Solar ... In the news

michaels

1) Could it be that the reduction in the price of alternative generation (including renwables) is behind the NAOs new calculation on the size of the HPC CfD payments?

2) What level of backup generation capacity is required if HPC and a fleet of similar reactors provide a big chunk of UK power? Sure the plan would be for summertime downtime but nuclear downtime may also happen for unplanned reasons and if for example it is due to the identification of a generic fault with the HPC design then potentially the whole fleet could be off line simultaneously during the winter so the UK should plan to have spare capacity to deal with this eventuality. (Agreed this backup capacity is likely to be used much less than the backup for RE so is less carbonful but nonetheless it is required even if it is never used)

lstar337

Can we move this into another thread and keep this for news?

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

1) Could it be that the reduction in the price of alternative generation (including renwables) is behind the NAOs new calculation on the size of the HPC CfD payments?

2) What level of backup generation capacity is required if HPC and a fleet of similar reactors provide a big chunk of UK power? Sure the plan would be for summertime downtime but nuclear downtime may also happen for unplanned reasons and if for example it is due to the identification of a generic fault with the HPC design then potentially the whole fleet could be off line simultaneously during the winter so the UK should plan to have spare capacity to deal with this eventuality. (Agreed this backup capacity is likely to be used much less than the backup for RE so is less carbonful but nonetheless it is required even if it is never used)

The NAO have been reducing the cost of future leccy mainly as gas prices have fallen, and estimates of worldwide demand for FF's has been reduced, which results in predictions of lower costs.

Also RE is getting cheaper faster than expected and RE reduces the average wholesale rate, as explained here:

Net cost of renewable subsidies nearly two-thirds less than LCF states, claims Good Energy report

I suspect renewables falling out of subsidy (end of 15yr deals) but lasting longer than expected is a plus too. I thought off-shore wind was 'only' good for 20yrs, but apparently 25-30yrs can be expected with proper maintenance, and PV is outlasting estimates, prompting a German report to suggest we may be installing 50yr PV today, but we won't know for 30-40yrs when we find out how it's doing.

Ironically, nuclear also needs back up because the individual units generate so much! If you lost HPC or just one of the reactors without warning you are down 1.6GW to 3.2GW, which is why back up capacity is needed.

I'm afraid I can't find it now, but there was an article a few years back which I recall had a lifetime estimate for HPC of $12bn for back up costs, it stuck in my mind, because I wasn't sure why it was in dollars.

Martyn1981

Belgium’s IMEC Nails Coal-Killing Perovskite Solar Cell Record With 23.9% Efficiency

Extracts:

A new perovskite solar cell from Belgium’s IMEC research hub logs a conversion efficiency of 23.9%, which according to IMEC beats conventional silicon solar cells at their own game. The news is yet another indication that the cost of solar power still has a long way to go before it hits bottom.

Perovskites are also incredibly cheap compared to silicon, and they are compatible with high volume, low cost manufacturing processes.

Even without perovskites, the cost of solar power is already competitive with fossil fuels in some markets. If and when perovskites break through commercially, costs will drop even further.

IMEC explains why the perovskite-silicon combo is so attractive:

…perovskite solar cells or modules may also be used to boost standard silicon (Si) solar technology when engineered to absorb a spectral range that is complementary to the optical range of silicon cells. By stacking the perovskite solar cells or modules on top of Si solar cells, power conversion efficiencies above 30 percent can potentially be achieved, thereby surpassing the efficiencies of the best single junction Si solar cells.

If all goes according to plan, it looks like the US Energy Department will reach its goal of sinking the cost of solar power down to the range of 2-3 cents per kilowatt hour by 2030.

silverwhistle

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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

Er.. no. Hinkley is the latest model still to be successfully commissioned anywhere, of an industry that has had the benefit of 60 years of peacetime research (and previous military input).

Compare and contrast that long history with PV and wind, the former a particular interest of this thread you have bounced into (thanks Z). I have a fairly cursory interest here, as someone with solar panels and a former regional electricity company employee, and rely on Martyn for figures and links, but even I know that the £128MW you quoted for wind has been surpassed with ease.

HPC will also need back-up, and its failure or withdrawal for maintenance would be more critical than the odd wind turbine requiring withdrawal from service.

So perhaps your concerns about nuclear could be taken to another thread as this one is clearly entitled "Solar. In the News". Your posts, unlike Cardew's, at least had a degree of argued content, but possibly would be better posted elsewhere. Ta.

Nicolai_Grenovski

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.

An interesting argument to make coupled with your revealing refusal to give a price for renewables+storage.
I just looked up your NAO report and it says " Since 2012, the Department has revised downwards its projections of future wholesale electricity prices, mainly because of a global reduction in the prices of fossil-fuels.."
But since these data were assessed you voted to leave the EU and the pound is 30 percent weaker against the U$D - the currency you buy your imported gas and oil in.

Your decision to Brexit and the weak pound is something your NAO did not factor in.

If you cancel nuclear as we did in Germany and replace it with gas instead of coal as we are doing plus offshore wind at or more than the price of HPC, plus the cost of storage then your wholesale price will rise above its projected pre Brexit £50/MWh.
Prices are already riseing are they not.

Exiled_Tyke

I've an idea. Since this thread is titled 'Solar in the News' can we ban all discussion of Nuclear. If anyone wants a discussion on Nuclear could you have your own thread for it please?

Nicolai_Grenovski

Compare and contrast (nuclear reactors) that long history with PV and wind,

okay - the solar pv was invented in 1839 (first cell produced in 1941) and the wind mill was about 200 years BC and the first electric wind turbine was in 1880, 41 years after pv was invented.

To the limits of my knowledge these were always peacetime use, not Pu manufacturing spinoff from a dedicated weapons programme.

Point of interest: Were it not for the weaponisation we would probably have started with Thorium for power as it requires no isotope processing but it is useless for bombs so we went with Uranium, Plutonium and lots of centrifuges+breeder reactors.

Nicolai_Grenovski

I've an idea. Since this thread is titled 'Solar in the News' can we ban all discussion of Nuclear. If anyone wants a discussion on Nuclear could you have your own thread for it please?

True - but if nuclear (specifically Hinkley Point C) is the reference point that people are using then this will persist, especially as people are inventing arguments against nuclear to make solar appear better.

I work for a German commercial solar farming pv company - solar has its strengths, even at the latitude of Germany/UK - but the benefits are being exaggerated by 'fans' and the false comparisons do the renewables industry no more good than MMR anti vaxxers help promote the treatment of autism..



If you ban all talk of nuclear then that leaves comparing solar with other renewables that have the same attributes - which is certainly fairer and more relevant, but I do not think the others will agree to that.
After all, it is they who use it as their benchmark.

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

An interesting argument to make coupled with your revealing refusal to give a price for renewables+storage.
I just looked up your NAO report and it says " Since 2012, the Department has revised downwards its projections of future wholesale electricity prices, mainly because of a global reduction in the prices of fossil-fuels.."
But since these data were assessed you voted to leave the EU and the pound is 30 percent weaker against the U$D - the currency you buy your imported gas and oil in.

Your decision to Brexit and the weak pound is something your NAO did not factor in.

If you cancel nuclear as we did in Germany and replace it with gas instead of coal as we are doing plus offshore wind at or more than the price of HPC, plus the cost of storage then your wholesale price will rise above its projected pre Brexit £50/MWh.
Prices are already riseing are they not.

So many errors it doesn't even deserve comment ... anyway, in agreement with a number of other posters, I'll ask again ... please take your misplaced logic, de-contextualised commentary and pro-nuclear blinkered zealotism to another thread ....

Thank you
Z