Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Coastalwatch

Martyn1981 said:

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.

So, given that RE would generate double that of Sizewell C for a similar cost, then we only actually need spend half of it, £9 billion. Leaving the other £9 billion spare to put toward storage!

Given the progress and focus upon battery storage in it's many forms around the world today then I just wonder how much storage could be made available for that sum of money in say five years time?

michaels

How much does gas generation cost per kwh if it ran non-stop like nuclear effectively has too - I presume a fair bit cheaper than HPC?  I wonder what level of carbon tax you would need to make HPC cost competitive vs gas - after all the gas stations could be much smaller so you would need less spare capacity for an outage (it worries me that 4 reactors all of the same design might all need to be shut down at the same time if a fault were discovered).

Coastalwatch

I'm sorry Michaels but given this a Green and Ethical forum I can't quite see your fascination with continued burning of a fossil fuel when clean and sustainable options are already here. Admittedly the weakest link in the chain for a constant supply of energy is still to be resolved. But given the advances  in battery technology in recent years, not too mention other forms of energy storage, then I suspect in a few years time the puzzle will be solved. Surely our focus ought to be on the technologies of the future rather than the outdated technologies and practises of the past. Or, am I wrong again.

Martyn1981

Coastalwatch said:

Martyn1981 said:

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.

So, given that RE would generate double that of Sizewell C for a similar cost, then we only actually need spend half of it, £9 billion. Leaving the other £9 billion spare to put toward storage!

Given the progress and focus upon battery storage in it's many forms around the world today then I just wonder how much storage could be made available for that sum of money in say five years time?

That's got me thinking again ...... oh boy, strap in (or switch off).
We don't really need to concern ourselves too much with the build cost, it's a bit like deciding what car to buy based on the cost of the factory, not the price of the car (which will of course include the cost of the factory). So that's why the subsidy part is so important. The cost of the wind gen (£46) v's the nuclear (£104), may appear to be roughly 1:2, but let's say (to keep any concerns at bay) that wind sells at an average of £40, and nuclear at an average of £50, then we have a subsidy comparison of £6 v's £54 or 1:9. This is the more important number as it reflects what the Gov (us) have to spend to encourage the different technologies to be rolled out.

The government doesn't have to subsidise the cost of the leccy since we want to buy it, and companies want to sell it, so they only have to nudge and manipulate the market enough to make the RE or nuclear economically viable for the leccy generators to build it. So for 1/9th (in my fictional example) of the money, they can effect change by encouraging the building of RE v's nuclear.

Back to the point (finally), and this isn't a criticism of what you said, but more a realisation of mine, the £9bn you said could go towards storage, wouldn't be to buy £9bn of storage, but to nudge the storage enough to be viable, so if it needs 50% support, that £9bn would result in £18bn being spent/invested in storage, or if it needs 20% support, then we might see £45bn of storage.

With RE and storage costs tumbling, imagine how much total value of deployments the £50bn going to HPC might deliver. If SC gets a CfD of £90/MWh, then that could be around £36bn in subsidies, £80 CfD would be ~£27bn.

Sorry for pointing out the bleedin obvious, but as RE and storage costs head towards a price where they would be rolled out economically anyway, we start to see just how much more energy/storage our subsidies will buy. Been a fantastic last 10yrs watching these costs tumble thanks to international support.

michaels

Coastalwatch said:

I'm sorry Michaels but given this a Green and Ethical forum I can't quite see your fascination with continued burning of a fossil fuel when clean and sustainable options are already here. Admittedly the weakest link in the chain for a constant supply of energy is still to be resolved. But given the advances  in battery technology in recent years, not too mention other forms of energy storage, then I suspect in a few years time the puzzle will be solved. Surely our focus ought to be on the technologies of the future rather than the outdated technologies and practises of the past. Or, am I wrong again.

WE want to decarb energy production - if it is cheaper to do that by burning dino farts and carbon capture and storage rather than by splitting uranium nuclei then I am all for the former: more easily scalable, less risk, shorter term so easier to change when different technologies come on stream, a better match with other technologies.

If you could have gas turbines plus carbon capture for cheaper than nuclear with the sub benefit it could fit most neatly with cheaper carbon free generation like wind and pv why would you want to take the nuclear option?

Martyn1981

michaels said:

Coastalwatch said:

I'm sorry Michaels but given this a Green and Ethical forum I can't quite see your fascination with continued burning of a fossil fuel when clean and sustainable options are already here. Admittedly the weakest link in the chain for a constant supply of energy is still to be resolved. But given the advances  in battery technology in recent years, not too mention other forms of energy storage, then I suspect in a few years time the puzzle will be solved. Surely our focus ought to be on the technologies of the future rather than the outdated technologies and practises of the past. Or, am I wrong again.

WE want to decarb energy production - if it is cheaper to do that by burning dino farts and carbon capture and storage rather than by splitting uranium nuclei then I am all for the former: more easily scalable, less risk, shorter term so easier to change when different technologies come on stream, a better match with other technologies.

If you could have gas turbines plus carbon capture for cheaper than nuclear with the sub benefit it could fit most neatly with cheaper carbon free generation like wind and pv why would you want to take the nuclear option?

Can FF gas + CCS come in cheaper than nuclear though, do you have any numbers? And since it won't catch all the CO2, is it worth it? Has CCS been shown to be economic (anywhere), or might it just be a 'look squirrel' from the FF industry in an attempt to keep us on FF's with a promise of a simple solution that never arrives, but buys them time, and more sales?

michaels

Some numbers
Natural gas 2p/kwh generating electricity at 34% efficiency = 6p per kwh of electricity produced
CO2 released is about 1kg per kwh
Postulated cost of CCS in 2024 = 4p/kg

Total cost per zero emission gas kwh of electricity = 10p - eg similar to cost of nuclear

But all using plants with less capital expenditure, shorter lifespan, lower risk and much more interoperable with RE.

Oh dear, I think I am starting to sound like another poster for which I apologise and the numbers could be all wrong or there are bound to be other issues but I do think that economics should drive what we do rather than just a blind faith that sees some energy solutions as good and others as bad.

Martyn1981

So best case, vastly more expensive than RE generation / only as expensive as nuclear? So why spend/invest £bn's in rolling this out, when RE is cheaper, faster and has no scaleability issues?

Carbon Capture’s Global Investment Would Have Been Better Spent On Wind & Solar

Wind & solar are displacing roughly 35 times as much CO2 every year as the complete global history of CCS

michaels

Martyn1981 said:

So best case, vastly more expensive than RE generation / only as expensive as nuclear? So why spend/invest £bn's in rolling this out, when RE is cheaper, faster and has no scaleability issues?

Carbon Capture’s Global Investment Would Have Been Better Spent On Wind & Solar

Wind & solar are displacing roughly 35 times as much CO2 every year as the complete global history of CCS

Govts are every nervous about the lights going out and think this means they need a 24/7 generating capacity that is not supplied by renewables at present.  Unless you think they can be weaned off this notion then it seems certain that they will mandate a 'traditional' baseload supply.  This needs to be carbon free hence the decision to spend a gazillion quid on nuclear.  Where I am coming from is that if the choice (artificial I know but nonetheless it seems a political fixed point) is between nuke and carbon neutral gas and the cost is similar then I would argue that CCS gas being shorter term and more flexible would be the way to go.

Coastalwatch

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

So best case, vastly more expensive than RE generation / only as expensive as nuclear? So why spend/invest £bn's in rolling this out, when RE is cheaper, faster and has no scaleability issues?

Carbon Capture’s Global Investment Would Have Been Better Spent On Wind & Solar

Wind & solar are displacing roughly 35 times as much CO2 every year as the complete global history of CCS

Govts are every nervous about the lights going out and think this means they need a 24/7 generating capacity that is not supplied by renewables at present.  Unless you think they can be weaned off this notion then it seems certain that they will mandate a 'traditional' baseload supply.  This needs to be carbon free hence the decision to spend a gazillion quid on nuclear.  Where I am coming from is that if the choice (artificial I know but nonetheless it seems a political fixed point) is between nuke and carbon neutral gas and the cost is similar then I would argue that CCS gas being shorter term and more flexible would be the way to go.

But that is the very point. The choice isn't just between Nuclear and Gas, two outdated industries that would be better confined to the history books. Clean, sustainable, non polluting forms of energy supply in the form storage are available now. They may not yet be capable of ensuring around the clock supply but progress in that direction is taking place.

Apologies, but am still unable to grasp why you continue to promote Fossil Fuels when clean alternatives exist. Politicians may well need convincing, but I would have thought those with a genuine desire to make the world a better and healthier place to live in would not.

Of course other opinions are available.