Solar ... In the news

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

It is pleasing to come across someone who can critique peer reviewed academic papers so succinctly

Maybe the critique is more relevant if considered to be aimed at the use of a peer reviewed paper out of context .... as previously mentioned, the following is highly relevant "The results show that carbon emissions increase in the short-run for all storage technologies when consistently operated " , but in a situation where the mix changes due to the introduction of low carbon generation sources, the additional carbon emissions/kWh as measured at the point of usage resulting from inefficiencies introduced through adding the storage phase are negated - the technologies simply are not 'consistently operated' because the mix is migrating away from a centralised generation model to one encompassing both centralised & distributed technologies ....

Z

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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)?

Euan Mearns, who is no fan of renewables suggests 500GWh of storage, plus 500GWh(t), for a PV and on-shore wind only solution, that relies on 13% of generation from gas. This is based on a future leccy demand of approx 70GW average.

Given that adding in off-shore wind, which varies in generation from on-shore wind, plus hydro, tidal, bio-energy etc, then storage and gas consumption will most certainly be reduced. Plus he suggests about a 30% 'spill' from excess renewable generation which is more than enough to supply that 13% gas from P2G.

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

And I've already given examples how the nuclear part can be replaced by additional RE + storage, so we seem to be reaching agreement:

[STRIKE]Nuclear[/STRIKE] Additional RE + storage + renewables works with very little storage and some gas.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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.

Correct, but your example doesn't reflect the opinion(s) of the NAO, who have steadily reduced the expected future market price, and have therefore revised upwards the subsidy for HPC from £6bn (2012) to £30bn (2016) to £50bn (2017), since they are now suggesting a future market price of about £50/MWh.

Yes this will affect renewables too, but PV and on-shore wind are heading for £50 already (as you are well aware), and off-shore wind will go sub HPC in auctions this year, and is still falling fast, with expectations of £70-£80 by the end of the 2020's when HPC will start at £100/MWh but for 35yrs not the 15yrs of RE.

Also, we can see that despite new nuclear being built on the same sites as old nuclear, and 60yrs of support already, its cost isn't falling, whereas RE costs include the infrastructure upgrades, so replacements will be even cheaper, and subsidy free.

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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?

Are you complaining as a new (to MSE) respondent to me that on a green and ethical board folk would prefer a non-nuclear solution?

The playing field is not level, if it was we wouldn't be having this discussion, renewables would already be subsidy free and nuclear would not receive any further consideration, as it has now become uneconomical in comparison.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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!)

That is a dishonest post.

New nuclear can load follow, down to 60% output, but will it?

In doing so they will reduce their income by 40% (£3m per day just for HPC), but due to low OPEX they will save next to nothing.

Also the refuel in the summer argument is a con. HPC will need approx 2 months every 2 years for refueling, or 1/12th of the time. Even if all nuclear generation has refueling concentrated into the better 6 months, that'll only mean 1/6th of the fleet will be down.

You are correct, France did not go fully nuclear, and what they have is proving too expensive, even though they can rely on some income selling excess to other countries such as the UK. But now that generating techniques are changing, they won't be needed so much, and are planning to reduce their nuclear contribution down from 75% to 50%.

Plus of course, nuclear is very unpopular in France (see table 8 page 27).

The UK does not use a lot of coal, and does not plan to use any post 2025, so your coal related comments are very odd/dishonest.

Edit: Just to say, you've popped in another nuclear con/trick. You said that nuclear at mean winter minimum would be running at 100%. But only if they are given priority over the RE generation that has been built prior to the nuclear generation.

So your argument is - nuclear can run at 100% if we curtail all of the pre-existing and cheaper RE generation.

In a fair world, nuclear would not get priority and would therefore rely on storage. But of course nuclear with storage is an impossibility - the moment you decide to build out storage, you'll drop nuclear since it's so much more expensive than RE. Catch 22.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

In writing "I think we may be off topic" that's probably the most relevant and factually correct contribution you've made so far .... this thread is for discussing developments regarding solar which have been mentioned in the news or related articles ....

Hi Z,
Unfortunately that is not the case in this thread and any other thread where solar PV is being discussed. Any real or perceived criticism of solar and subsidies is met with a diversionary barrage of data on the cost of Nuclear.

It is usually The Guru that diverts any solar discussion to Nuclear in general, and Hinkley in particular.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z,
Unfortunately that is not the case in this thread and any other thread where solar PV is being discussed. Any real or perceived criticism of solar and subsidies is met with a diversionary barrage of data on the cost of Nuclear.

It is usually The Guru that diverts any solar discussion to Nuclear in general, and Hinkley in particular.

Hi

To be fair, the discussions rarely mention nuclear unless someone pops their head above the parapet and stirs everything up with a glowing rod ....

In the vast majority of cases, discussions involving nuclear generation within the green & ethical board show relatively little bias against nuclear as an energy source, either on moral or technical grounds.

Granted, there's been much hype around safety aspects in the nuclear industry, but then again, there have been some pretty serious and high profile events which the industry cannot deny. However, the current issue with nuclear power's image within the UK it's one of the nuclear industry's own making - the inability to compete without artificial support.

With any other industry sector, costs fall relative to process experience (ie lessons learned) & economies of scale gained through volume related repetition ... however the nuclear industry seems to be heavily weighted with research boffins having an intent to continually reinvent the wheel .... in reality, who really cares if the reaction process is a couple of decimal points more efficient in a different shaped box when the cost of generation is so heavily weighted towards research, design, capital, maintenance, staffing and security, and waste handling as opposed to the marginal cost of fuel ...

I'm not opposed to nuclear, indeed, I'm fascinated by nuclear and the vision it once offered - however, I do believe that the industry begs for credence far beyond what history shows it has the right to expect ... in the UK's experience, in 60 years of nuclear generation, not a single watt has been generated without massive financial assistance and considering that the new generation of builds also need massive artificial support, isn't the logical conclusion one of economic incompetence in supporting a financially non-viable technology? ...

Successful industries have taught us that it is possible to build safer, better, more efficient and more desirable product and still reduce prices .... but yet we still tend to build nuclear on a bespoke basis - isn't this a valid point for the nuclear industry to take on board instead of holding the R&D,technology superiority and industrial cutting edge begging cap in hand ?

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z,
Unfortunately that is not the case in this thread and any other thread where solar PV is being discussed. Any real or perceived criticism of solar and subsidies is met with a diversionary barrage of data on the cost of Nuclear.

It is usually The Guru that diverts any solar discussion to Nuclear in general, and Hinkley in particular.

Sorry Cardew but that excuse doesn't work. Your principle criticism of PV (and RE) is subsidy based. Since we have to move away from FF's (which are subsidised via externalities), then the choice is RE or nuclear (or both).

Since you support nuclear, which needs subsidies, then your 1,000's of attempts to attack PV and RE on a subsidy basis are void.

Since you we were aware of this, and spent approx 5yrs trying to hide the fact that you supported nuclear, and your alternative to RE (with subsidies) was nuclear (with subsidies) I came to the conclusion that you are a troll - because you are using half arguments / spin.

Look at your new thread, you complain about subsidies for RE, but caveat the post with a statement that we shouldn't consider nuclear, so your arguments are all the same:-

2 + 2 = 2 (if we ignore one of the 2's)

but rational folk don't ignore one of the 2's, only trolls do that, as is plain when you see how CP on the Guardian fills all the pro-renewable discussions with anti-RE spin, and follows me around trying to create arguments, and spread false negativity.

So, if you have a non-nuclear solution to the problem of CO2 then go for it, but endlessly attacking one subsidy, a subsidy that has been incredibly successful, whilst secretly supporting another subsidy is pure hypocrisy.

Nicolai_Grenovski

Correct, but your example doesn't reflect the opinion(s) of the NAO, who have steadily reduced the expected future market price, and have therefore revised upwards the subsidy for HPC from £6bn (2012) to £30bn (2016) to £50bn (2017), since they are now suggesting a future market price of about £50/MWh.

Therefore:- £92.50 less £50(your wholesale) is 42.50 per MWh of subsidy.

With a load factor of 92% that is a subsidy of £38bn in 35 years then 25-30 years at zero subsidy market rate.

Yes this will affect renewables too, but PV and on-shore wind are heading for £50 already (as you are well aware), and off-shore wind will go sub HPC in auctions this year, and is still falling fast, with expectations of £70-£80 by the end of the 2020's when HPC will start at £100/MWh but for 35yrs not the 15yrs of RE.

Why are you pricing HPC at £100 if all prices are referenced to 2012?

I Googled CFD pricing and according to your government offshore wind costs £158/MWh
No doubt this will fall strongly but that is a long way.
Where is your 70-80/MWh offshore wind price from -that's 55% less!

Nicolai_Grenovski

That is a dishonest post.

New nuclear can load follow, down to 60% output, but will it?

I object to your tone.

You said that nuclear cannot load follow - I said that it can and you reveal that you already knew this - but call me dishonest for pointing it out.

As to "will it" - in Germany it is routine for the Grid to turn down or off HVoltage grid connected wind plants when surplus power is not required.
The same with gas plants - asked to throttle up OR down based on need - the operator is compensated for lost projected revenue.
The UK must operate the same way or else the grid would collapse and businesses would bankrupt as their electricity prices go negative (not a good thing incidentally).


So the nuclear (in your example) replaces gas flexibility and provides baseload and virtualised storage for renewables at effectively zero carbon.

Yes it costs, but it also saves the enormous cost (and carbon) of large scale storage and gas.

Edit: Just to say, you've popped in another nuclear con/trick. You said that nuclear at mean winter minimum would be running at 100%. But only if they are given priority over the RE generation that has been built prior to the nuclear generation.

So your argument is - nuclear can run at 100% if we curtail all of the pre-existing and cheaper RE generation.

Nuclear con?? - I do not understand - your anger is silly it does not even follow.

Nuclear in the UK is not close to covering minimum demand and definitely not winter minimum.

And wind/solar can be cut as has already been covered - and who knows what will be in future contracts when existing 15 year ones expire.
Make something up if you want, but that does not impinge on the reality.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Therefore:- £92.50 less £50(your wholesale) is 42.50 per MWh of subsidy.

With a load factor of 92% that is a subsidy of £38bn in 35 years then 25-30 years at zero subsidy market rate.

Why are you pricing HPC at £100 if all prices are referenced to 2012?

But all pricing isn't referenced to 2012.

The £50bn estimate relates to 2016/17 pricing, with the NAO suggesting wholesale prices of £45/MWh (see page 39). I've used £100 for HPC as it's a nice round number, but I believe the 2016 price was approx £97/MWh.

So using your figures and replacing £42.50/MWh with £52/MWh gives us (£38bn/42.5) x 52 = £46bn, in line with the £50bn I quoted quite deliberately as it comes from the Torygraph, usually an RE basher and nuclear supporter:

Hinkley Point’s cost to consumers surges to £50bn

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

I Googled CFD pricing and according to your government offshore wind costs £158/MWh
No doubt this will fall strongly but that is a long way.
Where is your 70-80/MWh offshore wind price from -that's 55% less!

It's already fallen strongly, EA3 has just been granted planning permission and that's on at £130/MWh (issued at £119), and Neart na Gaoithe is at £123.

Where is my £70-£80/MWh from, from common sense of course:-

1. The news has been full of rumours that this year's CfD auctions will give us sub HPC prices (based on 2012 £92.50 or 2017 £97) since last year.
2. The governmnet has set an auction bid cap of £85/MWh for off-shore wind for delivery in 2026.
3. The industry is suggesting even lower rates may be possible.

U.K. May Get Subsidy-Free Power From Offshore Wind Farms

The amount of subsidy paid is the difference between the wholesale price of energy and the investment required to make a return on a renewable energy plant. To match Denmark, the Netherlands and excluding grid costs, the U.K. would need to see bids from 60 pounds to 69 pounds a megawatt-hour, said RenewableUK.

“For it to be shockingly cheap in the way that Denmark and the German auction have been, a price in the 60s would be amazing,” said Emma Pinchbeck, executive director of RenewableUK. “My personal view is that a price in the 70s is not unlikley.”

So £70-£80/MWh contracts sound entirely reasonable for delivery in the late 2020's based on what we are seeing today, wouldn't you say?

In contrast, nuclear is experiencing problems with HPC delays and cost increases already, which doesn't bode well for future prices falling. And the oft touted 'cheaper' solution of Westinghouse reactors looks unlikely given that they've filed chapter 11 in the US as they can't compete economically.

Hope this helps, and I hope you don't mind my supporting all of my statements with references, otherwise we'll be living in the past, and using old RE costs to try to make nuclear look better, well ..... less worse, and in a world where RE costs are falling so, so fast, the last thing anyone wants to do is refer to old rates as that's just a spin doctor trick.