Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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
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/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 !!!8211; 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.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.

Hiya.The CfD for HPC is now £97/MWh, please see my reference, and confirmed by yours. It was issued at £92.50 in 2012, and I understand will be discounted (in 2012 monies to £89.50 if SC is built too).

As the EPR appears to be a 'dog', a very complicated and expensive 'dog', I doubt any more after SC will be built, assuming we also build SC.

I'm not sure why you say there is no LV grid in the UK. The transmission network managed by the National Grid is known as the HV grid, and the distribution network managed by the UK DNO's is known as the LV grid.

I note you now say that the UK might not have a HV connected PV farm, yet earlier you said they were all connected as such. Could you confirm which it is now?


I believe you are wrong that a sub £50/MWh solar farm would not receive subsidy. There is a strong argument (I believe) for a 'net subsidy free' CfD for PV (and on-shore wind). This would effectively establish a guaranteed price allowing the developers to raise capital. In the early years the PV farm would probably receive subsidies as it sells at wholesale prices below the strike price, then in later years return those subsidies as it sells at prices above the strike price. This would allow the UK to deploy more renewables now, whilst maintaining the subsidy pot (net). This report is now a little dated but explains the idea for on-shore wind.

An analysis of the potential outcome of a further !!!8216;Pot 1!!!8217; CfD auction in GB

You are right that coal generation is scheduled to end in 2025, but I don't believe that HPC will be operational till around 2027 or later, EDF announced it was 18 months behind schedule shortly after work commenced.

EDF/HPC won't supply 3.2GW, it will be about 2.944GW after taking capacity factor into account. Whilst this will displace 2.944GW of gas generation, we could have an average 14.72GW* of generation from off-shore wind for the same annual subsidy, and only need to pay that for 15yrs, not the 35yrs that HPC will get.

Since combating AGW and displacing CO2 is a 'race' it's also important to point out that the latest off-shore wind contracts are for 2023 commissioning.

*This is based on the approx figures of £60/MWh for off-shore wind in the latest auction, approx £100/MWh for nuclear in the latest auction, and approx £50/MWh wholesale price in the latest NAO HPC report. So each nuclear MWh gets approx £50/MWh subsidy, whilst off-shore wind will get £10/MWh.

I should point out that I'm in no way fighting FF displacement as you are suggesting, in fact quite the opposite, I'd like to see as much displaced, as soon as possible, for the lowest cost, and it seems to me that building five times as much generation from wind, and delivering it 4yrs earlier, is a better option. Wouldn't you agree?

Martyn1981

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.

Hiya, your link is to the HV grid, and as explained earlier (and multiple times before), my understanding is that PV in the UK is deployed on the LV grid. That's why I've been questioning your 25%-35% additional costs from the start.

Rather than linking to a National Grid site, could you provide a specific link to the cost of PV and transmission costs?

In your earlier post you mentioned the giant Kent subsidy free PV farm that is under initial consideration. My understanding is that the site has been chosen to piggy back off the off-shore wind HV grid connection, thereby saving considerably on the cost of building out the HV grid, as it has already been done.


Hopefully you can now see why I have trouble understanding your claims, as they don't appear to match the facts, and the lack of supporting reference doesn't help either.

My position remains the same, wind and PV can now be built at far lower costs than nuclear, and far faster. If nuclear can't remedy this, then I'm not at all surprised that it has begun to falter.

We have also not reached the bottom yet regarding wind and PV prices, they continue to fall, fast. These forms of generation are pretty much technology based, not fuel based, so are subject to falling costs over time, as production costs and production scales come to bear (Swanson's Law). I believe that technology costs falling over time have been well proven now, and this has happened in every single case for decades ........ apart from nuclear!

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nuclear is low carbon and less polluting than coal,

KoffKoff, what about the waste material and if something like Chernobyl were to happen at HPC with a wind heading northish?

One doesn't get this sort of problem with wind or sun "spill."

lstar337

NigeWick wrote: »

KoffKoff, what about the waste material and if something like Chernobyl were to happen at HPC with a wind heading northish?

Not very likely. The plant design at Chernobyl was simply terrible, and the Japanese were warned countless times about the issues with the plants used at Fukushima (before that gets brought up).

The HPC plant is 3rd generation and includes both active and passive safety systems. The cooling system has a 300% redundancy level.

Not saying never, but I don't live far from it and I'm not that bothered.

Martyn1981

NigeWick wrote: »

KoffKoff, what about the waste material and if something like Chernobyl were to happen at HPC with a wind heading northish?

One doesn't get this sort of problem with wind or sun "spill."

The fact that there's any risk makes it harder to explain why the UK wants to take longer, to pay more, for nuclear generation, when we could do more, sooner and for less money.

Regarding safety, that is, as I understand it, why nuclear has gotten more expensive over time, and why it may* now be becoming uneconomical.

*As far as the EPR being rolled out by EDF in Finland, Flamanville and Hinkley is concerned, I think the word 'may' is being over-polite. The recent mid build cancellations in the US were due to the realisation that the leccy would be uneconomical on completion.

Nicolai_Grenovski

Hiya, your link is to the HV grid, and as explained earlier (and multiple times before), my understanding is that PV in the UK is deployed on the LV grid. That's why I've been questioning your 25%-35% additional costs from the start.

Why are you continuing to claim that there's an "LV Grid" - when no such thing exists?
There is (1) the Transmission grid and there's (2) the distribution side (which is not a grid)
Why are you insisting otherwise?

As to costs, you've gone from accepting that there are transmission costs paid by all generators - to now apparently claiming that "all generators" somehow excludes solar pv.

Do you have a source for that exemption? - because it's a bit much that you demand that I research your own country's power infrastructure and contracts for you, especially if you're going to disregard everything you have been informed of.

Nicolai_Grenovski

KoffKoff, what about the waste material and if something like Chernobyl were to happen at HPC with a wind heading northish?

My understanding of the EPR is that it has double protection layers - Chernobyl had none.
So even were Hinkley a mismanaged 1950s Graphite reactor the fire and relatively small explosion would have been completely contained, set off the alarms and shut it down - nothing else.

Nicolai_Grenovski

The fact that there's any risk makes it harder to explain why the UK wants to take longer, to pay more, for nuclear generation, when we could do more, sooner and for less money.

Is that true Martyn?

Surely the new price from EDF (£70/MWh) was below the new £75/MWh prices for offshore wind?
And there are a number of nuclear projects around the world (such as UAE) reported in Energy press, that seem to be delivering in 5-7 years. UAE is a country with no experience or history of the technology but with huge solar potential.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/united-arab-emirates.aspx

But their new CSP (the world’s largest Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) project) is very exiting at up to 5GW by 2030

So by comparison, the new nuclear plant build quite fast for the quantity and QoS - there are not many wind/solar(and network balancing) projects that could deliver that much power (5.6GWe) at that speed.

Things such as delivering a guaranteed supply are not simple - In Germany in the face of a lot of criticism from the scientific coimunity we have had to open several coal plants at the same time as deploying renewables - Even though German solar is now over 6% of supply.
You need to consider tat power grids do not work on averages - they have to be finely balanced all the time.

Nicolai_Grenovski

*As far as the EPR being rolled out by EDF in Finland, Flamanville and Hinkley is concerned, I think the word 'may' is being over-polite. The recent mid build cancellations in the US were due to the realisation that the leccy would be uneconomical on completion.

uneconomical because of cheap 'fracked' gas.
I definitely wouldn't put gas above renewables or nuclear in desirability!

We are attacking climate change, not nuclear.

silverwhistle

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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

Do you believe such claims? One thing I've noted over the years are the cost over-runs for military procurement, government IT projects and nuclear. The current development examples at Flamanville and in Finland do not encourage optimism.

With solar and wind there is a visible decline in costs and competition in the market.

Ignoring China, nuclear developments around the world are declining. Politically I don't think a Chinese turn-key nuclear solution would work for the UK. They've recently had to replace all the Chinese security cameras in Portsmouth Naval Dockyard as they had back-doors in them, and a nuclear solution would require more trust than that small example inspires..