Solar ... In the news

silverwhistle

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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?

I used to work for the ESI (electricity supply industry). It is a local 'grid'. There is redundancy built in, and if a substation goes down the local (DNO and not National Grid) distribution engineers will re-route supplies.

Nicolai_Grenovski

Do you believe such claims?

It doesn't matter what I believe.
They are global experts and I'm sure they wouldn't say it if it were not possible - there are many reactor types that are being deployed within budget.

No one in the energy sector would have believed the price falls in renewable energy over the last decade.

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..

Well the vast majority of the power converters, controllers and typing hardware I and our Danish partners buy for solar plant comes from China - with none of the security oversight that a NPP receives.


You have to consider what they'd use such a 'back door' for - it sounds like a cheap TV plot - if they used it or it was found out they would destroy their export market overnight - so only for time of war.
And I don't think we will go to war with China and I don't think they believe that either.

Nicolai_Grenovski

I used to work for the ESI (electricity supply industry). It is a local 'grid'. There is redundancy built in, and if a substation goes down the local (DNO and not National Grid) distribution engineers will re-route supplies.

Well I have 20+ years in the transmission networks and generation sector and I've never heard of a distribution network being called a "grid" topology by anyone other than people outside of the sector and those who think the "grid" runs into their house.
I think you are pushing a point beyond the realms of what is real.

A grid can move power back and forth under control - a distribution network cannot to that without significant reconfiguration.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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.

Hiya, sorry to be a pain, but it was you that introduced the 25%-35% extra cost. I explained that my understanding is that that applies to off-shore wind developments as they are connected to the HV network, and the grid literally has to be built out to them. As they (not The National Grid) have to cover this cost, which is not the case in Germany, it has the effect of bumping up the CfD bids and prices in the UK.

However, my understanding is that PV farms are connected to the low voltage network, and therefore whilst they will pay for connection, it's not the same as 'building out the grid' to an off-shore wind farm.

It is for you to prove the point, as you are the one that raised it, simple as that.

Perhaps you can have a listen to 'The Jeremy Vine Show' today on Radio 2 at the 1:46:30 mark when he spoke to the operational manager of UKPN, who referred to their work on the 'low voltage network'?

Radio 2.

I think the best way forward now, is for you to provide some proof/evidence that:

1. PV farms are connected to the HV grid, and
2. That PV farms incurr a 25%-35% cost penalty for this connection work.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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.

Could you please provide links to both the EDF £70/MWh figure you state, and the £75/MWh figure you give for off-shore wind, as I recall the latest auction delivered £57.50/MWh (2012 pricing) for the 2023 auction pot. Perhaps you were thinking of the 2022 pot, but if so, that's a bit misleading.

Regarding the speed of RE deployment, please note that HPC has been under discussion for about a decade, and may come on line in 2027, delivering 7% of our leccy. But during the last 10yrs (approx) RE leccy has grown from about 5% to about 30%, and as explained previously, for the same annual subsidy of HPC (but only 15/35ths the total) we could deploy five times as much off-shore wind generation, so around 35% of UK demand v's 7%, and sooner, much sooner.

Nicolai_Grenovski

Perhaps you can have a listen to 'The Jeremy Vine Show' today on Radio 2 at the 1:46:30 mark when he spoke to the operational manager of UKPN, who referred to their work on the 'low voltage network'?

Not a "grid" then?
220-240v is low voltage - but that is the last mile of delivery.
The local distribution between the grid station, substations and your local transformer are not low voltage.
The IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) ratings for voltage list high voltage
devices and lines as anything over 1,000 volts for AC circuits and 1,500 volts
for DC circuits while low voltage circuits are between 50 and 1,000 VAC or
120-1500 VDC.
Housing voltage (also known as main or line voltage) is typically between 100 and 250
VAC.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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.

Actually that's not true, in the US renewables are now going head to head with gas on generation costs, and gas prices will most likely rise now as the fracking boom is starting to falter. Solar and batteries are already beating out gas peaker plants

Solar Plus Batteries Beat Out Natural Gas In Two US Electricity Markets

If you look forward to 2023, then even with 4hrs of storage, costs of wind and solar generation are between $21 & $36 /MWh in a recent auction.

‘Incredible’ low prices for renewables-plus-storage in Xcel’s solicitation

If nuclear can't compete with gas (as you say) in the US, and RE is going cheaper than gas, then, as I explained earlier, nuclear becomes uneconomic.

You are probably also aware that existing reactors in the US are being shutdown early as they can't compete on cost.

So to address your last point, if we truly are 'attacking climate change', then we would do 'more damage' by deploying cheap RE today, rather than expensive nuclear tomorrow.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Well I have 20+ years in the transmission networks and generation sector and I've never heard of a distribution network being called a "grid" topology by anyone other than people outside of the sector and those who think the "grid" runs into their house.

And yet houses connected to the LV network are described as on-grid, and our PV inverters are called 'GTI's' - grid-tied inverters. Those households not connected to the LV 'grid' are called off-grid, are they not?

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Not a "grid" then?
220-240v is low voltage - but that is the last mile of delivery.
The local distribution between the grid station, substations and your local transformer are not low voltage.
The IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) ratings for voltage list high voltage
devices and lines as anything over 1,000 volts for AC circuits and 1,500 volts
for DC circuits while low voltage circuits are between 50 and 1,000 VAC or
120-1500 VDC.
Housing voltage (also known as main or line voltage) is typically between 100 and 250
VAC.

Higher, my DNO (Western Power Distribution) operate at 11,000 volts, it is the DNO's that I believe PV farms are connected to, but if you still disagree, please provide a link.

Nicolai_Grenovski

Could you please provide links to both the EDF £70/MWh figure you state, and the £75/MWh figure you give for off-shore wind, as I recall the latest auction delivered £57.50/MWh (2012 pricing) for the 2023 auction pot. Perhaps you were thinking of the 2022 pot, but if so, that's a bit misleading.

£70 is the price of Hinkley less 20% (as per EDF) in my earlier link - but I may have been unfair - the Times reports "A spokeswoman said that the optimised reactor would be between 25 per cent and 30 per cent cheaper than the existing version. It is scheduled to be available for use from 2030."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edf-promises-nuclear-reactors-cheaper-than-hinkley-points-9nvq0crlq
So I suppose it could be as low as £62.65/MWh
Any calculator will do.

Forgive me, I was also a bit out on offshore wind - the "£75/MWh" I said in the same allocation round as the £57,50 should have been £74,75/MWh as per the LCCC (all in 2012 prices apparently)
Obviously there's a lot of variation in offshore costs - the deeper and further out a wind farm the more it will cost to build and operate - so I don't think you can pick the cheapest, an extension to an existing site and the other in only 3m of water in 4 years time and say the price reflects all.
Or at least they do not say that.

Regarding the speed of RE deployment, please note that HPC has been under discussion for about a decade, and may come on line in 2027

Well HPC isn't all nuclear - I think it unfair to use a new type (EDF say 2025 delivery) as a benchmark.
UAE is going great guns and is on time on schedule from a standing start.

btw: your Jeremy Vine program on the BBC iplayer is not available outside UK and my vpn is rejected by the BBC site.


I think you should relax about nuclear - it is either the affordable part of the solution or it isn't and will look after itself - either way it is not a competitor for solar which is what we are talking about here.