Solar ... In the news

Nicolai_Grenovski

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Martyn: 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.

!!!8220;
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

Martyn: 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

Okay, you've taken the link I gave you and reposted it as if it somehow proves you right.

You claimed that the wind contracts are from different pots - they are not.
They are simply different prices for wind contracts.

Nicolai_Grenovski

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 .

It is exactly what I said, complete with link.
- you may object to it being said, but you cannot legitimately argue that it is wrong to say it.

BTW: A reduction in CAPEX represents a reduction in ongoing finance costs.

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Okay, you've taken the link I gave you and reposted it as if it somehow proves you right.

You claimed that the wind contracts are from different pots - they are not.
They are simply different prices for wind contracts.

Hi

Actually, I consider the link to show a single pot title, but subdivisions according to budget allocation by year as per ...

"(B) Estimated Budget impact, as calculated by National Grid according to the Allocation Framework published on 13 March 2017,presuming all offered contracts are accepted (2012 prices).
Pot 2
2021/22 £21,724,242.99
2022/23 £170,471,434.83
2023/24 £176,180,301.61
2024/25 £148,538,708.02"


... Whether the different annual budget allocations classify as different pots or not isn't the issue, that's just semantics, but it's clear that allocation for different years are accounted for separately, and that's what Martyn1981 was conveying and importantly, that's what counts ... the £74.75 is linked to 'pot2(2021/22)' allocation & the £57.50 to the 'pot2(2022/23)' and are accounted for separately, as confirmed later in the document in '(D) Breakdown of the outcome by technology, year and clearing price (2012 prices)' on the second page ...

Stop trying to chase the win and think about what you are arguing about!

HTH
Z

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

It is exactly what I said, complete with link.
- you may object to it being said, but you cannot legitimately argue that it is wrong to say it.

BTW: A reduction in CAPEX represents a reduction in ongoing finance costs.

Hi

Absolute misrepresentation ... your complete position is based on a report that EDF believed that a next generation of their reactor could be built for a stated percentage below current build costs & you simply applied that raw (build) percentage reduction to current contracted costs per MWh for generation to create a simple pro-rata future supply contract cost (£/MWh) totally independently from what the referenced article regarding EDF actually said ... further than that you have repeated the mistake, and here's the evidence that this is the case (yet again) ...

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 ....

Regarding ''BTW: A reduction in CAPEX represents a reduction in ongoing finance costs' ... I'm totally aware, having raised literally thousands of CAPEX requests with full financial justifications, however, what you need to realise (as has been mentioned before) is that there is no direct relationship between the total plant build cost and the total of capital expenditure, through-life operational costs, post-use decommissioning, and waste storage/disposal therefore you cannot calculate an assumed future supply cost/MWh based on a referenced article which says nothing other than ... "A spokeswoman said that the optimised reactor would be between 25 per cent and 30 per cent cheaper than the existing version" ..

It is legitimate to claim that you are wrong, because it is obvious that you are wrong, whether you're currently aware you are, or not! ... :whistle:

HTH
Z

Nicolai_Grenovski

zeupater 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

Hi

Actually, I consider the link to show a single pot title,

Well that's nice for you, after all, everyone is entitled to an opinion of their own - but it clearly gives three.

Each heading labelled, perhaps confusingly, 1, 2 and then 3.

I think this is another time when you need to stop attempting to convince me to disregard reality and write to the BEIS and tell them where, in your opinion, they've got it all wrong.

BEIS
1 Victoria St,
Westminster,
London
SW1H 0ET

Let me know what their reply is.

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Well that's nice for you, after all, everyone is entitled to an opinion of their own - but it clearly gives three.

Each heading labelled, perhaps confusingly, 1, 2 and then 3.

I think this is another time when you need to stop attempting to convince me to disregard reality and write to the BEIS and tell them where, in your opinion, they've got it all wrong.

BEIS
1 Victoria St,
Westminster,
London
SW1H 0ET

Let me know what their reply is.

Hi

Utter rubbish ... please stop, think & review before you post ... the years are different, therefore the allocation is different, therefore the sums are accounted for separately, despite how you reformat quoted posts to selectively convey text out of context to skew meaning ... that's just naughty ... ....

HTH
Z

#Edit : Also, the link referenced should be the one you referred to as being copied in the argument with Martyn1981 ... Contracts for Difference Second Allocation Round Results which clearly shows the annual allocation against budget ...

Nicolai_Grenovski

Regarding ''BTW: A reduction in CAPEX represents a reduction in ongoing finance costs' ... I'm totally aware, having raised literally thousands of CAPEX requests with full financial justifications, however, what you need to realise (as has been mentioned before) is that there is no direct relationship between the total plant build cost and the total of capital expenditure, through-life operational costs, post-use decommissioning, and waste storage/disposal therefore you cannot calculate an assumed future supply cost/MWh based on a referenced article which says nothing other than ... "A spokeswoman said that the optimised reactor would be between 25 per cent and 30 per cent cheaper than the existing version" ..

The times article (the link I gave) says:
"Cutting the cost of building to about £15 billion could help to reduce the subsidy contract price to nearer £70 per megawatt-hour".

The Times has a letters page if you want to write in telling them where they and EDF got it wrong.

Further savings are possible - the press didn't report it, but the energy industry press reported the NAO report stating that even Hinkley point would have been a tiny fraction of the cost had the UK government financed it themselves.

From the rather damning NAO report on Hinkley Point.:
"‘100% public risk’ assumes all risks are transferred to the public sector and the taxpayer would have to pay the full project cost (£19 billion). In this case the strike price for 35 years would range from -£6 to £28 depending on the electricity price forecasts.
The!combination of low discount rate and high future electricity prices makes the present value of the cash flows post CfD so high that it compensates for the negative strike price during the CfD period to achieve an overall investor return of 2%. Such a strike price is a theoretical price based on a comparison with the 35-year CfD structure used in HPC. "

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Point-C.pdf

Anyway, I'm really bored talking about nuclear and looking up data for you two lazy people..

Is there any chance I could entice you both to discuss Solar?

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Is there any chance I could entice you both to discuss Solar?

Hi

That's rich, this is the second attack on a thread dedicated to news regarding solar where you've done little but argue about nuclear ... in fact every post you've ever made on this UK based forum has been on this thread, many have been removed so we'll probably never be able to tell how many times you've deliberately created argument specifically about nuclear or intentionally steered discussion towards it to create argument ...

I'll happily discuss solar, without reference to nuclear .. I would have thought that many others may join in if the discussion remains civil and relevant ... would you like to create a thread to do so in order for this one to remain news related? ...

HTH
Z

Nicolai_Grenovski

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

That's rich, this is the second attack on a thread dedicated to news regarding solar where you've done little but argue about nuclear

Nonsense - I didn't raise it
But that doesn't mean that you can use a solar group to attack nuclear any more than you could use it to attack the science behind global warming.
The fact is that I work in the solar energy sector and I'm in favour of all green technologies - it's why I do what I do - yet you and Marty have done little else but invent silly stories about nuclear with fairytale comparisons to renewables and get abusive whenever I try to swing the conversation back.
Why don't you set up a little anti-nuclear page for you both to patrol?
Just a secret one that only you can use :A


.

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Okay, you've taken the link I gave you and reposted it as if it somehow proves you right.

You claimed that the wind contracts are from different pots - they are not.
They are simply different prices for wind contracts.

Hi. Apologies if my use of pot instead of allocation was wrong and confused you so much, but please remember, unlike you, I'm no expert.

I must correct you yet again, they are not different prices, they are from different allocations. You will note the lower cost relates to the later year, confirming a steady cost reduction from around £150, to approx £120, to £75 to £58.

So the 'latest' off-shore wind price is £57.50/MWh and demonstrates a lovely cost curve of falling prices.