Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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.

Given that the latest estimates of the subsidy are now up to £50bn (from the £30bn revision from the original £6bn), it should, but ...

.... actually the UK government has underwritten the decommissioning costs if they turn out to be too high for HPC to afford.

Also HPC isn't the first, there's also Flamanville and Finland, they should have been finished by now, but are years behind schedule.

If we decide to build Sizewell C, which is the same size as HPC then we'll see a massive 3.24% reduction in price, which compares unfavourably with off-shore wind costs, as this year's CfD auctions will hopefully result in prices almost half of those from the beginning of the decade, and most likely cheaper than HPC already, and that's before we mention that RE gets a 15yr subsidy whereas HPC gets a 35yr deal, and nuclear has been subsidised for 60yrs already.

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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.

compared to nuclear which is 12gCO2/kwh -

As you say, 20% is not enough, plus 100g is the limit, not a target.Those also have a carbon cost - and a money cost also.

"My Knowledge ..." ... and the contract isn't with anyone other than the company which has been formed to build and operate the plant ... 'NNB GENERATION COMPANY (HPC) LIMITED' ... a standard way to allow for future decoupling assets and liabilities from a parent organisations if and when necessary ...

"just the first and most expensive" ... really, I thought that it was the third & most expensive ... each build proposal has been progressively more expensive than the last ... and HPC isn't even at a stage where it's come across any issues and delays yet .... cap in hand anyone ???

"As you say, 20% is not enough ..." ... hang on a minute, don't take things out of context .... if backed by a reasonable and well thought through storage policy, the intermittency of renewable energy generation can be largely addressed - Gas generation would mainly assist in mid-winter and times of sustained poor renewable provision .... <20% of total annual electricity generation by gas could easily be attainable if the necessary decisions are taken ...

"plus 100g is the limit, not a target" .. if you say so, but only as long as it's politically convenient for legislation to classify it as such ... there's no such thing as legislation which cannot be repealed ...

"Those also have a carbon cost - and a money cost also" ... yes, but likely far lower than the embedded CO2 in nuclear build and through-life support, security, infrastructure etc ...

HTH
Z

Nicolai_Grenovski

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.

If you are going to make claims of dishonesty in a technical discussion then I think you should explain yourself.

New nuclear can load follow and technically does not require storage or any gas -
The United Kingdom is not going all nuclear - not even France did all nuclear.

I do not know the numbers, but enough reactors to cover the mean winter demand minimum would not have to vary their output because they would always be running 100% in winter and be refuelled in summer Just as in France.
France do use nuclear for peaking (instead of gas) since the 70's.

Unlike here where we are still on coal, the UK is using system flexibility from renewables and nuclear for the baseload requirement.
To me this is better than a lot of renewables and a lot of coal (or gas!)

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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.

Hi

That's not the case though ... whatever the milk demand it would need to be satisfied, whether by deliveries in 10,000 litre containers or 2litre ones ....

Regarding reliable supply having a higher value ... well isn't that what storage provides ... if there's a chance that weather causes delays in milk deliveries, wouldn't it be prudent to have some in storage ? ....

Your argument seems to be based on reliable delivery of fresh milk by refrigerated pipes connected directly to a vast central dairy, thereby having a 'higher value' ... however, some may prefer to have their milk delivered to their doorstep every other day and store it in the fridge ... with the savings in centralised infrastructure, what the heck - let's assume a strategic national store of milk too to cover for snow, ice and hot weather .... the whole thing could be in place next week, the central dairy/milk to tap solution would take decades and cost a fortune .... just like HPC ....

Anyway, what about the important critters, the newts & sheep ...

HTH
Z

Nicolai_Grenovski

"plus 100g is the limit, not a target" .. if you say so, but only as long as it's politically convenient for legislation to classify it as such ... there's no such thing as legislation which cannot be repealed ...

you would rather gas than nuclear?

Nicolai_Grenovski

Given that the latest estimates of the subsidy are now up to £50bn (from the £30bn revision from the original £6bn), it should, but ...

But this is all based on the cost of wholesale electricity markets in the future.

The more expensive the wholesale, the less subsidy are - this effects the CFD of renewables and the nuclear price.

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

you would rather gas than nuclear?

Depending on what cost model & timescales ... ?

(a) ... If nuclear can compete in the open market without any artificial support using today's costs & economics.

(b) ....If nuclear can compete in the open market (without any artificial support) with the combination of renewable energy technologies and their costs at the time that the nuclear build generation-stream comes on line ...

(c) ... If nuclear can guarantee to maintain cost parity with technologies available after commissioning ...

If True(a) .and. True(b) .and. True(c) ... Then nuclear should logically be in the mix ... Else consider cost effective alternatives ...

HTH
Z

Nicolai_Grenovski

"As you say, 20% is not enough ..." ... hang on a minute, don't take things out of context .... if backed by a reasonable and well thought through storage policy, the intermittency of renewable energy generation can be largely addressed - Gas generation would mainly assist in mid-winter and times of sustained poor renewable provision .... <20% of total annual electricity generation by gas could easily be attainable if the necessary decisions are taken ...

so how much storage and at what cost?

Ultimately the consumer will pay for generation plus the cost of guaranteeing it.

Nuclear + renewables works with very little storage and some gas.

Renewables on their own are either:
i) renewables and a very large quantity of gas; or
ii) a lot of renewables and a enormous amount of storage with some gas backup.

(i) is too much CO2
So what is the price of (ii)?

Nicolai_Grenovski

I think we may be off topic - I believed the question was how to address global warming with renewables but the questions seem to be leading towards 'how can we not have nuclear'

I do not think the playing field is level.

Is not the price to consider, the price of not addressing climate change?

Nicolai_Grenovski

Depending on what cost model & timescales ... ?

(a) ... If nuclear can compete in the open market without any artificial support using today's costs & economics.

(b) ....If nuclear can compete in the open market (without any artificial support) with the combination of renewable energy technologies and their costs at the time that the nuclear build generation-stream comes on line ...

(c) ... If nuclear can guarantee to maintain cost parity with technologies available after commissioning ...

If True(a) .and. True(b) .and. True(c) ... Then nuclear should logically be in the mix ... Else consider cost effective alternatives ...

There are many of renewables types that cost a lot more even than Hinkley.
Solar is cheaper but is already 40-50grams/kwh without storage/coal/gas.

In Germany we have pushed through the high cost to bring them down, but some will always cost more if only because of the support mechanisms (externalities)
If we exclude all these by cost as you suggest then not only would we never have started, but bringing generation below 100grams/kwh is probably impossible.


I googled 'carbon footprint of storage' and came up with this academic paper in English


impact of electricity storage
on CO2 emissions in power systems
with high penetrations of wind
power: A case-study of Ireland
". Using the Irish All-Island power system as a case-study, data on the observed dispatch of each large generator for the years 2008 to 2012 was used to estimate a marginal emissions factor of 0.547 kgCO2/kWh. Selected storage operation scenarios were used to estimate storage emissions factors – the carbon emissions impact associated
with each unit of storage energy used. The results show that carbon emissions increase in the short-run for all storage technologies when consistently operated in ‘peak shaving and trough filling’ modes, and indicate that this should also be true for the GB and US power systems. "

The total limit we aim for is 100g CO2

Storage is evidently costly and adds to the carbon footprint 5 times over the limit.