Solar ... In the news

silverwhistle

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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.

I don't wish to sound patronising, but the military procurement, government IT experts and the nuclear industry were all experts when they gave their optimistic budget forecasts.

As for your arguments about terminology, I'm not too bothered about spending my time in retirement arguing about it, and indeed the local engineers would refer to the local network. I worked for a REC (regional electricity company) and not National Grid (the company), nevertheless we were in control of our own sources of power. Small maybe, but they did exist for peak-lopping purposes in small geographical areas where national (HV) grid resources were lacking.

zeupater

Hi

No, with your position being .... "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%" ... you claim that all of the additional costs would also be discounted & for there to be a possibility for the 'end cost to the consumer' to be greater than 30%, the savings in those areas must be greater than the build cost savings, ie - more than 30% .... also, the origin of the percentage saving is your own post & reference, so please don't attempt to attribute the figure to anyone else (ie - "if it is 30% cheaper to build (as you say)") ...

Regarding 'bid price' & CFD, your post referenced "The bid price (that the UK distributors pay) is the price per MWh." ... The price paid by the UK distributors is simply the price that they bid and the price which the generator accepts, the CFD is the mechanism which is applied afterwards to fill the gap between the 'bid price' and the 'strike price' which has been agreed between the generator and HM Government and is administered by the Low Carbon Contracts Company ... this has nothing to do with the 'UK distributors' who are effectively uninterested third parties in terms of the CFD operation at that stage ...

.... please don't attempt to spin the meaning of what you have previously posted, it just confirms what others may already already have concluded! ...

Thank you for your interest in Solar PV ... do you have some panels on your roof?, possibly you're interested in having some installed soon? .. or do you have any form of newsworthy information which may be of interest to those who visit this thread regularly to find such information? ....

Z

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Obviously they are not all on Transmission side - I did not say they were.
A cheap point.

That's what you seemed to be implying by first stating HV additional costs of 25%-35%, and secondly by appearing to say that they are connected to the HV side:

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.

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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.

Yep, that's why they choose a location where the HV grid had already been built out, to avoid the additional costs you keep suggesting, but refuse to provide any supporting information for.

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

You're better mannered than you were before for which I'm grateful,

I learn from my mistakes, when I finally responded once in kind to your many rude posts, you immediately reported me to MSE. As it seems you have joined the site purely to goad me, it's best I treat you appropriately.

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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 would suggest the opposite. You popped on to state my comments were wrong and misleading by suggesting we have to add 25%-35% to the costs, and I've defended my position. You have not, yet, provided any information to support your claims.

Also you seem confused about the distribution network (not me) as it was I that introduced them to the conversation to explain why your use of 25%-35%+ costs was wrong, as that related to the HV, not LV network.

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

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.

When the operational manager of one of the UK DNO's describes it as a 'low voltage' network, then that seems like actual evidence and supporting information for what I've been saying, doesn't it?

Martyn1981

So there is no £70/MWh nuclear contract then, but there is a £57.50/MWh off-shore wind contract?

I really think it's time you started to support your comments, so:

1. Provide a link/reference to the +25%-35% costs for UK PV v's Germany.

2. Provide a link/reference to you claims that UK PV is connected to the HV grid.

3. Provide a link/reference to the low nuclear contracts you suggest the UK has agreed to.

Martyn1981

Why are RE supporters not allowed to defend RE on a Green & Ethical Board, when a nuclear supporter joins for the sole purpose of spreading false and unsupported negative claims against solar?

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Why are RE supporters not allowed to defend RE on a Green & Ethical Board, when a nuclear supporter joins for the sole purpose of spreading false and unsupported negative claims against solar?

Government and fossil & nuclear generation companies' backing?

Nicolai_Grenovski

I learn from my mistakes, when I finally responded once in kind to your many rude posts, you immediately reported me to MSE.

Evidently not and no, I have never reported a comment.

Why are RE supporters not allowed to defend RE

"RE" isn't under attack. What a strange point of view!
It is a group of technologies, not a church or philosophy - there are unique aspects, strengths and weaknesses for each of those technologies.
The experts choose the solution based upon those attributes, not by ideology.

So there is no £70/MWh nuclear contract then

EDF, probably the most experienced nuclear operator in the world say that they can cut the cost of the next EPR by 25-30%
That shouldn't be a surprise, pleasant or otherwise.

If they cannot then that is the end of the EPR.
- can you explain why failure is so important to you, or why you object to being challenged on a subject which you raised?

If you don't want to discuss it then why do you raise it so frequently?

but there is a £57.50/MWh off-shore wind contract?

And £74,75 offshore contracts from the same auction.
Is it really a heresy to mention that?
More complex bids would have to be more - I think you'd accept that a wf isn't the same cost in 3m of water in a bay as it would be in >30m of water, 100km offshore.
It isn't remotely "anti RE" to discuss this or the pricing and attributes.
Similarly, it isn't "anti RE" to discuss the fact that northern Europe has less sun, longer winters and more cloud than Southern Europe or to discuss the Solar industry, my industry, including strategies and cost bases plus explanations of how solar farms can be built at different prices based on multiple factors including regional development grants, green grants, cost of footings, panel technology, insolation/m², land lease/purchase price, local tax wavers, wayleave costs, community finance, closeness of utility connections, land prices, total system size and colocated services such as cm and frequency control for continuous revenue.
All have a great effect on the end cost of the solar /MWh.

If enough of these (such as finance and indemnities) go our way then yes we can easily make substantial cost reductions.

Think about it - if basic system supply and operational costs were that low (sustainably supporting the industry) then we would be crowded into Spain, Portugal, Croatia, Italy, Greece paying landowners and to let us install solar.

Not all solar and wind will be the cheapest ever price and not all nuclear will be the most expensive ever price.


This shouldn't need saying, but the take away point is that exceptional conditions to move margins are not normal conditions.
I'm sorry if you see facts as "anti" anything but benightedness.

Nicolai_Grenovski

I really think it's time you started to support your comments, so:

1. Provide a link/reference to the +25%-35% costs for UK PV v's Germany.

2. Provide a link/reference to you claims that UK PV is connected to the HV grid.

3. Provide a link/reference to the low nuclear contracts you suggest the UK has agreed to.

Oh this is ridiculous

1./ I already provided you with TNUoS/Duos charges uniquely included in CFD pricing.
2./ You've already accepted that Hive is going to be connected to transmission system and the last time I looked Kent was in the UK.
3./ What contracts?? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Why are you still trying to start an argument when you already know the facts?

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Evidently not and no, I have never reported a comment."RE" isn't under attack. What a strange point of view!
It is a group of technologies, not a church or philosophy - there are unique aspects, strengths and weaknesses for each of those technologies.
The experts choose the solution based upon those attributes, not by ideology.EDF, probably the most experienced nuclear operator in the world say that they can cut the cost of the next EPR by 25-30%
That shouldn't be a surprise, pleasant or otherwise.

If they cannot then that is the end of the EPR.
- can you explain why failure is so important to you, or why you object to being challenged on a subject which you raised?

If you don't want to discuss it then why do you raise it so frequently? And £74,75 offshore contracts from the same auction.
Is it really a heresy to mention that?
More complex bids would have to be more - I think you'd accept that a wf isn't the same cost in 3m of water in a bay as it would be in >30m of water, 100km offshore.
It isn't remotely "anti RE" to discuss this or the pricing and attributes.
Similarly, it isn't "anti RE" to discuss the fact that northern Europe has less sun, longer winters and more cloud than Southern Europe or to discuss the Solar industry, my industry, including strategies and cost bases plus explanations of how solar farms can be built at different prices based on multiple factors including regional development grants, green grants, cost of footings, panel technology, insolation/m², land lease/purchase price, local tax wavers, wayleave costs, community finance, closeness of utility connections, land prices, total system size and colocated services such as cm and frequency control for continuous revenue.
All have a great effect on the end cost of the solar /MWh.

If enough of these (such as finance and indemnities) go our way then yes we can easily make substantial cost reductions.

Think about it - if basic system supply and operational costs were that low (sustainably supporting the industry) then we would be crowded into Spain, Portugal, Croatia, Italy, Greece paying landowners and to let us install solar.

Not all solar and wind will be the cheapest ever price and not all nuclear will be the most expensive ever price.


This shouldn't need saying, but the take away point is that exceptional conditions to move margins are not normal conditions.
I'm sorry if you see facts as "anti" anything but benightedness.

Hiya. Not the same auction, they issued two different pots, the 2022 pot was £74.75/MWh down from the previous auction of £115, and the 2023 pot was £57.50/MWh.

It's worth pointing this out to make clear that there is a definite cost curve progression, which, mistakenly, labeling both auction pots together would not clearly demonstrate.


I admire your optimism regarding EDF and future nuclear costs, but the problem still remains, you want to compare 'hopes and dreams' against actual RE contracts, and I don't see the point. Let's revisit the cost comparison as and when lower uclear costs arrive (or don't), and compare them to the even lower RE costs at that point in time.


But, once again, we seem to be diverging from the main issue that brought you onto this thread:-

You stated that my use of German PV auction figures was wrong and misleading, as UK prices would be 25%-35% higher.

I've asked you to provide some supporting info, but you haven't.

I threw you a bone by suggesting that you may be confusing the issue with large scale wind deployments, particularly off-shore wind, where UK CfD's prices are higher than Germany as they have to take into account the cost of building out the HV grid to the generation source. I explained that this would not apply to PV farms as they are connected to the LV grid, administered by the DNO's, not HV grid administered by The National Grid.

You've stated that I'm wrong, there is no LV grid, and that PV farms are connected to the HV grid, though you've recently rowed that claim back partially. I've asked you for evidence of your claims, but you've failed to supply any.

You've also tried to spin your way out of the issue by pointing to the Hive project, a PV farm that will be connected to the HV grid, but you have multiple problems there:-

1. It's not been built, it's only an idea at this point.
2. Why mention a HV grid PV farm, if they are all HV grid?
3. It's chosen location is to use the existing HV grid, so as to save on the cost of building one out.
4. The PV farm hopes to be subsidy free, which seems to defeat your entire argument against cheap(er) PV potential in the UK.


I can only ask, suggest, implore that you provide some links to support your many claims, otherwise I really don't understand what it is you want from me.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Oh this is ridiculous

1./ I already provided you with TNUoS/Duos charges uniquely included in CFD pricing.
2./ You've already accepted that Hive is going to be connected to transmission system and the last time I looked Kent was in the UK.
3./ What contracts?? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Why are you still trying to start an argument when you already know the facts?

1. Those are HV costs, and as explained repeatedly, PV farms in the UK are LV connected. So it's not relevant.

2. Yes I have, in fact I've never denied it, but your constant referencing of a possible future PV farm does not support your claim that current PV farms are HV connected.

3. You keep comparing RE costs to cheaper nuclear prices, but you are comparing RE contract prices to 'hopes and dreams', no comparison can be made till we see a real contract. Also, do I need to point out that the nuclear subsidies are for 35yrs, whereas the RE contracts are for 15yrs, and replacement schemes in 20+ years time will obviously not need further subsidies based on the clear cost curves already demonstrated by RE.

Without any supporting information, it's hard to see what more I can do here.