funding is insane.
I was purely trying to address the articles numbers assuming they were the whole costs (as it seemed to), and putting them in some context.

rogerblack

spgsc531 wrote: »

Huh?

The power of installed nuclear was 10GW or so.
The power of installed solar was 400MW.

The installed nuclear plant produced on average around perhaps 9GW (I have not looked this up), as it produces the same amount basically all the time, and is only turned down for maintainance.

The installed solar plant - if it was all installed in a really good southfacing position - will have produced around 50MW on average.
If it's spread around the UK, and some is on not optimally sloped and oriented roofs - 40MW is probably a safer high end number.

This makes - per kWh generated - solar some 8-9 times more expensive than you get if you simply assume it generates at the 'sticker' value all of the time.
Which it clearly doesn't, because of night, clouds, and other factors.
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php is a tool for working out how many kWh you get from 1kW of solar panel.
This varies from 1100/year in cornwall, to 900 in london and 800 in Edinburgh.
(from about an eigth to an eleventh of the nominal power in max sun for 8760 hours)

spgsc531

You said:

rogerblack wrote: »

Or doing the numbers accurately...

Which you didn't.

You then make a load of assumptions with no clear facts or maths:

rogerblack wrote: »

The power of installed nuclear was 10GW or so.
The power of installed solar was 400MW.

The installed nuclear plant produced on average around perhaps 9GW (I have not looked this up), as it produces the same amount basically all the time, and is only turned down for maintainance.

The installed solar plant - if it was all installed in a really good southfacing position - will have produced around 50MW on average.
If it's spread around the UK, and some is on not optimally sloped and oriented roofs - 40MW is probably a safer high end number.

This makes - per kWh generated - solar some 8-9 times more expensive than you get if you simply assume it generates at the 'sticker' value all of the time.
Which it clearly doesn't, because of night, clouds, and other factors.
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php is a tool for working out how many kWh you get from 1kW of solar panel.
This varies from 1100/year in cornwall, to 900 in london and 800 in Edinburgh.
(from about an eigth to an eleventh of the nominal power in max sun for 8760 hours)

I quoted official figures of total generation and provided simple maths to show your post as full of garbage.

The huh? clearly failed on you.

John_Pierpoint

WestonDave wrote: »

A contract for difference is what it sounds like. I might enter into a contract for difference contract with EDF for electricity marked at 10p per kWh. If the best EDF can get for electricity at a given time is 9p, then it takes the 9p from the market buyer and I pay them 1p to make up the "difference". However if it manages to get 11p on the market, it then has to pay me 1p. I would imagine that you can do this via a reference to a general index such as the 10p plus inflation etc. That to some degree isn't a proper subsidy as such - its more a means of taking fluctation risk out which is a benefit obviously but it could go either way and in the EDF example could mean EDF lose out on being able to profit from their energy if prices rise just as much as they benefit from "subsidy" if they fall.

The crucial part is the price specified - if normal market price is expected to be 10p and the contract for difference is based on 12p then you start with a 2p per unit clear subsidy. You'd still have the same protection from fluctuation but you are starting from a point where you are expecting on average to sub EDF 2p per unit.

That will be where the sleight of hand comes in when they bring this through. That said I hope the Government realise they have a relatively strong position here - EDF don't have many other games to play as they are heavily nuclear reliant. If they don't build Hinkley C and other stations shut down, they will be behind other competitors when it comes to looking for power sources particularly low carbon ones. Others are much further down the line with non nuclear renewables than EDF who have bet the farm on nuclear.

EDF does supply us with some electricity via the interconnector to France, what other electricity is supplied in the UK by EDF ?

Has it bought up our existing mish mash of existing atomic technology ?

To answer my own question - the old bomb factories have been retired (?) and the AGRs (invented here) and the PWR (not invented here) are being managed by EDF & are seeking to extend their planning permission?

http://www.edfenergy.com/energyfuture/edf-energys-approach-why-we-choose-new-nuclear/nuclear-power-locations.

Is there a web site which shows what percentage of their designed annual power out put is actually achieved by each of these power stations?

John_Pierpoint

I have a 3.6 kWp PV inverter on a SE facing 30 degree roof.
I am pleased to say it has already produced more that 3,600 kWh (units) of electricity and it has not yet been generating for 12 months.

In the meantime there have been developments that (1) reduce the amount of silver and aluminium in the panels for structural and electrical reasons, which point up at the sun, it is now underneath. (2) The undersides have been "silvered" to reflect the energy that gets through the panel back onto the cells. (3) The range of wavelengths of "sunlight" that can be captured and converted to electricity has been extended.
There may be other developments such as the inverter-per-panel technique for coping with a transient shadow.

Here in South Essex we have been having a bit of a problem with people who fail to realise that damp biomass can spontaneously catch fire.
[My dad told me that when I was about 8 and we came upon a burnt out hay stack. The local fire authority left a burning heap of wood chip to burn out over several weeks, for the risk to the groundwater of dousing it]

My recollection of burning garbage is that 20% is non volatile and remains as a particularly nasty fly ash? [Partly because we cannot be sure what was in the original mix].

Meanwhile here is the progress on our local biomass power-station, It has had a bit of a problem, when it caught fire.

http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/97606/rwe-npower/about-us/our-businesses/power-generation/tilbury/

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/biobased/2013/01/17/torrified-wood-and-biocoal-2013-part-2-what-happened-in-2012/

http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/10209350.Power_station_closure_fears/