Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

NigeWick

Martyn1981 said:

Big talk, and to be fair, good talk, but will it lead to anything, keep those fingers crossed.

EDF (by etention France) want to build a Hinkley Point C at Sizewell. Their claim is that because they have experience at HPC, it will work out cheaper and quicker to be built. Hopefully HMGov aren't that stupid or desperate for bribes.

Martyn1981

Coastalwatch said:

gefnew said:

Hi
Just spotted this on the news about edf and sizewell power plant.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-52813171

Apparently the cost is about £18 billion, but in any case less than the £21.5 -£22.5 billion that Hinckley point is expected to complete at. There has been no timescale mentioned in the recent press release although output of 3.2 GW is stated. EDF are planning to finance it mostly through pension schemes!

It does rather beg the question How many wind farms could be built for such a sum, what might the output be and cost per kWh of energy once built?

Simple question, multiple answers:
1. Very, very rough figure would be around 1GW of capacity per £1bn. But that figure may be out of date, PV is cheaper, on-shore wind cheaper, and off-shore wind more ...... but ..... off-shore wind tumbling these past few years at each auction. Then take capacity factor into account, v's ~92% for HPC or SC, so £18bn probably buys you more than 18GW of on-shore wind, @25-30%cf, so absolute guess, with multiple opportunities for mistake, you get say 20GW @ 28% = 5.6GW average, v's SC at 3.2GW@92% = 2.94GW average.
As off-shore wind costs fall, their higher cf (pushing 50%) makes a massive difference, so even half the capacity (off on-shore win) would still net a similar 5GW average.
PV cheaper, perhaps 35GW for £18bn (total guess), so average gen of about 3.6GW (11%cf).
Also need to consider maintenance, fuel, security etc.. That's where PV wins big.

2. The sum, in this case, is private money, so whilst crucial for comparison, it's irrelevant to bills, as they will reflect the agreed CfD price, not the build cost. With average wholesale costs in the £40-£50/MWh range, it's the difference between that figure and the CfD strike prices that is crucial. Off-shore wind was the monster, with early CfD's as high as £173/MWh in today's money, but these have fallen fast, and the latest contracts are for £46 & £48 /MWh, potentially net subsidy free. On-shore wind and PV are in the £80's & £90's, but these contracts were issued about 5yrs ago, since when costs all over the World have continued to fall, but the UK Gov excluded them from CfD auctions, so hopefully when they are re-introduced next year, we will see up to date bids, probably in the £40's.

With HPC at £104.50/MWh, we can expect it to receive around £50bn in subsidies over its 35yr subsidy period (15yrs for RE).
We will have to wait and see what CfD can (or can't) be agreed for SC. The last figure I saw was ~£80/MWh (not today's monies), but only if the UK Gov put £5bn directly into the build costs, so we can probably expect something around £90/MWh(?)

3. We do need to consider storage costs for RE, but the same can be applied to nuclear, especially since it will be arriving after significant RE has been commissioned, so it could, technically(?) be considered the excess generation needing storage when supply exceeds demand.

4. Crucial cost, that made the news a year or so back, was that of FF generation emissions during nuclear construction. If nuclear takes 10yrs (or more to build), and RE takes 1-5yrs (depending on technology), then nuclear carries an additional cost of 5-9yrs CO2 emissions when compared to RE.

5. Back up costs - we are of course told (though not so often these days) that for every GW of RE generation you build, you need another GW of FF capacity to back it up. But this has proven false, and storage can take much of this strain, deployed as it becomes economically needed. However, whilst the grid can cope with losing a string of PV, or a wind turbine, or even a whole RE farm, what it can't cope with so easily is losing a nuclear power plant, or even just one reactor at 1.6GW, without warning, so nuclear does require back up such as FF capacity paid to be on standby.

6. Other costs, and I'm sure to miss many, but RE and nuclear are required to cover end of life costs, which are known/predictable for RE, but not for nuclear, which will have to place a required amount per annum in a fund to grow to cover decommissioning, fingers crossed. Insurance for nuclear will come from the UK Gov, as no company can insure nuclear. In the event of a serious 'incident', or decommissiong costs exceed the savings fund, then UK Gov will step in to make up the shortfall.

I'm sure there is much more, but thought a few numbers and points may be useful. The cost figures for CfD's come from this register.

gefnew

Hi All
good news from the uk about solar generation coming on stream.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52841223
cheers

Coastalwatch

Martyn1981 said:

Coastalwatch said:

It does rather beg the question How many wind farms could be built for such a sum, what might the output be and cost per kWh of energy once built?

Simple question, multiple answers:
1. Very, very rough figure would be around 1GW of capacity per £1bn. But that figure may be out of date, PV is cheaper, on-shore wind cheaper, and off-shore wind more ...... but ..... off-shore wind tumbling these past few years at each auction. Then take capacity factor into account, v's ~92% for HPC or SC, so £18bn probably buys you more than 18GW of on-shore wind, @25-30%cf, so absolute guess, with multiple opportunities for mistake, you get say 20GW @ 28% = 5.6GW average, v's SC at 3.2GW@92% = 2.94GW average.
As off-shore wind costs fall, their higher cf (pushing 50%) makes a massive difference, so even half the capacity (off on-shore win) would still net a similar 5GW average.
PV cheaper, perhaps 35GW for £18bn (total guess), so average gen of about 3.6GW (11%cf).
Also need to consider maintenance, fuel, security etc.. That's where PV wins big.

2. The sum, in this case, is private money, so whilst crucial for comparison, it's irrelevant to bills, as they will reflect the agreed CfD price, not the build cost. With average wholesale costs in the £40-£50/MWh range, it's the difference between that figure and the CfD strike prices that is crucial. Off-shore wind was the monster, with early CfD's as high as £173/MWh in today's money, but these have fallen fast, and the latest contracts are for £46 & £48 /MWh, potentially net subsidy free. On-shore wind and PV are in the £80's & £90's, but these contracts were issued about 5yrs ago, since when costs all over the World have continued to fall, but the UK Gov excluded them from CfD auctions, so hopefully when they are re-introduced next year, we will see up to date bids, probably in the £40's.

With HPC at £104.50/MWh, we can expect it to receive around £50bn in subsidies over its 35yr subsidy period (15yrs for RE).
We will have to wait and see what CfD can (or can't) be agreed for SC. The last figure I saw was ~£80/MWh (not today's monies), but only if the UK Gov put £5bn directly into the build costs, so we can probably expect something around £90/MWh(?)

3. We do need to consider storage costs for RE, but the same can be applied to nuclear, especially since it will be arriving after significant RE has been commissioned, so it could, technically(?) be considered the excess generation needing storage when supply exceeds demand.

4. Crucial cost, that made the news a year or so back, was that of FF generation emissions during nuclear construction. If nuclear takes 10yrs (or more to build), and RE takes 1-5yrs (depending on technology), then nuclear carries an additional cost of 5-9yrs CO2 emissions when compared to RE.

5. Back up costs - we are of course told (though not so often these days) that for every GW of RE generation you build, you need another GW of FF capacity to back it up. But this has proven false, and storage can take much of this strain, deployed as it becomes economically needed. However, whilst the grid can cope with losing a string of PV, or a wind turbine, or even a whole RE farm, what it can't cope with so easily is losing a nuclear power plant, or even just one reactor at 1.6GW, without warning, so nuclear does require back up such as FF capacity paid to be on standby.

6. Other costs, and I'm sure to miss many, but RE and nuclear are required to cover end of life costs, which are known/predictable for RE, but not for nuclear, which will have to place a required amount per annum in a fund to grow to cover decommissioning, fingers crossed. Insurance for nuclear will come from the UK Gov, as no company can insure nuclear. In the event of a serious 'incident', or decommissiong costs exceed the savings fund, then UK Gov will step in to make up the shortfall.

I'm sure there is much more, but thought a few numbers and points may be useful. The cost figures for CfD's come from this register.

Thanks Mart for such a detailed analysis on costs.

So for a similar cost to Sizewell C, The Renewables built would generate twice the capacity of generation in about half the build time and with the end product, energy, costing approx half as much per kWh!

Is that really correct!

Martyn1981

Coastalwatch said:

Martyn1981 said:

Coastalwatch said:

It does rather beg the question How many wind farms could be built for such a sum, what might the output be and cost per kWh of energy once built?

Simple question, multiple answers:
1. Very, very rough figure would be around 1GW of capacity per £1bn. But that figure may be out of date, PV is cheaper, on-shore wind cheaper, and off-shore wind more ...... but ..... off-shore wind tumbling these past few years at each auction. Then take capacity factor into account, v's ~92% for HPC or SC, so £18bn probably buys you more than 18GW of on-shore wind, @25-30%cf, so absolute guess, with multiple opportunities for mistake, you get say 20GW @ 28% = 5.6GW average, v's SC at 3.2GW@92% = 2.94GW average.
As off-shore wind costs fall, their higher cf (pushing 50%) makes a massive difference, so even half the capacity (off on-shore win) would still net a similar 5GW average.
PV cheaper, perhaps 35GW for £18bn (total guess), so average gen of about 3.6GW (11%cf).
Also need to consider maintenance, fuel, security etc.. That's where PV wins big.

2. The sum, in this case, is private money, so whilst crucial for comparison, it's irrelevant to bills, as they will reflect the agreed CfD price, not the build cost. With average wholesale costs in the £40-£50/MWh range, it's the difference between that figure and the CfD strike prices that is crucial. Off-shore wind was the monster, with early CfD's as high as £173/MWh in today's money, but these have fallen fast, and the latest contracts are for £46 & £48 /MWh, potentially net subsidy free. On-shore wind and PV are in the £80's & £90's, but these contracts were issued about 5yrs ago, since when costs all over the World have continued to fall, but the UK Gov excluded them from CfD auctions, so hopefully when they are re-introduced next year, we will see up to date bids, probably in the £40's.

With HPC at £104.50/MWh, we can expect it to receive around £50bn in subsidies over its 35yr subsidy period (15yrs for RE).
We will have to wait and see what CfD can (or can't) be agreed for SC. The last figure I saw was ~£80/MWh (not today's monies), but only if the UK Gov put £5bn directly into the build costs, so we can probably expect something around £90/MWh(?)

3. We do need to consider storage costs for RE, but the same can be applied to nuclear, especially since it will be arriving after significant RE has been commissioned, so it could, technically(?) be considered the excess generation needing storage when supply exceeds demand.

4. Crucial cost, that made the news a year or so back, was that of FF generation emissions during nuclear construction. If nuclear takes 10yrs (or more to build), and RE takes 1-5yrs (depending on technology), then nuclear carries an additional cost of 5-9yrs CO2 emissions when compared to RE.

5. Back up costs - we are of course told (though not so often these days) that for every GW of RE generation you build, you need another GW of FF capacity to back it up. But this has proven false, and storage can take much of this strain, deployed as it becomes economically needed. However, whilst the grid can cope with losing a string of PV, or a wind turbine, or even a whole RE farm, what it can't cope with so easily is losing a nuclear power plant, or even just one reactor at 1.6GW, without warning, so nuclear does require back up such as FF capacity paid to be on standby.

6. Other costs, and I'm sure to miss many, but RE and nuclear are required to cover end of life costs, which are known/predictable for RE, but not for nuclear, which will have to place a required amount per annum in a fund to grow to cover decommissioning, fingers crossed. Insurance for nuclear will come from the UK Gov, as no company can insure nuclear. In the event of a serious 'incident', or decommissiong costs exceed the savings fund, then UK Gov will step in to make up the shortfall.

I'm sure there is much more, but thought a few numbers and points may be useful. The cost figures for CfD's come from this register.

Thanks Mart for such a detailed analysis on costs.

So for a similar cost to Sizewell C, The Renewables built would generate twice the capacity of generation in about half the build time and with the end product, energy, costing approx half as much per kWh!

Is that really correct!

You know, put like that, it does sound too good to be true, and made me ponder, but I think that's correct - I'm only doubting as the position, when set out so simply, is 'too' good.
So, we have Dogger Bank off-shore wind contracted in 2019 with a target commissioning date of 2023, with stage 2 and 3 target dates of early and mid 2024, with CfD's of £45.83/MWh in today's money, (£39.65/MWh in 2012 pricing, which seems to be the baseline for comparisons).

That means much cheaper than HPC, started later than HPC, and generating before HPC. So if we assume SC gets planning permission in a year or so, then it may be commissioned around 2030-35, a decade later than RE generation we could contract today.

Back to costs, yes, what we will pay will be half, made up of 'normal' payments plus green levies charged to us to pay the subsidy, so that off-shore wind will cost us about 5p (rounded up for simplicity) regardless of what it is sold for, as the difference either way will be corrected through the CfD mechanism, whilst the HPC leccy will cost us 10p, again corrected via the mechanism, so perhaps 5p through leccy charges and 5p through green levies on the bill.

But in subsidy terms, the difference is vast. If we assume an average sales price of that RE leccy at 5p, then the subsidy will be net zero, or close to it, whilst HPC will get 5p, so infinitely more. That is a bit of a cheap shot, but shows the significance of RE costs falling towards wholesale prices - if wholesale prices are £50, then a £90 contract is £10 and 10% cheaper than a £100 contract, but the subsidy is 20% lower (£40 v's £50), and a £60 contract is 80% less in subsidy terms (£10 v's £50).

And having bored everyone already, why not go all in and mention the subsidy term period again too. RE is 15yrs, nuclear is 35yrs. The wind turbines (and PV) will wear out before nuclear, so a common mistake going back a few years was to assume repeated subsidy periods for RE, as the replacement off-shore wind is installed as the current contracts end, but with costs/prices falling towards wholesale levels, and a reduced need for subsidy, I'm feeling pretty confident to say that RE subsidies won't be needed for replacement rollouts in the future (say 2045, when the 2025 wind farms are worn out). That may not be clear, so just as an example, let's say the off-shore wind gets replaced every 20yrs, so we have 3 installs v's the 60yrs for HPC, that still means 15yrs of subsidy for RE, v's 35yrs of subsidy for nuclear, as the replacement off-shore wind won't get/need a subsidy.

In fact, there may be a good chance that the Government will start raising money instead, by charging for leases to permit off-shore wind deployments, so we may see auctions that bid up the price for a lease, rather than bid down for a subsidy ..... that would be nice.

Note - we do need to consider storage and overcapacity for RE, but with costs of generation and storage falling so fast, I think we can assume that the difference in costs will remain, be it nuclear v's RE today, or nuclear v's RE + storage/curtailment tomorrow.

Martyn1981

PV article, but I thought I'd post it on here given the potential for N.African exports via interconnectors to Europe. Potential here to export to Spain, Italy (via Sicily), and provide significant winter sun? Note - the export part is my pondering, and thinking back to the Desertec idea. It would need a vast amount more PV than the 4GW mentioned, but if costs work out, and the experience is a good one, then maybe a future potential.

No Joke — Algeria Plans 4 Gigawatt, 5 Year Solar Power Initiative

Martyn1981

Some info on a couple of big legal battles in the US, the attempt to rollback tougher efficiency  standards for transport, and the FF companies fighting against having to pay for business practices that promoted climate change. It is boring, but legal decisions in the US can make big changes, such as the 'breaking' of big tobacco.

States Sue EPA Over Emissions Rollback As 9th Circuit Refuses To Allow Oil Companies To Seek Shelter In Federal Court

michaels

Martyn1981 said:

Coastalwatch said:

Martyn1981 said:

Coastalwatch said:

It does rather beg the question How many wind farms could be built for such a sum, what might the output be and cost per kWh of energy once built?

Simple question, multiple answers:
1. Very, very rough figure would be around 1GW of capacity per £1bn. But that figure may be out of date, PV is cheaper, on-shore wind cheaper, and off-shore wind more ...... but ..... off-shore wind tumbling these past few years at each auction. Then take capacity factor into account, v's ~92% for HPC or SC, so £18bn probably buys you more than 18GW of on-shore wind, @25-30%cf, so absolute guess, with multiple opportunities for mistake, you get say 20GW @ 28% = 5.6GW average, v's SC at 3.2GW@92% = 2.94GW average.
As off-shore wind costs fall, their higher cf (pushing 50%) makes a massive difference, so even half the capacity (off on-shore win) would still net a similar 5GW average.
PV cheaper, perhaps 35GW for £18bn (total guess), so average gen of about 3.6GW (11%cf).
Also need to consider maintenance, fuel, security etc.. That's where PV wins big.

2. The sum, in this case, is private money, so whilst crucial for comparison, it's irrelevant to bills, as they will reflect the agreed CfD price, not the build cost. With average wholesale costs in the £40-£50/MWh range, it's the difference between that figure and the CfD strike prices that is crucial. Off-shore wind was the monster, with early CfD's as high as £173/MWh in today's money, but these have fallen fast, and the latest contracts are for £46 & £48 /MWh, potentially net subsidy free. On-shore wind and PV are in the £80's & £90's, but these contracts were issued about 5yrs ago, since when costs all over the World have continued to fall, but the UK Gov excluded them from CfD auctions, so hopefully when they are re-introduced next year, we will see up to date bids, probably in the £40's.

With HPC at £104.50/MWh, we can expect it to receive around £50bn in subsidies over its 35yr subsidy period (15yrs for RE).
We will have to wait and see what CfD can (or can't) be agreed for SC. The last figure I saw was ~£80/MWh (not today's monies), but only if the UK Gov put £5bn directly into the build costs, so we can probably expect something around £90/MWh(?)

3. We do need to consider storage costs for RE, but the same can be applied to nuclear, especially since it will be arriving after significant RE has been commissioned, so it could, technically(?) be considered the excess generation needing storage when supply exceeds demand.

4. Crucial cost, that made the news a year or so back, was that of FF generation emissions during nuclear construction. If nuclear takes 10yrs (or more to build), and RE takes 1-5yrs (depending on technology), then nuclear carries an additional cost of 5-9yrs CO2 emissions when compared to RE.

5. Back up costs - we are of course told (though not so often these days) that for every GW of RE generation you build, you need another GW of FF capacity to back it up. But this has proven false, and storage can take much of this strain, deployed as it becomes economically needed. However, whilst the grid can cope with losing a string of PV, or a wind turbine, or even a whole RE farm, what it can't cope with so easily is losing a nuclear power plant, or even just one reactor at 1.6GW, without warning, so nuclear does require back up such as FF capacity paid to be on standby.

6. Other costs, and I'm sure to miss many, but RE and nuclear are required to cover end of life costs, which are known/predictable for RE, but not for nuclear, which will have to place a required amount per annum in a fund to grow to cover decommissioning, fingers crossed. Insurance for nuclear will come from the UK Gov, as no company can insure nuclear. In the event of a serious 'incident', or decommissiong costs exceed the savings fund, then UK Gov will step in to make up the shortfall.

I'm sure there is much more, but thought a few numbers and points may be useful. The cost figures for CfD's come from this register.

Thanks Mart for such a detailed analysis on costs.

So for a similar cost to Sizewell C, The Renewables built would generate twice the capacity of generation in about half the build time and with the end product, energy, costing approx half as much per kWh!

Is that really correct!

You know, put like that, it does sound too good to be true, and made me ponder, but I think that's correct - I'm only doubting as the position, when set out so simply, is 'too' good.
So, we have Dogger Bank off-shore wind contracted in 2019 with a target commissioning date of 2023, with stage 2 and 3 target dates of early and mid 2024, with CfD's of £45.83/MWh in today's money, (£39.65/MWh in 2012 pricing, which seems to be the baseline for comparisons).

That means much cheaper than HPC, started later than HPC, and generating before HPC. So if we assume SC gets planning permission in a year or so, then it may be commissioned around 2030-35, a decade later than RE generation we could contract today.

Back to costs, yes, what we will pay will be half, made up of 'normal' payments plus green levies charged to us to pay the subsidy, so that off-shore wind will cost us about 5p (rounded up for simplicity) regardless of what it is sold for, as the difference either way will be corrected through the CfD mechanism, whilst the HPC leccy will cost us 10p, again corrected via the mechanism, so perhaps 5p through leccy charges and 5p through green levies on the bill.

But in subsidy terms, the difference is vast. If we assume an average sales price of that RE leccy at 5p, then the subsidy will be net zero, or close to it, whilst HPC will get 5p, so infinitely more. That is a bit of a cheap shot, but shows the significance of RE costs falling towards wholesale prices - if wholesale prices are £50, then a £90 contract is £10 and 10% cheaper than a £100 contract, but the subsidy is 20% lower (£40 v's £50), and a £60 contract is 80% less in subsidy terms (£10 v's £50).

And having bored everyone already, why not go all in and mention the subsidy term period again too. RE is 15yrs, nuclear is 35yrs. The wind turbines (and PV) will wear out before nuclear, so a common mistake going back a few years was to assume repeated subsidy periods for RE, as the replacement off-shore wind is installed as the current contracts end, but with costs/prices falling towards wholesale levels, and a reduced need for subsidy, I'm feeling pretty confident to say that RE subsidies won't be needed for replacement rollouts in the future (say 2045, when the 2025 wind farms are worn out). That may not be clear, so just as an example, let's say the off-shore wind gets replaced every 20yrs, so we have 3 installs v's the 60yrs for HPC, that still means 15yrs of subsidy for RE, v's 35yrs of subsidy for nuclear, as the replacement off-shore wind won't get/need a subsidy.

In fact, there may be a good chance that the Government will start raising money instead, by charging for leases to permit off-shore wind deployments, so we may see auctions that bid up the price for a lease, rather than bid down for a subsidy ..... that would be nice.

Note - we do need to consider storage and overcapacity for RE, but with costs of generation and storage falling so fast, I think we can assume that the difference in costs will remain, be it nuclear v's RE today, or nuclear v's RE + storage/curtailment tomorrow.

I'm not sure you can assume that the average selling price of the wind generated and nuclear generated power will be the same - assuming nuclear runs 24/7 then its average selling price will match the average unit price.  However wind power being variable there is a likelihood that when it is generating most it will impact on the supply/demand balance and push prices down, thus the average selling unit price of wind output is likely to be less than for nuclear.  Almost certainly not enough to make up for the difference in strike prices but simply comparing the strike prices is not the whole story either.

Martyn1981

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

Coastalwatch said:

Martyn1981 said:

Coastalwatch said:

It does rather beg the question How many wind farms could be built for such a sum, what might the output be and cost per kWh of energy once built?

Simple question, multiple answers:
1. Very, very rough figure would be around 1GW of capacity per £1bn. But that figure may be out of date, PV is cheaper, on-shore wind cheaper, and off-shore wind more ...... but ..... off-shore wind tumbling these past few years at each auction. Then take capacity factor into account, v's ~92% for HPC or SC, so £18bn probably buys you more than 18GW of on-shore wind, @25-30%cf, so absolute guess, with multiple opportunities for mistake, you get say 20GW @ 28% = 5.6GW average, v's SC at 3.2GW@92% = 2.94GW average.
As off-shore wind costs fall, their higher cf (pushing 50%) makes a massive difference, so even half the capacity (off on-shore win) would still net a similar 5GW average.
PV cheaper, perhaps 35GW for £18bn (total guess), so average gen of about 3.6GW (11%cf).
Also need to consider maintenance, fuel, security etc.. That's where PV wins big.

2. The sum, in this case, is private money, so whilst crucial for comparison, it's irrelevant to bills, as they will reflect the agreed CfD price, not the build cost. With average wholesale costs in the £40-£50/MWh range, it's the difference between that figure and the CfD strike prices that is crucial. Off-shore wind was the monster, with early CfD's as high as £173/MWh in today's money, but these have fallen fast, and the latest contracts are for £46 & £48 /MWh, potentially net subsidy free. On-shore wind and PV are in the £80's & £90's, but these contracts were issued about 5yrs ago, since when costs all over the World have continued to fall, but the UK Gov excluded them from CfD auctions, so hopefully when they are re-introduced next year, we will see up to date bids, probably in the £40's.

With HPC at £104.50/MWh, we can expect it to receive around £50bn in subsidies over its 35yr subsidy period (15yrs for RE).
We will have to wait and see what CfD can (or can't) be agreed for SC. The last figure I saw was ~£80/MWh (not today's monies), but only if the UK Gov put £5bn directly into the build costs, so we can probably expect something around £90/MWh(?)

3. We do need to consider storage costs for RE, but the same can be applied to nuclear, especially since it will be arriving after significant RE has been commissioned, so it could, technically(?) be considered the excess generation needing storage when supply exceeds demand.

4. Crucial cost, that made the news a year or so back, was that of FF generation emissions during nuclear construction. If nuclear takes 10yrs (or more to build), and RE takes 1-5yrs (depending on technology), then nuclear carries an additional cost of 5-9yrs CO2 emissions when compared to RE.

5. Back up costs - we are of course told (though not so often these days) that for every GW of RE generation you build, you need another GW of FF capacity to back it up. But this has proven false, and storage can take much of this strain, deployed as it becomes economically needed. However, whilst the grid can cope with losing a string of PV, or a wind turbine, or even a whole RE farm, what it can't cope with so easily is losing a nuclear power plant, or even just one reactor at 1.6GW, without warning, so nuclear does require back up such as FF capacity paid to be on standby.

6. Other costs, and I'm sure to miss many, but RE and nuclear are required to cover end of life costs, which are known/predictable for RE, but not for nuclear, which will have to place a required amount per annum in a fund to grow to cover decommissioning, fingers crossed. Insurance for nuclear will come from the UK Gov, as no company can insure nuclear. In the event of a serious 'incident', or decommissiong costs exceed the savings fund, then UK Gov will step in to make up the shortfall.

I'm sure there is much more, but thought a few numbers and points may be useful. The cost figures for CfD's come from this register.

Thanks Mart for such a detailed analysis on costs.

So for a similar cost to Sizewell C, The Renewables built would generate twice the capacity of generation in about half the build time and with the end product, energy, costing approx half as much per kWh!

Is that really correct!

You know, put like that, it does sound too good to be true, and made me ponder, but I think that's correct - I'm only doubting as the position, when set out so simply, is 'too' good.
So, we have Dogger Bank off-shore wind contracted in 2019 with a target commissioning date of 2023, with stage 2 and 3 target dates of early and mid 2024, with CfD's of £45.83/MWh in today's money, (£39.65/MWh in 2012 pricing, which seems to be the baseline for comparisons).

That means much cheaper than HPC, started later than HPC, and generating before HPC. So if we assume SC gets planning permission in a year or so, then it may be commissioned around 2030-35, a decade later than RE generation we could contract today.

Back to costs, yes, what we will pay will be half, made up of 'normal' payments plus green levies charged to us to pay the subsidy, so that off-shore wind will cost us about 5p (rounded up for simplicity) regardless of what it is sold for, as the difference either way will be corrected through the CfD mechanism, whilst the HPC leccy will cost us 10p, again corrected via the mechanism, so perhaps 5p through leccy charges and 5p through green levies on the bill.

But in subsidy terms, the difference is vast. If we assume an average sales price of that RE leccy at 5p, then the subsidy will be net zero, or close to it, whilst HPC will get 5p, so infinitely more. That is a bit of a cheap shot, but shows the significance of RE costs falling towards wholesale prices - if wholesale prices are £50, then a £90 contract is £10 and 10% cheaper than a £100 contract, but the subsidy is 20% lower (£40 v's £50), and a £60 contract is 80% less in subsidy terms (£10 v's £50).

And having bored everyone already, why not go all in and mention the subsidy term period again too. RE is 15yrs, nuclear is 35yrs. The wind turbines (and PV) will wear out before nuclear, so a common mistake going back a few years was to assume repeated subsidy periods for RE, as the replacement off-shore wind is installed as the current contracts end, but with costs/prices falling towards wholesale levels, and a reduced need for subsidy, I'm feeling pretty confident to say that RE subsidies won't be needed for replacement rollouts in the future (say 2045, when the 2025 wind farms are worn out). That may not be clear, so just as an example, let's say the off-shore wind gets replaced every 20yrs, so we have 3 installs v's the 60yrs for HPC, that still means 15yrs of subsidy for RE, v's 35yrs of subsidy for nuclear, as the replacement off-shore wind won't get/need a subsidy.

In fact, there may be a good chance that the Government will start raising money instead, by charging for leases to permit off-shore wind deployments, so we may see auctions that bid up the price for a lease, rather than bid down for a subsidy ..... that would be nice.

Note - we do need to consider storage and overcapacity for RE, but with costs of generation and storage falling so fast, I think we can assume that the difference in costs will remain, be it nuclear v's RE today, or nuclear v's RE + storage/curtailment tomorrow.

I'm not sure you can assume that the average selling price of the wind generated and nuclear generated power will be the same - assuming nuclear runs 24/7 then its average selling price will match the average unit price.  However wind power being variable there is a likelihood that when it is generating most it will impact on the supply/demand balance and push prices down, thus the average selling unit price of wind output is likely to be less than for nuclear.  Almost certainly not enough to make up for the difference in strike prices but simply comparing the strike prices is not the whole story either.

If wind pushes down the price then that will impact nuclear too. Wind generates more when leccy is in more demand, and nuclear will be selling into high PV generation periods in the summer when prices are low and wind gen is lower. So an assumption that the average selling price for wind will be less than that for nuclear is just an assumption. It may be correct, or wrong. I've used an average wholesale price simply for comparison, but with subsidies out (or in through reclaiming during high price periods) we know that the latest wind contracts will receive in total £46/MWh whilst HPC gets paid £104.

Martyn1981

Couple of articles looking at the economic benefits of going down an accelerated RE route:

Rapid shift to renewable energy could lead Australia to cheap power and 100,000 jobs

A rapid expansion of renewable energy over the next five years could establish Australia as a home for new zero-emissions industries, cut electricity costs and create more than 100,000 jobs in the electricity industry alone, a new analysis suggests.

The briefing paper by Beyond Zero Emissions, a climate change thinktank, presents an alternative vision to the Morrison government’s gas-fired recovery plan, arguing the shift to a clean electricity grid is inevitable and there are opportunities in accelerating it, rather than slowing it down. Renewable energy investment in Australia fell 50% last year.

The work is backed by the former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who described the central thesis of the report as “compellingly right”.

“That is, we have the opportunity to have zero emissions and cheap energy in Australia if we get over the political roadblock that has bedevilled the debate for so long,” Turnbull told Guardian Australia.

EU green recovery package sets a marker for the world

The European commission has put down a marker for the world with its green recovery package. It sets a high standard for other nations, using the rebuilding of coronavirus-ravaged economies to tackle the even greater threat of the climate emergency, in principle at least.

With the world fast approaching the point when climate chaos becomes inevitable, how the trillions of recovery dollars – or euros – are spent is a use-it-or-lose-it moment, so what the EU does really matters. Climate change is a global crisis, meaning all nations must act and some must lead the way.

Hmmm!

The EU plan may even have a direct impact on the rest of the world, with a border tax on carbon-intensive industrial imports from other nations potentially raising up to €14bn.