Solar ... In the news

Nicolai_Grenovski

!!!8220;
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.

!!!8221;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

Well the industry press reported it that way because of low gas pricing.
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-nuclear-exelon/exelon-to-shut-two-nuclear-plants-in-illinois-idUSL1N18U1L6
Do you believe that they are wrong?

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.

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with - are you saying the IEC is wrong or that Hive is going to attach a 340MW solar plant to the local distribution network?

Let me know when they do that - I'll probably be able to hear the bang from here.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

£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.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.

Hiya, thanks for the Times link, but I was after an actual contract for £70/MWh, a bit like the £57.50/MWh for off-shore wind.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Well the industry press reported it that way because of low gas pricing.
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-nuclear-exelon/exelon-to-shut-two-nuclear-plants-in-illinois-idUSL1N18U1L6
Do you believe that they are wrong?

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with - are you saying the IEC is wrong or that Hive is going to attach a 340MW solar plant to the local distribution network?

Let me know when they do that - I'll probably be able to hear the bang from here.

Hi, just pointing out that the operational manager of UKPN referred to it as low voltage.

Regarding Hive, we've already covered that point, I explained carefully that the location chosen was to make use of the existing HV connection for an off-shore wind install.


So, we seem to have gone all around the houses, literally, but we still haven't dealt with the original issue, you stated that German PV costs can't be used for comparison in the UK because 25%-35% has to be added.

I explained that that those additional costs, to my best knowledge, relate to large schemes, such as off-shore wind, which are connected to the HV grid.

So, it seems it's up to you to provide proof that PV farms are connected to the HV grid, and not to the LV grid/network, or that schemes connected to the LV grid still incur connection costs equal to 25%-35% of the total of their other costs. All other discussions, points, issues etc, seem to only be attempts to avoid supporting your initial statement.

Nicolai_Grenovski

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?

Sure, but you've got it back to front - a GTI is tied to the grid frequency (they do not free run)
If you disconnect (or brown out) a GTI from a grid frequency source then it stops.
That is what "Grid Tied" means - it is also indicates the safety cutout feature..
Otherwise it is merely an inverter as you may have on a mobile home or boat.

If you are not connected to grid frequency you are "off-grid" in other words you are independent of it and can run your own frequency that can drift..

Nicolai_Grenovski

So, it seems it's up to you to provide proof that PV farms are connected to the HV grid, and not to the LV grid/network,

Obviously they are not all on Transmission side - I did not say they were.
A cheap point.
You've already accepted that Hive is connecting to the HV transmission side.
That is a requirement of its size, not because there's a wind farm nearby.

If you're going to connect to the transmission network (HV) then you have to be close to it or build very expensive power connectors to link to it which rules out other locations.
So no, renewables do not need to be 'paired' just because they're renewables - it could just as easily be another large pv plant as a gas, coal, biomass, hydro, NPP - or simply a transmission hub.

You're better mannered than you were before for which I'm grateful, but I've read back up the page/s and to be honest you just seem to want to argue or reject the possibility that there's things you do not know about such as distribution networks - I'm not sure what else you could want that is (reasonably) within my power to offer you given that you're not prepared to check things for yourself.
I'm sure whatever Jeremy Vine was very informative but it's no way to learn how something as complex as your national power supply works - at least to a point where you know enough query how it all works.

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

£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 ....

Hi

Maybe the logic employed is more than a little flawed there ... even if the the build cost would be lower by 25%-30%, that doesn't mean that the cost/MWh would follow by the same percentage as operating costs, connection costs (you know, the centralised generation network transmission costs you've been highlighting!) etc wouldn't follow by the same level of reduction, neither would the cost of network infrastructure build etc, so you can't simply apply the percentage to the CFD or any other form of pricing ....

Anyway, I strongly doubt that many would believe the claims, after-all, the original HinckleyC plan was based on a learning curve from previous builds, yet couldn't be built at anywhere near the original offer ... I simply see this as the latest attempt to 'reset expectations' to fish for interest and allocation of funding, before gradually ramping costs up as decision dates approach ... it seems to be the standard mode of operation in that industry sector!

HTH
Z

Nicolai_Grenovski

Maybe the logic employed is more than a little flawed there ... even if the the build cost would be lower by 25%-30%, that doesn't mean that the cost/MWh

I disagree - the build cost s borne by the builder financier (EDF/CGN)
The bid price (that the UK distributors pay) is the price per MWh.

But okay, let us assume you're right and turn it around - if it is 30% cheaper to build (as you say) then the that impacts the discount rate, thus the finance savings increase geometrically - the end cost to the consumer could be reduced more than 30%

So which way round are you most comfortable with?

Nicolai_Grenovski

Nik, you only ever appear on this site to argue?

I came on with an innocuous post about how the solar market is priced in Germany (compared to UK) -everyone seems to want to talk about Hinkley Point -not a subject which I raised or particularly want to talk about.
But that doesn't mean I'm happy to see prejudice against perfectly acceptable sources of low carbon energy.

Similarly there are some odd beliefs on how the grid/distribution networks work.

Everything |I have said is referenced and searchable - the level of what you know after your research is up to you.

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

I disagree - the build cost s borne by the builder financier (EDF/CGN)
The bid price (that the UK distributors pay) is the price per MWh.

But okay, let us assume you're right and turn it around - if it is 30% cheaper to build (as you say) then the that impacts the discount rate, thus the finance savings increase geometrically - the end cost to the consumer could be more than 30%

So which way round are you most comfortable with?

Hi

So apart from capital investment in generating plant & machinery, you would maintain that there are absolutely no other cost elements which would impact on the unit cost to the consumer? ... no operating costs?, no transmission connectivity costs?, no waste disposal costs?, no security costs?, no maintenance costs?, no decommissioning and/or waste storage cost set-aside?, no site acquisition costs?, no .. etc, .... for transparency & comparison, the full cost must include these and they will be significant ...

... oh, and please don't try to be devious by referencing build cost, then moving the comparison discussion to 'bid price' and not mentioning the CFD or any other form of support, it's pretty obvious that there's a difference ... a highly significant value one at that!

Z

Nicolai_Grenovski

are you from the Russion IRA

Ah you got me.