Solar ... In the news

Nicolai_Grenovski

to be clear when I say "no such plant" I mean no grid dispatchable or full overnight solar with batteries
The Germany has a lot of solar!

But solar is better for sunny countries when the supply profile matches the demand from things like air conditioning.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Hi Martyn1981, - interesting post, but a correction if I may be so bold.

Hiya Nicolai, I do understand what you are saying, but you've fallen into the usual trap of comparing one RE technology against a 24/7 source of generation, such as nuclear.

PV and storage doesn't need to work 24/7, it's RE + storage that needs to, or to be more accurate RE + storage + an acceptable amount of gas generation within CO2 limits.

The PV + storage therefore is ideally suited to the job as it's most likely to be available during the evening peak.

Also when I said 'double the cost of the storage, just for fun' I wasn't suggesting a doubling of capacity, I was simply building in a margin to prevent anyone saying it wouldn't be that cheap in the UK. I assumed that a 100% increase in the cost of storage/deployment of storage would avoid any argument, whilst still coming in at a cost, now, that is far, far cheaper than the price of nuclear in 10yrs time.

BTW having looked at generation demand curves in both the US and Australia, there seems to be a bit of a myth about daytime peaks from A/C, when in fact many locations see an evening peak as A/C is switched on when folk come home from work, around 5pm, though I accept that A/C use will push up daytime demand, and PV is ideally suited to it.

Have you heard of Eos, they are selling battery storage with 5,000+ cycles at $95/kWh for 2022 delivery. That's a simple storage cost (excluding BOS costs and finance) of just $19/MWh additional on top of PV or wind generation costs. Assuming 50% of generation needs storing, then that's $9.5/MWh on top (of all generation) of the PV/wind farm, cost. Again this is vastly cheaper than HPC generation costs.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

So the cost you quote is not a cost for pv+storage in any meaningful sense.

Hope that makes sense.

Hiya again. Just to repeat some info I've posted elsewhere, and to make the comparison of PV/on-shore wind to HPC costs more meaningful for you, I thought I'd expand on some musings, so ...

We know that there's isn't a shortage of space for wind or PV, so what happens if we try to replace HPC for example. Well we have £100/MWh to spend on generation, and the savings on extra/over RE capacity, or gas capacity, or storage. Would PV or on-shore wind at £60 v's £100 for HPC allow us to match HPC if we spent the savings on solving the problem?

For example, say we built 8GW of on-shore wind with a cf of 25%, and 10GW of PV with a cf of 10% and at a CfD of £60/MWh, v's £100/MWh for HPC (cf about 92%).

That's an annual saving of about £1bn. £1bn pa is a lot of money that can be spent on additional RE capacity, back up gas capacity (not fuel costs), and storage.

So we've matched the annual generation of HPC with the generation from the wind and PV, but to match HPC's 24/7 capability we will need to build 3GW of gas capacity, so that's about £2bn, or 2yrs of savings.

Next to prevent waste of unwanted overcapacity of PV + wind then we'll need some storage. I'd suspect that the combination of wind and PV with some cross peaking could be 10-12GW taking seasonal variations into account.

Of that we need to exclude the first 3GW as HPC would also be generating 3GW, so the same problems/issues would exist there too, hence balancing each other out.

So we have say 9GW of 'unwanted' generation, which could last for 10hrs. After that we'll either have the PV gen dropping in the summer, or the wind gen being 'wanted' as we hit higher demand periods (daytime/evening) in the winter.

So that's 90GWh's of storage at approx $100/kWh, so $9bn or £7bn. That's another 7yrs of savings.

So the PV / wind + storage looks like it pays off in 9yrs, v's the 35yrs that HPC is to be supported.

Now for the corrections.

The storage cost will of course be more as there are costs on top of the battery purchase, such as the build out and financing, so it could be twice that figure, and take 14yrs to payback (it has an expected 15yr lifespan). But

The storage cost is based on 2022, but we have till 2027 for a v's HPC option, so prices will have fallen further by then (the 2022 price compares to a 2017 price of $160, so it is falling fast).

I've suggested a £60/MWh price for wind and PV, but they may well be closing in on £50/MWh already, certainly by 2027, so the annual savings rise from £1bn to ~£1.3bn.

The availability of all that storage will help reduce peak prices and thereby reduce average leccy prices, benefiting all, on top of the simple RE v's HPC example here.

Whilst the gas capacity allows us to match HPC as a minimum, it would also benefit us by allowing 3GW of additional capacity, on top of the RE generation at times of high demand, whereas HPC can't provide more.

Hope that helps.

Nicolai_Grenovski

Hiya Nicolai, I do understand what you are saying, but you've fallen into the usual trap of comparing one RE technology against a 24/7 source of generation, such as nuclear.

I must have misunderstood - from your earlier post

"$90/MWh, or about £70/MWh v's £100/MWh for HPC in todays monies.""

I thought that you were comparing solar pv+storage by saying it was was less expensive than Hinkley point (nuclear)

Even when both is priced in MWh they cannot be compared as one cheaper than the other - they do different things
To the grid operator and ultimately the customer, the prices of peaker plants and baseload plants cannot be compared -

Nicolai_Grenovski

Would PV or on-shore wind at £60 v's £100 for HPC allow us to match HPC if we spent the savings on solving the problem?

The same but in reverse also!

But what savings?
Hinkley is 3.2GW of constant power that requires nothing extra in addition.


They are not the same - the 'trap' you mentioned I think,

So we've matched the annual generation of HPC with the generation from the wind and PV, but to match HPC's 24/7 capability we will need to build 3GW of gas capacity, so that's about £2bn, or 2yrs of savings.

Yes but that would breach (double) the 100gCO2/kwh limit which is the objective - and carbon can be taxed!.


To cut emissions we want wind and solar -not wind and gas and solar.

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

... Even when both is priced in MWh they cannot be compared as one cheaper than the other - they do different things
To the grid operator and ultimately the customer, the prices of peaker plants and baseload plants cannot be compared -

.. Please Explain in detail why not ....

If I buy milk for myself in 2litre bottles, or for a food related industrial process in tankers the comparative measure would be £/litre even though the requirement superficially differs ... now, if the supplier wants to deliver milk in 10,000litre tankers at a higher price per litre than my 2litre bottles I'd certainly be asking questions ... so what's this got to do with electrons, well, both come down to distribution ... centralised model vs distributed model ....

Now, what really is the difference between peaking & dispatchable other than timespan ? .... well, wouldn't it simply be that peaking would normally be subjected to being turned on & off with gradual a ramp-up & down period, whereas a truly dispatchable source could be available at very short notice ... for example pumped storage ...

Now, pumped storage, there's a decent direct comparison with batteries ... neither generate, both require to be charged and both can provide power until their capacity depletes .... the difference, as mentioned earlier is just one of scale ... centralised vs distributed ...

Okay, so PV is intermittent and HPC will be baseload, but that's not the issue when storage solutions (distributed & centralised) are added into the equation ... with decent planning and the employment of relevant technical solutions, the daily generation demand curve even in deepest winter could be very smooth, so what becomes of baseload when supply & demand are almost always in balance.

As a consumer, don't you just love the theory behind distributed generation and storage ...

HTH
Z

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

But what savings?
Hinkley is 3.2GW of constant power that requires nothing extra in addition.

They are not the same - the 'trap' you mentioned I think, Yes but that would breach (double) the 100gCO2/kwh limit which is the objective - and carbon can be taxed!.

To cut emissions we want wind and solar -not wind and gas and solar.

Hi

Hinckley ... nothing extra? .., What about subsidy and spent fuel ??

100gCO2/kWh target ... Okay, at 487g/kWh that simply means that the plant would be limited to supplying 20% of total annual demand ... take out the contribution of daylight and windy days and invest in some serious storage solutions (ie flood more welsh valleys - I'm sure that the newts, sheep & local tourism board would love it, but the local NIMBYs in nearby London would be up in arms! ... ) ... so, it's doable ...

"we want wind and solar" ... don't we all, and just think - if we accessed UK gas to supply cheap UK power in the UK as opposed to throwing almost unlimited £billions of UK customer money overseas, then there'd be plenty enough left to build some serious distributed infrastructure .... isn't this the logical fast-track solution to achieve the goal?, spend the money wisely whilst there's still some left in our pockets !

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

I must have misunderstood - from your earlier post I thought that you were comparing solar pv+storage by saying it was was less expensive than Hinkley point (nuclear)

Even when both is priced in MWh they cannot be compared as one cheaper than the other - they do different things
To the grid operator and ultimately the customer, the prices of peaker plants and baseload plants cannot be compared -

Hiya, no need to apologies, simple mistake.

Whilst I'm comparing PV + storage to HPC prices, it's pretty obvious you also have to compare other renewables too, since RE comes as a package deal, with the package being greater than the sum of its parts.

The good thing about HPC, is that it'll be insanely expensive when it arrives in 10yrs, so we have plenty of time to develop cheaper options, especially since some options are allowed closing in on half the price of HPC already.

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

But what savings?
Hinkley is 3.2GW of constant power that requires nothing extra in addition.

The savings explained, by comparing the difference in MWh costs. I then used those savings to ensure a service equal to HPC.

If you have another read it should now be very clear. I'm also being generous by assuming HPC is baseload, but since it'll be arriving long after a huge amount of RE has been deployed, in a fair world it's generation would come after the RE generation, not assumed to come first as baseload. In that scenario, nobody would ever build another nuclear powerstation ever again as it can't compete in competition, but requires preferential treatment.

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

They are not the same - the 'trap' you mentioned I think, Yes but that would breach (double) the 100gCO2/kwh limit which is the objective - and carbon can be taxed!.

Yes they are not the same, which is why I spent monies to standardise, as explained. Hope that's clear now.

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

To cut emissions we want wind and solar -not wind and gas and solar.

Ah, but that's the nuclear scam - since a nuclear supply will also rely on storage, and gas back up, or it'll have to have a lot of over-capacity, and being nuclear, over-capacity is simply not affordable.

So I'm allowed to include a small element of gas generation, since nuclear would have one too, plus the gas doesn't need to be FF gas, it could be bio-gas from grass mills, bio-gas from food waste, or hydrogen/methane from P2G storage, since unlike nuclear RE is getting cheap enough to allow overcapacity*.

*Just in case you weren't sure, I've only given battery costs as an example, there are many other forms of storage such as P2G. Or LAES which has a high efficiency when combined with the waste heat from a gas generation plant, so multiple storage and back up solutions could be co-located on site.

Hope this helps.

Nicolai_Grenovski

If I buy milk for myself in 2litre bottles, or for a food related industrial process in tankers the comparative measure would be £/litre even though the requirement superficially differs ... now, if the supplier wants to deliver milk in 10,000litre tankers at a higher price per litre than my 2litre bottles I'd certainly be asking questions ... so what's this got to do with electrons, well, both come down to distribution ... centralised model vs distributed model ....

If you ordered enough food for a year and it all came in the first six months then (without a freezer (store!)) you would starve before the end of the year.

The total quantity over the time period is not the point - a reliable supply has a higher value (and a lower support cost) than an intermittent one.

Nicolai_Grenovski

Hinckley ... nothing extra? .., What about subsidy and spent fuel ??

My knowledge that the Contract for Difference for Hinkley is includes all, including final decommissioning.

And Hinkley is just the first and most expensive - like the first offshore wind turbine.

100gCO2/kWh target ... Okay, at 487g/kWh that simply means that the plant would be limited to supplying 20% of total annual demand

compared to nuclear which is 12gCO2/kwh -

As you say, 20% is not enough, plus 100g is the limit, not a target.

take out the contribution of daylight and windy days and invest in some serious storage solutions (ie flood more welsh valleys - I'm sure that the newts, sheep & local tourism board would love it, but the local NIMBYs in nearby London would be up in arms! ... ) ... so, it's doable ...

Those also have a carbon cost - and a money cost also.