Solar ... In the news

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

...

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? ..

Hi

No, that is illogical and therefore wrong .... as previously highlighted, a 30% reduction in build cost does not translate to a 30% reduction in either strike price or even spot energy prices due to operating costs etc, therefore you cannot simply apply a reduction to a figure around £100 and assume a reduction to around £70 .... as I'm sure you're aware!

HTH
Z

zeupater

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?

Hi

To the above answer to Martyn1981's post ...

1 - The link you provided did not provide the information in the format you claimed, I have addressed this very point before. The published charges show relative network transmission connection costs and vary by location of generation relative to centres of demand and therefore vary considerably ... in some cases the charge is negative, presumably because there's a plan to encourage distributed generation which doesn't impact on NG.

2 - Connectivity would be capacity related ... we have three 5MWp solar farms within a short walk from where I'm sitting & a 20MWp site a short drive away, all of which are connected to intermediate substations (33/11kV) operated by the DNO as opposed to their 132/33kV bulk supply substations or NGs 132kV infeeds. The site of the proposed large solar development (350MWp) in Kent you mention was specifically chosen to be close to the large National Grid transmission network substation (150/400kV) at Cleve Hill which has been upgraded to serve the London Array ... being a 350MWp development this is a large step up from the current largest sites (~40-50MWp) and therefore is likely the first site which really requires connection to the capacity which the HV transmission network provides, especially if there's a plan to cluster other PV generation developments in this area specifically to serve the London conurbation.

3 - The contracts would be those referencing a CFD strike price for nuclear at around £70/MWh which you propose as a basis for future nuclear provision based on EDF building reactors at a lower cost than HinckleyC ... as you are aware seeing you raised it whilst applying flawed logic to link build & supply costs, as already highlighted ...

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 ....

Please, this is a thread for solar news which has been running for over 5 years .... there may occasionally be reference to UK nuclear. however this is almost always used on a point of reference basis for context, either capacity or cost, because without setting context and comparison many huge figures become meaningless .... many reading will obviously wonder why certain individuals concentrate on little other than to create argument through diversion, misinformation & pure spin! ...

HTH
Z

Nicolai_Grenovski

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'm sorry but no. I don't know where you got the idea from, but it is the same allocation round - the 'pots' are for technology type -
Pot 1 (established technologies, such as onshore wind and solar): £50m for projects commissioning from 2015/16, and an additional £15m (i.e. £65m in total) for projects commissioning from 2016/17 onwards.

Pot 2 (less established technologies, such as offshore wind and biomass CHP): £155m for projects commissioning from 2016/17 onwards, and an additional £105m (i.e. £260m in total) for projects commissioning from 2017/18 onwards.
Pot 3 (biomass conversion)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/643560/CFD_allocation_round_2_outcome_FINAL.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electricity-market-reform-contracts-for-difference

This would be so much easier if you and Z were prepared to accept that you don't know everything.
Don't get me wrong, it's great that you're interested - I wish more people could get enthused by low carbon energy and efficiency..
There are so many good things in the renewables and low carbon energy sector that require public funding - and patience.

...but...
If you accept that you don't know everything then PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ UP ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND BEFORE FIXING YOUR OPINIONS IN STONE.

Nicolai_Grenovski

No, that is illogical and therefore wrong .... as previously highlighted, a 30% reduction in build cost does not translate to a 30% reduction in either strike price

Illogical?

You may disagree that a 30% reduction in costs would lower the bid price and therefore cost, but you have not established it.
If my costs drop I lower my prices - if I didn't then I'd go out of business.
Your use of the word "illogical" is, at best, inappropriate.

This is a site for Solar News - a subject you seem extraordinarily reluctant to discuss.

1 - The link you provided did not provide the information in the format you claimed

The site is not formatted for laymen.
The actual charges will be contractually sensitive, but If you do not understand the importance/relevance of what you're reading then ask the BEIS etc to explain it to you.

2 - Connectivity would be capacity related

Correct I've already stated this.
An asynchronous 300MW+ supply with a 11% load factor is not going to sit on the distribution network.

3 - The contracts would be those referencing a CFD strike price for nuclear at around £70/MWh which you propose as a basis for future nuclear provision based on EDF building reactors at a lower cost than HinckleyC .

Indeed - Marty was demanding to see proof of a contract in place before the next allocation round had even taken place.
Demanding an answer to an unanswerable question is, at best, frivolous and vexatious.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

I'm sorry but no. I don't know where you got the idea from, but it is the same allocation round - the 'pots' are for technology type -
Pot 1 (established technologies, such as onshore wind and solar): £50m for projects commissioning from 2015/16, and an additional £15m (i.e. £65m in total) for projects commissioning from 2016/17 onwards.

Pot 2 (less established technologies, such as offshore wind and biomass CHP): £155m for projects commissioning from 2016/17 onwards, and an additional £105m (i.e. £260m in total) for projects commissioning from 2017/18 onwards.
Pot 3 (biomass conversion)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/643560/CFD_allocation_round_2_outcome_FINAL.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electricity-market-reform-contracts-for-difference

This would be so much easier if you and Z were prepared to accept that you don't know everything.
Don't get me wrong, it's great that you're interested - I wish more people could get enthused by low carbon energy and efficiency..
There are so many good things in the renewables and low carbon energy sector that require public funding - and patience.

Hi. I'm afraid you are completely wrong. To put it simply, you can't have different prices within the same allocation as all winning bidders receive the same amount, an amount equal to the highest successful bid.

Here are the results, and you will clearly see that they are broken down into two groups, the 2021/22 allocation and the 2022/23 allocation.

Contracts for Difference Second Allocation Round Results

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

...but...
If you accept that you don't know everything then PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ UP ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND BEFORE FIXING YOUR OPINIONS IN STONE.

As you've pointed out before, I'm no expert, all I do is report the facts with links.

Given all of your claims of expertise and knowledge, I really shouldn't need to keep pointing out your errors.


Edit - But, yet again we have digressed from the issue you originally raised and the follow on claims, so once again can you provide evidence that:

1. UK PV suffers a 25%-35% cost increase v's German PV, and

2. That UK PV is connected to the HV grid, not the LV grid (no need to mention the possible future scheme in Kent, to benefit from an existing HV build out).

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Demanding an answer to an unanswerable question is, at best, frivolous and vexatious.

Basing an argument on a cost figure that doesn't actually exist would be classed as misleading.

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

I'm sorry but no. I don't know where you got the idea from, but it is the same allocation round - the 'pots' are for technology type -
Pot 1 (established technologies, such as onshore wind and solar): £50m for projects commissioning from 2015/16, and an additional £15m (i.e. £65m in total) for projects commissioning from 2016/17 onwards.

Pot 2 (less established technologies, such as offshore wind and biomass CHP): £155m for projects commissioning from 2016/17 onwards, and an additional £105m (i.e. £260m in total) for projects commissioning from 2017/18 onwards.
Pot 3 (biomass conversion)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/643560/CFD_allocation_round_2_outcome_FINAL.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electricity-market-reform-contracts-for-difference

This would be so much easier if you and Z were prepared to accept that you don't know everything.
Don't get me wrong, it's great that you're interested - I wish more people could get enthused by low carbon energy and efficiency..
There are so many good things in the renewables and low carbon energy sector that require public funding - and patience.

...but...
If you accept that you don't know everything then PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ UP ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND BEFORE FIXING YOUR OPINIONS IN STONE.

Hi

I don't really follow why you're continually arguing 'small point' semantics and overlooking facts ... the point made relates to an auction for delivering Offshore Wind with a total capacity of 860MW(1 project) in 2021/22 at £74.75, followed by 2336MW(2 projects) in 2022/23 at £57.50 ... that's what your link shows ...

Now, taking the above into consideration, we need to place it into context .... all that Martyn1981 has asked you to justify is the comparison you've made ....

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?

... where the latest 'new' price for Offshore wind delivery in 2022/23 would not be £75, but £57.50, thus overriding the £74.75 attributable to a smaller project with an earlier delivery date (860MW - Triton Knoll .- 2021/22).

It must be noted that even if you are unwilling to accept the use of the lower/later delivery price, the capacity related average cost for the three projects is £62.14/MWp ... this means that you are comparing a logically discredited assumed EDF delivery price (based purely on build cost reduction) of around £70/MWh, which would be applicable at some future unknown date, with actually achieved auction pricing! ... totally incredulous, no matter how well you believe you understand the market, your level of assumption, error & spin involving 'smoke & mirrors' as a cover seems to convey a totally different view to others, me included ...

Now to the personal bit ... I'm sure I don't know everything, but, then again, considering that you're the self professed 'expert' calling on 20 years of experience in the sector, maybe you should be spending less time arguing and utilise that time to apply more logic!

Thank you for your input on a thread dedicated to 'the subject at hand', that is news concerning solar ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

No, that is illogical and therefore wrong .... as previously highlighted, a 30% reduction in build cost does not translate to a 30% reduction in either strike price or even spot energy prices due to operating costs etc, therefore you cannot simply apply a reduction to a figure around £100 and assume a reduction to around £70 .... as I'm sure you're aware!

HTH
Z

The 'cost' of nuclear is very hard to define (as well as find). HPC's build costs have risen considerably and are now somewhere north of £20bn, but 'who cares' we will only have to pay for the generation, not the build cost.

The cost of the generation in the first 35yrs (the period of the subsidy) will be approx £87bn.

The subsidy element was originally expected to represent about £6bn of that, but with ever falling cost forecasts for the future, that swiftly rose to £30bn in 2016, and is now estimated to be closer to £50bn.

Hinkley Point’s cost to consumers surges to £50bn


To directly compare subsidy costs we need the CfD strike price, the contract length, and an estimate of future wholesale prices.

Roughly, we now have costs of approx £100/MWh for HPC, and £60/MWh for the latest off-shore wind contracts (PV and on-shore wind would be lower still).

The contract lengths are 15yrs for RE and 35yrs for nuclear.

the estimated wholesale price in the late 2020's and earl;y 2030's is about £50/MWh.

So the ratio of subsidy is approx

off-shore wind £10/MWh (£60/MWh - £50/MWh) for 15yrs, v's

HPC £50/MWh (£100/MWh - £50/MWh) for 35yrs

= 10 x 15 v's 50 x 35

= 150 : 1750

= 1 : 11.67

So, despite nuclear having been supported around the world, with vast subsidies for nearly 60yrs, it now needs almost 12x as much subsidy to compete with off-shore wind after approx 10yrs of support.


If, and this is just for fun, EDF can get the SC CfD down to £70/MWh, and assuming a future off-shore wind CfD of £55/MWh (it may well be less, or even pay royalties for a licence), then we have the ratio:

£5 x 15yrs v's £20 x 35yrs

= 75 : 700

= 1 : 9.33

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hi. I'm afraid you are completely wrong. To put it simply, you can't have different prices within the same allocation as all winning bidders receive the same amount, an amount equal to the highest successful bid.

@ All.

I've no idea if there is anyone left who is interested, but if there is, a quick lesson on CfD auctions might be interesting, and useful to explain what I've said above.

Here's a fictitious PV auction and allocation.

The government asks for bids for 500MW of PV and stipulate a CfD maximum, let's call it £100/MWh.

The following bids are received:

£80/MWh for 50MW
£70/MWh for 100MW
£65/MWh for 50MW
£60/MWh for 150MW
£50/MWh for 100MW
£40/MWh for 200MW

The government then accepts the lowest bids totaling the allocation round of 500MW

£65/MWh for 50MW
£60/MWh for 150MW
£50/MWh for 100MW
£40/MWh for 200MW

All four providers will receive a CfD strike price of £65/MWh, so as not to punish the lowest bidders.

There is a flaw in this system, which was clearly demonstrated in the 2015 round

Contracts for Difference (CFD) Allocation Round One Outcome

this also combined several allocation rounds, and two bidders bid £50/MWh into the 2015/16 allocation (see page 2 of the link). They hoped to win contracts but receive a higher CfD, and had they bid into the 2016/17 allocation it would have worked, but instead they had to decline the £50/MWh CfD. Kinda funny!

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Illogical?

You may disagree that a 30% reduction in costs would lower the bid price and therefore cost, but you have not established it.
If my costs drop I lower my prices - if I didn't then I'd go out of business.
Your use of the word "illogical" is, at best, inappropriate.

This is a site for Solar News - a subject you seem extraordinarily reluctant to discuss.

The site is not formatted for laymen.
The actual charges will be contractually sensitive, but If you do not understand the importance/relevance of what you're reading then ask the BEIS etc to explain it to you.

Correct I've already stated this.
An asynchronous 300MW+ supply with a 11% load factor is not going to sit on the distribution network.Indeed - Marty was demanding to see proof of a contract in place before the next allocation round had even taken place.
Demanding an answer to an unanswerable question is, at best, frivolous and vexatious.

Hi

Don't try to spin a 30% reduction claim to a simple 'lower the bid price' as that's not what you claimed or I challenged ... as previously explained to you, applying a potential 30% reduction on build (plant capital) cost does not in any way create an opportunity to apply a similar reduction to all other capital and ongoing operational costs ... it is therefore illogical to apply this level of (plant capital) reduction to the energy cost (£/MWh) ...

Regarding the interpretation of the link you provided .. I see it as being clear as to what way being conveyed in the link, hence I described where your error lay ... there's no need for BEIS to be involved at this end of the discussion

As for the rest ... unanswerable questions, frivolous & vexatious? ... rubbish, so stop being childish, just make sure that your argument is robust when it's made & stop the 'spinning-top' & 'smoke & mirrors' diversionary routines when others not only show that it's flawed, but provide relevant evidence to show that it is too!

HTH
Z