Solar ... In the news

Nicolai_Grenovski

1. PV is usually (possibly always?) connected to the LV grid, not the HV grid,

What's an LV grid?
I have never heard of such a thing - if you mean the distribution side as opposed to the transmission grid then no.
As it happens large solar farms can be and are connected to transmission side as an economy to provide STATCON (Static synchronous compensator) services overnight when there's no output.
It's one method along with colocated frequency services on how to make the solar farm profitable.

Just a thought, but perhaps you should read up on this stuff or even try on the basic terminology before selling yourself as an expert.

If UK costs are +35%, then we could take the 2015 £80/MWh price, strip out the infrastructure costs you suggest of +35% = £59/MWh, deduct the German savings of £43 = £16/MWh, then add back on 35% = £21.60/MWh .... but I'm not sure that sounds at all reasonable, so perhaps we'll skip this calculation.

Again, it would be better if you researched it instead of adding multiple guesses together and expecting a cogent answer.

I've no idea if your cheap old panel suggestion is true or not,

Do you really think everyone uses the latest cell technology and the billions spend getting us here and warehouse contents were dumped in landfill?

There's all sorts of trade, tax writeoffs and system optimisation taking place -


I look forward to you telling me you knew that all along and it was a test or something.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

What's an LV grid?
I have never heard of such a thing - if you mean the distribution side as opposed to the transmission grid then no.
As it happens large solar farms can be and are connected to transmission side as an economy to provide STATCON (Static synchronous compensator) services overnight when there's no output.
It's one method along with colocated frequency services on how to make the solar farm profitable.

Hiya. The UK Grid, let's call it the nation's grid, is split into two, the HV side (high voltage), run by The National Grid, and the LV side (low voltage) administered by the DNO's.

As far as I'm aware, UK PV is connected to the LV side, but as I said before, I'd be very interested to read otherwise if you could please provide a link. Thanks.

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Just a thought, but perhaps you should read up on this stuff or even try on the basic terminology before selling yourself as an expert.

There's really no need to get so abusive all the time. I am certainly no expert, not at all, and would never suggest I was, nor sell myself as such. I simply read up on the subjects and pass on what I learn with examples and links, as per my reply to yourself.

If that information is not correct, then as expressed in this post and the previous one, a link, reference, article etc would be greatly appreciated.

It's worth getting this information correct, or we will have a situation similar to a few months ago when you were posting the wrong rules and voltage information on here for the UK, which could have led to issues if new PV'ers had followed it.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Just a short note to anyone reading this and considering a PV install in the UK, please be careful the advice is not correct.

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Again, it would be better if you researched it instead of adding multiple guesses together and expecting a cogent answer.

I'm sorry my multiple guesses have offended you so. I was simply trying to answer your statements as fully as possible by chasing down each potential avenue.

I thought that using references, and applying your claims would give us some actual/potential costs, or at least a reasonable guess at a UK PV farm reference price, rather than just an open ended claim that German prices could not be used, full stop.

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Do you really think everyone uses the latest cell technology and the billions spend getting us here and warehouse contents were dumped in landfill?

TBH I wouldn't know, I'm no expert. However I'd have thought that much older panels would have been deployed by now, and of course panel costs only represent a percentage of the PV farms costs, approx 50% I believe?

I'm not sure what the reference to landfill is about, I thought we were talking about PV, and I can't see how that fits into anything either of us have posted, but again, a link or reference would be appreciate, as I'm always keen to learn more.

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

There's all sorts of trade, tax writeoffs and system optimisation taking place -

Most certainly, but again I have to apologise, as not being an expert, I'm not sure what you are now talking about, nor why?

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

I look forward to you telling me you knew that all along and it was a test or something.

Again, there's really no need for this kind of attitude, I was simply trying to provide you with information, numbers, links and references, as your post yesterday was lacking any supporting information.


Perhaps, the simplest step now is for you to support the 25-35% claim that you made for UK PV install costs? that way, using German costs as a basis, we can hopefully agree that UK PV is now around £50/MWh (if not less).

Simply for comparative purposes, that would put it:

at roughly half the cost of HPC (Hinkley Point C nuclear power station).

at roughly zero subsidy, v's £50/MWh subsidy for HPC based on NAO estimates of future UK wholesale costs in the 2020's (please see page 39).

on a subsidy term (net subsidy zero hopefully) of 15yrs, rather than the 35yrs for HPC.

able to be built and generating within 6-12 months, v's approx 10 more years for HPC.

Thanks again for the comments, I hope I've tried to answer them as fully as I'm able, and look forward to your supporting information.

Nicolai_Grenovski

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Perhaps, the simplest step now is for you to support the 25-35% claim that you made for UK PV install costs? that way, using German costs as a basis, we can hopefully agree that UK PV is now around £50/MWh (if not less).
.

You have already acknowledged that you are familiar with UK transmission costs which (unlike elsewhere) are included in the auction price.
What is more, you and I have had this conversation before -it ended with you calling me "stupid" because my 20+ years of experience in the sector didn't match what you believed about it or correspond with your negative views on nuclear power which seems inordinately more important to you.
It's almost as if you're a loyal football supporter describing two teams.

n.b. I'm German, writing in Germany and you're asking me how your system works -
Okay, here's how your (British) system charges are attributed to ALL generators.
Transmission network use of system (TNUoS) charges plus Balancing services use of system (BSUoS) charges.
What proportion of a solar farms' (etc) production is Transmission cost is a variable charged per MWh dependent upon location, connected infrastructure, transmission grid or local distribution (non grid) extension/metering and is commercially sensitive as it would reveal operating margin - hence why it isn't published.

Other factors affecting final pricing are land costs, permitting and not just insolation, but actual hours of sunshine -
As many sites suppliers found to their cost, it is a little known fact that high efficiency cells are only cost effective in strong sunlight - it is cheaper to use lower efficiency cells for cloudy locations - it is one of the main reasons for the difference between real results and solar modelling programs such as PVGIS.

we can hopefully agree that UK PV is now around £50/MWh (if not less).

Not with transmission costs and Insolation!
We have just finished a solar farm near Paris - it has nearly 1kwh/m² higher insolation than London - that makes it far cheaper than the UK but if we priced it at €56 we would lose money.

But even if we ignored all the negatives and had guaranteed lifetime pricing, I don't see how we could do UK for €56 unless we had access to free/cheap land, had a local substation with spare line capacity for >5MW and we also provided frequency or STATCON services to offset our operating costs.

Basically a transmission/distribution frequency/STATCON site with added solar farm as a cost mitigator rather than a solar farm by its own right.

We would also need about Euros2-3million of cash (not financed/borrowed) that we could lose before gaining a return on investment over +/5 years time.
And that's with a state guaranteed promise to buy every Watt we produced and we could site the farm in the sunniest part of the UK (Sussex or Devon apparently).

A lot of things would have to be free or 'just right' and we would have to forego profit and run a substantial loss for several years - it isn't realistic.

That sort of project wouldn't bankrupt us, but it would stop us developing further sites.

If installing sites to provide solar at wholesale prices in the UK were possible then we would be there doing it.
The UK is expensive, cloudy(dark), inappropriate for high efficiency panels (Return of Investment) and has high land pricing around distribution hubs where we would want to place them.

Nicolai_Grenovski

Simply for comparative purposes, that would put it:

at roughly half the cost of HPC (Hinkley Point C nuclear power station).

More than half of a figure that is almost certainly not possible (for now) - but yes that particular NPP is very expensive with huge finance costs - but surely it is a one off which is not a good basis for a comparative benchmark - what is the UK average discount rated cost of nuclear? -
Also; I see EDF are saying the next one will be 20% cheaper and others cheaper after that.
I really don't think it aids the discussion to be so selective.

These are different technologies so if you want to compare technologies then why not employ a more scientific (useful/informative) approach? - such as comparison by (in any order):
Load factor,
Carbon Footprint
System availability (and Seasonal availability!) %
Supplemental (external technology) costs.


All infinitely more relevant than a blunt comparison by an averaged cost/MWh.

With respect it seems to me you're letting your views on one influence (or justify?) your views on another unrelated industry.

Solar is doing well (we were 6.1% of German supply last year!) - but Solar is not in direct competition with nuclear or even wind (to which it is more similar)

Solar is not 'better' because of nuclear, it is 'better' because it is low emissions and soon, I hope, a commercial building material necessity every bit as ubiquitous as insulation on domestic homes.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

You have already acknowledged that you are familiar with UK transmission costs which (unlike elsewhere) are included in the auction price.
What is more, you and I have had this conversation before -it ended with you calling me "stupid" because my 20+ years of experience in the sector didn't match what you believed about it or correspond with your negative views on nuclear power which seems inordinately more important to you.
It's almost as if you're a loyal football supporter describing two teams.

n.b. I'm German, writing in Germany and you're asking me how your system works -
Okay, here's how your (British) system charges are attributed to ALL generators.
Transmission network use of system (TNUoS) charges plus Balancing services use of system (BSUoS) charges.
What proportion of a solar farms' (etc) production is Transmission cost is a variable charged per MWh dependent upon location, connected infrastructure, transmission grid or local distribution (non grid) extension/metering and is commercially sensitive as it would reveal operating margin - hence why it isn't published.

Other factors affecting final pricing are land costs, permitting and not just insolation, but actual hours of sunshine -
As many sites suppliers found to their cost, it is a little known fact that high efficiency cells are only cost effective in strong sunlight - it is cheaper to use lower efficiency cells for cloudy locations - it is one of the main reasons for the difference between real results and solar modelling programs such as PVGIS.Not with transmission costs and Insolation!
We have just finished a solar farm near Paris - it has nearly 1kwh/m² higher insolation than London - that makes it far cheaper than the UK but if we priced it at €56 we would lose money.

But even if we ignored all the negatives and had guaranteed lifetime pricing, I don't see how we could do UK for €56 unless we had access to free/cheap land, had a local substation with spare line capacity for >5MW and we also provided frequency or STATCON services to offset our operating costs.

Basically a transmission/distribution frequency/STATCON site with added solar farm as a cost mitigator rather than a solar farm by its own right.

We would also need about Euros2-3million of cash (not financed/borrowed) that we could lose before gaining a return on investment over +/5 years time.
And that's with a state guaranteed promise to buy every Watt we produced and we could site the farm in the sunniest part of the UK (Sussex or Devon apparently).

A lot of things would have to be free or 'just right' and we would have to forego profit and run a substantial loss for several years - it isn't realistic.

That sort of project wouldn't bankrupt us, but it would stop us developing further sites.

If installing sites to provide solar at wholesale prices in the UK were possible then we would be there doing it.
The UK is expensive, cloudy(dark), inappropriate for high efficiency panels (Return of Investment) and has high land pricing around distribution hubs where we would want to place them.

Hiya. Just to repeat, the latest German auction price is Euro43.30/MWh. I've previously referenced it.

UK utility scale PV appears to be slightly cheaper than German costs. I've previously referenced it. I would add that that article seems to cover all of the extra costs that you have listed.

I've mentioned, that as far as I'm aware, UK PV is connected to the LV grid, not the HV grid.

I've acknowledged that I've heard figures being suggested that off-shore wind (and some on-shore wind) connected to the HV grid may need approx 30% added to their costs to make them comparable to German schemes - but that I'd appreciate a link confirming this as you didn't provide one. [Slight digression, but that would explain why the latest UK off-shore wind CfD auction came in at £57.50/MWh, whereas Germany is agreeing some subsidy free contracts, as are the Dutch for shallower water, near shore deployments.]

You've stated that UK PV is connected to the HV grid, and I have asked you for a link, but as yet one has not been forthcoming.

So at this point in time I don't know whether your claims are fair or not.

However, even if you are correct (and I don't believe that to be the case) and UK PV is connected to the HV grid and incurs 25%-35% more costs, then as calculated earlier, based on German costs (comparable in both deployment costs and annual generation) then that would make UK PV about £50/MWh, which is an excellent figure.

Obviously PV costs are still falling, and the MIP should end in a year or two, so costs will hopefully fall far further in the next decade.


If you can provide supporting information to confirm your claims, then we can probably settle on the excellent figure of £50/MWh. If not, then it should be even less.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

More than half of a figure that is almost certainly not possible (for now) - but yes that particular NPP is very expensive with huge finance costs - but surely it is a one off which is not a good basis for a comparative benchmark - what is the UK average discount rated cost of nuclear? -
Also; I see EDF are saying the next one will be 20% cheaper and others cheaper after that.
I really don't think it aids the discussion to be so selective.

These are different technologies so if you want to compare technologies then why not employ a more scientific (useful/informative) approach? - such as comparison by (in any order):
Load factor,
Carbon Footprint
System availability (and Seasonal availability!) %
Supplemental (external technology) costs.


All infinitely more relevant than a blunt comparison by an averaged cost/MWh.

With respect it seems to me you're letting your views on one influence (or justify?) your views on another unrelated industry.

Solar is doing well (we were 6.1% of German supply last year!) - but Solar is not in direct competition with nuclear or even wind (to which it is more similar)

Solar is not 'better' because of nuclear, it is 'better' because it is low emissions and soon, I hope, a commercial building material necessity every bit as ubiquitous as insulation on domestic homes.

Hiya. Unfortunately, the only nuclear price I have to go on is the one issued for HPC at £92.50/MWh (2012 pricing). I understand that a 3.24% discount will be applied if SC (Sizewell C gets permission too).

The EPR is not a one off, as reactors have been under construction in Finland and Flamanville for years.


Regarding cost comparisons, I see no issue with comparing RE to nuclear. Nuclear is low carbon and less polluting than coal, so, so long as it displaces coal pollution, and CO2 (economically) then we should have some.

However, coal will be gone long before any new nuclear begins to generate in the UK, and at this point in time, with on-shore wind, PV and off-shore wind costs at approx £40, £50 & £60 per MWh (respectively), it does not seem financially prudent to rollout nuclear at approx £97/MWh (2018 pricing).


You state that solar is not in direct competition with nuclear, however that is not true. The UK gov has stated that after the upcoming off-shore auction, no new CfD contracts for RE will be issued until 2025 or later, as the subsidy pot will be fully utilised. So subsidies for each technology impact the amount available for others.

The HPC subsidy of approx £50/MWh for 35yrs actually represents a deployment of off-shore wind equal to 5 times as much generation, since that only needs £10/MWh subsidy now. And that's before acknowledging that the RE contracts are for 15yrs, whilst the HPC subsidy is for 35yrs. It's also before acknowledging that nuclear generation has received vast amounts of subsidies all over the world for 60yrs, whereas RE has only had large scale financial support for about 10yrs, and yet even PV, in the grey UK, is now half the cost per MWh.

I hope this helps you put the various issues and costs into context.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

What proportion of a solar farms' (etc) production is Transmission cost is a variable charged per MWh dependent upon location, connected infrastructure, transmission grid or local distribution (non grid) extension/metering and is commercially sensitive as it would reveal operating margin - hence why it isn't published.

I've just noticed something interesting, I see you are saying transmission costs, and TBF, you did say that at the start:

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Firstly, German prices do not include transmission costs -there is no direct equivalency to UK pricing-
You need to add in the region of 25-35% for the UK cost dependent upon multiple factors.

Now, when I've said I've also heard of approx 30% more for the UK, that was in relation to the cost of infrastructure work - literally building out the HV grid to meet the new 'power station', a cost that the development has to meet (part of its bid price).

But, if you are saying that we have to add 25%-35% onto the cost of UK RE generation to pay for the cost of transmitting the electricity, then I'm pretty sure that's not correct at all, and would suggest you have misunderstood the issue. However, I may be completely wrong, and that's why some referencing from yourself would be appreciated so that I can understand what it is, that you are talking about.

Thanks.

Nicolai_Grenovski

Hiya. Unfortunately, the only nuclear price I have to go on is the one issued for HPC at £92.50/MWh (2012 pricing). I understand that a 3.24% discount will be applied if SC (Sizewell C gets permission too).

The LCCC give a price of £89.50 and its widely reported that EDF say that Sizewell will be 20% cheaper which makes it closer to 70/MWh
As far as I can see there is no question of the UK not continuing with nuclear - and there are competitors for that, such as China, who may well drive that price down.

https://lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds/hinkley-point-c

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-42721057

I've mentioned, that as far as I'm aware, UK PV is connected to the LV grid, not the HV grid.

There is still no such thing as a LV grid in Germany or the UK
There is transmission (which is a grid)
Then there is distribution (which is not)

It is the reason why distribution connected generate
A grid is a specific thing, hence the given name of it.

Perhaps the UK does not have a Transmission grid connected pv farm (although it is getting one in Kent) - you only have to look out of your window after checking land pricing to see that the UK is not likely to ever be a 'go-to' destination for large scale solar investment.
That very much carries the point.

ref:
https://www.stark.co.uk/resources/news/quick-guide-to-duos-and-tnuos/

You state that solar is not in direct competition with nuclear, however that is not true. The UK gov has stated that after the upcoming off-shore auction, no new CfD contracts for RE will be issued until 2025 or later

But at sub-£50/MWh solar would not be a candidate for subsidy.
I know for a fact that Hive energy&WirSol are building one in Kent, potentially bigger than Cestas near Bordeaux (Gironde – France) - Hive's will be outside of UK subsidy regime.
So it isn't in contention with offshore wind or nuclear etc which still require subsidy.
So why not reference the cost of solar to the cost of onshore wind, also successfully below subsidy range? - they are considerably more alike in aspect.
No connection to nuclear at all.

However, coal will be gone long before any new nuclear begins to generate in the UK

The date for UK ending coal is 2025 - the same date that 3.2GW from your new nuclear power station is scheduled to start.
That's 3.2GW less (remaining) coal and the rest in gas.
You should welcome this - not fight it.

Nicolai_Grenovski

when I've said I've also heard of approx 30% more for the UK, that was in relation to the cost of infrastructure work - literally building out the HV grid to meet the new 'power station', a cost that the development has to meet (part of its bid price).

But, if you are saying that we have to add 25%-35% onto the cost of UK RE generation to pay for the cost of transmitting the electricity, then I'm pretty sure that's not correct at all,

This is not a capital cost to the generator, it is an operational cost per MWh of generated power that legally all generators supply - as per link I already supplied you with.
Transmission Network Use of System (TNUoS) charges recover the cost of installing and maintaining the transmission system in England, Wales, Scotland and Offshore. Generators are charged according to their TEC. Suppliers are charged based on their demand forecast.
https://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/electricity/charging-and-methodology/transmission-network-use-system-tnuos-charges

Someone has to pay for transmission, it isn't free.

So even after the CFD ends at 15, 30, 35 or 90 years, the generator will still have to pay it so long as they generate power.
n.b. I sat on a UK webinar last June where it was suggested that the UK government agree to remove this cost to the generator via a subsidy.

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

This is not a capital cost to the generator, it is an operational cost per MWh of generated power that legally all generators supply - as per link I already supplied you with.
Transmission Network Use of System (TNUoS) charges recover the cost of installing and maintaining the transmission system in England, Wales, Scotland and Offshore. Generators are charged according to their TEC. Suppliers are charged based on their demand forecast.
https://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/electricity/charging-and-methodology/transmission-network-use-system-tnuos-charges

Someone has to pay for transmission, it isn't free.

So even after the CFD ends at 15, 30, 35 or 90 years, the generator will still have to pay it so long as they generate power.
n.b. I sat on a UK webinar last June where it was suggested that the UK government agree to remove this cost to the generator via a subsidy.

Hi

Are you sure that interpretation is correct? ... the details in the link provided look more like a period based cost for connection/transmission based on connected capacity & load factor which is weighted according to where the generation is relative to demand.

If generation is located in an area where demand is low, the power needs to be 'transported' a long distance by National Grid to find a demand load therefore attracting a high charge & if generation is in (or close to) areas of higher population density there's a high discount, seemingly some areas even attracting a payment to encourage generation, presumably to relieve HV transmission load ... but it's not surprising that there's a form of grid shaping through such schemes, isn't that what distributed generation model is supposed to be doing?!

HTH
Z