Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

Is it possible to download hourly production and usage data from gridwatch over a year? I am thinking it would be very simple to build a model based only on wind and storage, put in some made up costs say wind costs 50/mwh (for all output even any that is thrown away because the storage is full) and storage costs 150/mwh(?) and is 75%(?) efficient and work out how much wind and storage would need to be built to meet demand whilst minimizing total cost per mwh.

Worth a shot, £50/MWh for wind seems fair, perhaps £40/MWh by 2030 (on-shore £30, off-shore £50 ?).

Storage costs are hard to calculate, I've seen large scale batts at $100/kWh for 2022 delivery with a 5,000+ cycle life, so that works out at a cost of use of $20/MWh (($100 x 1,000kWh) / 5,000). Perhaps double or even treble that figure to allow for land, install costs, ancillary kit etc, so $60/MWh?

Next take a stab at how much of the wind will need storing, perhaps 50%, probably more like 25%, so on average a storage cost of $15/MWh, or ~£11/MWh.

Then you have spill, which in a singular solution such as wind will be high, perhaps 100%?. Having on and off shore wind will help as they won't have identical generation curves.

If you're interested then have a look at Euan Mearns estimate. I like this because he is not (at all) a fan of renewables, and this example which was supposed to show nuclear as being cheaper a few years ago, has suffered the test of time as wind and PV costs tumble.

He also suggests 500GWh of battery storage is necessary in this high leccy scenario (an average of 72GW, up from today's 40GW) to reflect a shift to electric heating and transport. There is also 500GWh of thermal storage.

UK Electricity Part 3: Wind and Solar

Please see table 7. Some notes:-
1. This is a solar and wind scenario, so bio-energy, hydro and tidal aren't included, and these would, of course, simplify things by adding predictability of supply.
2. I think this is based on on-shore wind with the statement that on or off, same thing, but I'd suggest a mix would have a slightly flatter generation than only one of them.
3. 500GWh of leccy storage is, I believe meant to scare us, but every 10m EV's would provide 500GWh simply as a side effect, and whilst that's not dedicated storage, it does mean vast storage without the capital expenditure (it's a side effect of changing from ICE to EV's).
4. The spill rate of 34% of RE energy is interesting, as even low efficiency power to gas (bio-gas) is about 40% efficient, so 34% x 40% = 13.6%, matching the 12.8% of leccy that he gives will come from gas generation (FF or bio).
5. Table 8 includes tidal and reduces wind to match, this has slightly better gas and spill figures.

Taking wind/PV at £50/MWh and assuming 34% spill, gives us a cost of £67/MWh, v's the £100/MWh for HPC. Assuming nuclear needs no storage (not true of course) then let's assume no capital cost free storage (such as EV's) and add in that £11/MWh figure from earlier, giving us £78/MWh for a wind and PV and storage solution.

I suspect/suggest that the above is highly questionable, but I've given it a 'rational/reasonable' shot!

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Taking wind/PV at £50/MWh and assuming 34% spill, gives us a cost of £67/MWh, v's the £100/MWh for HPC. Assuming nuclear needs no storage (not true of course) then let's assume no capital cost free storage (such as EV's) and add in that £11/MWh figure from earlier, giving us £78/MWh for a wind and PV and storage solution.

I forgot to project those costs forward, as they are circa 2022/23 on batt and off-shore wind costs.

So assuming battery cost halve by 2030, and the additional costs come down a bit, I'll revise $60/MWh storage cost to $40/MWh, and $10/MWh for 25% storage, giving approx £7/MWh.

By 2030 I'd estimate £30, £40 & £50 per MWh for on-shore wind, PV and off-shore wind respectively, so an average of £40/MWh.

£40 at a spill rate of 34% = £53.60 + £7 for storage = £61/MWh for RE v's HPC*.

In reality nuclear can't demand follow, so will need spill and or storage, plus some gas back up too, but for simplicity let's just say £61 v's £100+.

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Ahhh! LOL, really sorry Mart, I don't know why it took so long to sink in, or more importantly why I didn't consider that the existing aging nuclear plants are going to be closed anyway, regardless of what we replace them with. In my defense I'm working long hours at work and so my brain isn't firing on all cylinders at the mo. :rotfl:

I'm totally with you now and chuffed that I can get back to my no nuclear stance that sits so much better with me. Such a doofus.

Not at all on the doofus front, there is simply too many spinning plates to take it all in. I hope I'm considering most factors but could easily be missing many.

Personally I don't want nor like nuclear, and would pay a premium for RE to avoid it, but accept that this is a hard sell to the general public, so accept nuclear over coal and gas/AGW if necessary.

However these last 5yrs have reversed the economic argument (I believe) meaning we can have RE instead of nuclear for the wrong reasons (money) as well as the right reasons.

If nuclear doesn't come up with something special in the next 5yrs, then I think it's going to die. Roll on the renewables energy revolution. :cool:

Edit - There's always a but, and this one is a big, big BUT. HPC is almost certain to happen, the contract ties us in to a £22bn poison pill if we cancel. There's an out clause if it's not up and running by 2035, but that's doable even for these hopeless EPR's that are decades behind schedule. The other way out, the removal of loan guarantees if the Flamanville reactor isn't operational by 2020 won't work either, as EDF are to complete Flamanville and test it with the faulty reactor lid, getting it working, then shut it back down ready for the replacement lid which should be ready by 2022 - apparently this will count as operational by 2020. Ho hum. M.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

... if the Flamanville reactor isn't operational by 2020 won't work either, as EDF are to complete Flamanville and test it with the faulty reactor lid, getting it working, then shut it back down ready for the replacement lid which should be ready by 2022 - apparently this will count as operational by 2020. ...

Hi

Interestingly, on that very issue I saw this recently ...

PARIS, Jan 29 (Reuters) - The start-up calendar is “tight” regarding French state-controlled utility EDF’s nuclear reactor which is under construction in Flamanville, northern France, said the head of French nuclear regulator ASN.

UPDATE 1-EDF's Flamanville nuclear reactor startup schedule is tight -ASN

The timescale was already tight, but EDF seem to be having trouble with submitting their own paperwork thus pushing the live date much closer to 2020 ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

I don't know if anyone will be interested in this, but thought it worth sharing - basically it explains that 'rare-earth' materials used in renewables are either not that rare, or aren't even used, hitting out at the common criticism used against wind and PV manufacture.

Renewable Energy Is Made From Available Resources

pile-o-stone

zeupater wrote: »

The timescale was already tight, but EDF seem to be having trouble with submitting their own paperwork thus pushing the live date much closer to

You have to wonder if safety is being compromised with having to meet so important a deadline? A nuclear accident would pretty much be the death knell of new nuclear.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

There's always a but, and this one is a big, big BUT. HPC is almost certain to happen, the contract ties us in to a £22bn poison pill if we cancel.

If I were the country, I'd suck for that as just dealing with the eventual nuclear waste will likely cost more than that. And, we could cover that space with wind turbines or solar. The decreasing cost of renewables would probably save money on the increasing costs of HPC and whatever electricity it eventually produces.

zeupater

NigeWick wrote: »

If I were the country, I'd suck for that as just dealing with the eventual nuclear waste will likely cost more than that. And, we could cover that space with wind turbines or solar. The decreasing cost of renewables would probably save money on the increasing costs of HPC and whatever electricity it eventually produces.

Hi

The issue which is always (conveniently) overlooked is that if the HinckleyC new nuclear hadn't been given the green light the massive grid infrastructure serving the site would have made an ideal connection node for a massive renewable energy project (Tidal Flow/Lagoon/Barrage/Offshore wind) in the Bristol Channel ... a few years ago there was plenty of discussion related to the HPC decision being a major element in making the plans for a barrage-type project financially unviable, however, subsequent movements in HPC delivery costs didn't spark the strategic rethink which it surely should have done! ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

EFR batteries and DSR victorious as coal exits T-1 auction

UPDATE: The owners of Eggborough Power Plant, the 2GW coal-firing plant in Yorkshire, have confirmed that it is to close after failing to land a Capacity Market contract in the T-1 auction. The company said the plant would no longer be economically viable in the absence of a contract. It will continue to honour its existing contractual commitments which will take it until the end of September this year.

“This result follows the news that coal generation in January 2018 – typically one of the most coal-intensive months of the year – is down by more than two-thirds compared to just one year ago. The terminal decline of coal power is coming at the right time, when ever-cheaper renewables are able to fill in the gap, and concerns about air pollution spread around the country,” he said.

Regarding my bold above, I didn't know that. Nice news.

Martyn1981

NigeWick wrote: »

If I were the country, I'd suck for that as just dealing with the eventual nuclear waste will likely cost more than that. And, we could cover that space with wind turbines or solar. The decreasing cost of renewables would probably save money on the increasing costs of HPC and whatever electricity it eventually produces.

Yep. Each year since the 2012 CfD was announced and the subsidy element was £6bn, the NAO have revised down the average wholesale price for leccy in the late 2020's and early 2030's. This has effectively pushed up the subsidy element to £30bn and more lately to around £44-50bn.

So, purely on numbers it might actually be worth 'swallowing the poison pill', but there's far more to it, we have the government's big bet on nuclear, which would be embarrassing to them, and clearly the Chinese put some sort of pressure on Theresa May when she cancelled the signing ceremony the day before for her review of the deal.

I'm not actually criticising China or the UK on that, China was right to be peeved, and the loss of face would have been huge, and TM had to give in, as she's in a dangerous position regarding future trade with China. What a mess!

If the US, the largest nuclear nation, gives up on nuclear and cancels the remaining two reactors under construction (having cancelled two mid build last year), then add that to Sweden, Germany, S. Korea and even France who are backing off nuclear a bit, and you are really just left with China, the UK and the UAE still moving forward 'confidently' with nuclear.

Economics is the 800lb gorilla, and it's changed sides in the argument.