Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

I think it comes down to ideology, and even fear of change, and of course fear of change is perfectly natural, so it shouldn't be ignored.
My way around the nuclear v's RE + (RE + storage) economics is simple, I've learnt from Zeupater that if in doubt apply the 'Z test', or to put it simply, test it to the extreme!
So it might be hard to believe that RE + (RE + storage) can economically compete with nuclear, but (to steal a phrase) 'at what cost?'

If nuclear cost £1m/MWh, then clearly RE wins. How about £10k/MWh, or £1k/MWh, or £200/MWh? Once we apply the Z test it becomes clear that nuclear isn't essential, if the same job can be done more economically. Now, some might not believe that £100/MWh can be beaten by RE + (RE + storage), but once the principle is established, and can't be denied, then it simply becomes an issue of settling on the price at which the switch is viable.

In the case of Tony Seba, the NIC and Lazards, just to name the ones I've posted links to in the past, the price point has been reached, and whilst RE may not match the 'package' that nuclear brings to the table at £104/MWh (in the case of the UK's new build) it would seem that the price differential of around £60/MWh between new RE and new nuclear is enough to add storage to make the leccy sources comparable, and at that point it's game over for nuclear as it brings nothing to the table anymore* that can't be done quicker and cheaper, and oh so much easier.

*In nuclear's defence, I always felt it was cleaner and cheaper than coal, when externalities were included, and therefore it brought a lot to the table a decade ago when RE was much more expensive and long term / large scale storage was only at the start of early trials. But times have moved on.

silverwhistle

joefizz said:

Again thats the problem with focussing on fiat money 'costs'. As I mentioned earlier, skip forward 10 years when we are all sitting in the dark right now wondering why they didnt spend that wee bit more ;-)

Skip forward 10 years and your nuclear power station will still not be on stream..

And there you go again with the sitting in the dark meme, which given how little modern LED lights consume is probably the wrong thing to threaten! You talk about no wind in the UK, but don't note how we are building inter-connectors (including to Norway and its HEP) to reduce localised issues. Nor have you acknowledged that price signals to the consumer will drastically reduce peak needs. It should be remembered that my Agile tariff is a very early trial of the whole concept. We haven't even properly started on improving energy efficiency either.

So we should probably spend more now, but I still don't think nuclear is the answer..

Exiled_Tyke

Martyn1981 said:

I think it comes down to ideology, and even fear of change, and of course fear of change is perfectly natural, so it shouldn't be ignored.
My way around the nuclear v's RE + (RE + storage) economics is simple, I've learnt from Zeupater that if in doubt apply the 'Z test', or to put it simply, test it to the extreme!
So it might be hard to believe that RE + (RE + storage) can economically compete with nuclear, but (to steal a phrase) 'at what cost?'

If nuclear cost £1m/MWh, then clearly RE wins. How about £10k/MWh, or £1k/MWh, or £200/MWh? Once we apply the Z test it becomes clear that nuclear isn't essential, if the same job can be done more economically. Now, some might not believe that £100/MWh can be beaten by RE + (RE + storage), but once the principle is established, and can't be denied, then it simply becomes an issue of settling on the price at which the switch is viable.

In the case of Tony Seba, the NIC and Lazards, just to name the ones I've posted links to in the past, the price point has been reached, and whilst RE may not match the 'package' that nuclear brings to the table at £104/MWh (in the case of the UK's new build) it would seem that the price differential of around £60/MWh between new RE and new nuclear is enough to add storage to make the leccy sources comparable, and at that point it's game over for nuclear as it brings nothing to the table anymore* that can't be done quicker and cheaper, and oh so much easier.

Not sure it's clear here but I think by RE + (RE+storage) you are implying that not all the RE needs to be stored?  Which I think is a very important point.  A significant amount of RE will be used as its produced. So for that proportion of the leccy produced then its a straightforward RE cost versus nuclear.  And RE won that one some time ago.  So the proportion of leccy which needs to be stored, RE+Storage cost  can now be greater than nuclear to a degree and nuclear overall will still lose.  

But even if RE + (RE + Storage) = nuclear surely any rational person (so not a current government minister) would choose the RE option because of the externalities?

Martyn1981

Exiled_Tyke said:

Martyn1981 said:

I think it comes down to ideology, and even fear of change, and of course fear of change is perfectly natural, so it shouldn't be ignored.
My way around the nuclear v's RE + (RE + storage) economics is simple, I've learnt from Zeupater that if in doubt apply the 'Z test', or to put it simply, test it to the extreme!
So it might be hard to believe that RE + (RE + storage) can economically compete with nuclear, but (to steal a phrase) 'at what cost?'

If nuclear cost £1m/MWh, then clearly RE wins. How about £10k/MWh, or £1k/MWh, or £200/MWh? Once we apply the Z test it becomes clear that nuclear isn't essential, if the same job can be done more economically. Now, some might not believe that £100/MWh can be beaten by RE + (RE + storage), but once the principle is established, and can't be denied, then it simply becomes an issue of settling on the price at which the switch is viable.

In the case of Tony Seba, the NIC and Lazards, just to name the ones I've posted links to in the past, the price point has been reached, and whilst RE may not match the 'package' that nuclear brings to the table at £104/MWh (in the case of the UK's new build) it would seem that the price differential of around £60/MWh between new RE and new nuclear is enough to add storage to make the leccy sources comparable, and at that point it's game over for nuclear as it brings nothing to the table anymore* that can't be done quicker and cheaper, and oh so much easier.

Not sure it's clear here but I think by RE + (RE+storage) you are implying that not all the RE needs to be stored?  Which I think is a very important point.  A significant amount of RE will be used as its produced. So for that proportion of the leccy produced then its a straightforward RE cost versus nuclear.  And RE won that one some time ago.  So the proportion of leccy which needs to be stored, RE+Storage cost  can now be greater than nuclear to a degree and nuclear overall will still lose.  

But even if RE + (RE + Storage) = nuclear surely any rational person (so not a current government minister) would choose the RE option because of the externalities?

You are absolutely spot on, and I should have made that clear. As you say it's important because it changes the amount of money available for storage per stored unit. If we store all the leccy (and ignore losses for a moment) then we have about £59/MWh to cover storage costs, (nuclear - RE generation cost), but if we only store half the RE leccy, as the rest is consumed directly when generated, then the spare cash is now equivalent to £118/MWh.
Looking at the figures folk are using for domestic battery storage, as the costs fall and the cycles rise, perhaps 5p/kWh is doable, so around £50/MWh even on a micro scale.

For large scale / longer term storage I'm assuming the cost will be much lower as the storage part of the cost is much cheaper than batts as it doesn't duplicate the conversion technology (such as leccy to H2, or leccy to liquid air), only the storage technology, which is effectively 'just' more storage tanks. But when you expand batts, you expand almost all the costs, as it's the storage (the batteries) that is the expensive part. Hopefully these lower CAPEX costs make up for the lower efficiencies.

So in a World where we store 50% of the RE generation, let's say 25% for intraday use, and 25% for long term use, then that £118/MWh difference between nuclear and RE is a massive amount, and hence why even after allowing for additional RE generation to cover lossess, and all the storage costs, RE + (RE + storage) comes out cheaper than nuclear.

Also worth pointing out (again) that nuclear also needs storage, since in the RE case the storage allows us to demand follow, to consume less at low periods, and to supply more at high demand periods, whereas the nuclear without storage option, means you have too much or too little at times, and then have to hide the storage need by 'only' having a small amount of nuclear, and calling it baseload.


For anyone who hasn't completely given up on me by now, I recently vomited up some numbers in a discussion on HPC and SC (Sizewell C) to show the sheer scale of the issue here:

I'm also holding on to the thin hope that the SC CfD will have to be so high to get France and China to agree that it'll then be too high for 'us' to accept, especially now that off-shore wind contracts are so flippin cheap. Back when HPC got the £92.50 deal, I think off-shore wind was around £160, whereas now, with inflation HPC is £104 with the latest off-shore wind at £45 and due to commission before HPC.
If we take the £59/MWh difference, quickly multiply it by 3,200MW x 92%cf x 24hr x 365days x 35yrs, that gives us £53bn to spend on additional RE generation and storage capacity.
Keep running with this and your mind starts to fight back and say that can't be right, we could have generation equal to HPC, plus £53bn to spend on say another 40GW of RE capacity and £13bn left over to buy storage kit and capacity.

Exiled_Tyke

While HPC always seemed like a ludicrous idea to me I can only assume that government (well in this case KPMG) did an NPV calculation which showed that foreign investment during construction would outweigh the subsidies. But did they account for the startling reduction in wind prices? I guess they did some conservative estimates there but I'l love to read the KPMG reports. 

Martyn1981

Exiled_Tyke said:

While HPC always seemed like a ludicrous idea to me I can only assume that government (well in this case KPMG) did an NPV calculation which showed that foreign investment during construction would outweigh the subsidies. But did they account for the startling reduction in wind prices? I guess they did some conservative estimates there but I'l love to read the KPMG reports. 

Sorry to hog the thread (again) but this is such an important point, did the Gov make fair comparisons? Well, the House of Lords review of HPC didn't think so, as they suggested the Gov was being too optimistic about nuclear, and too pessimistic about RE.

These are the figures the Gov used for 2030 estimates of energy costs, and were still being presented in discussions right up to the announcement of the 2017 off-shore wind contracts at £74.75/MWh for commissioning in 2021/22, and £57.50/MWh for commissioning in 2022/24, and last year we saw £39.65/MWh for commissioning in 2024/25 (all figures are 2012 baseline pricing).

Th̲i̲s̲ i̲s̲ t̲h̲e̲ ̲G̲o̲v̲'̲t pr̲e̲d̲i̲c̲t̲i̲o̲n̲ f̲o̲r̲ 2̲0̲3̲0̲.̲ ̲(2012 pricing)
Onshore wind to be in the range £45-72/MWh
Offshore wind will be in the range £85-109/MWh
Nuclear, at £69-99/MWh.
For solar they predict £59-73/MW

Worth noting that whilst RE has smashed those targets and examples have come in below the minimums, you will see that nuclear at £89.50/MWh* is at the high end of the predicted range ....... and we still haven't got prices for 2030 RE commissioning, but costs are still falling.

*Whilst £89.50 is used for HPC, it's technically £92.50/MWh but the £3/MWh discount has been applied which we only get if SC goes ahead. Without the discount today's price would be £108/MWh not £104.48.

Edit - If there was ever something worth repeating, it's got to be that the Gov predicted off-shore wind would cost:
£85-109/MWh in 2030
and the reality is:
£39.65/MWh in 2024/25

Solarchaser

Exiled_Tyke said:

While HPC always seemed like a ludicrous idea to me I can only assume that government (well in this case KPMG) did an NPV calculation which showed that foreign investment during construction would outweigh the subsidies. But did they account for the startling reduction in wind prices? I guess they did some conservative estimates there but I'l love to read the KPMG reports. 

Based on the current shambles with ppe, id strongly suspect one or more of our ministers are getting backhanders from nuclear, call me cynical, you would be right!

michaels

Martyn1981 said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

Martyn1981 said:

I think it comes down to ideology, and even fear of change, and of course fear of change is perfectly natural, so it shouldn't be ignored.
My way around the nuclear v's RE + (RE + storage) economics is simple, I've learnt from Zeupater that if in doubt apply the 'Z test', or to put it simply, test it to the extreme!
So it might be hard to believe that RE + (RE + storage) can economically compete with nuclear, but (to steal a phrase) 'at what cost?'

If nuclear cost £1m/MWh, then clearly RE wins. How about £10k/MWh, or £1k/MWh, or £200/MWh? Once we apply the Z test it becomes clear that nuclear isn't essential, if the same job can be done more economically. Now, some might not believe that £100/MWh can be beaten by RE + (RE + storage), but once the principle is established, and can't be denied, then it simply becomes an issue of settling on the price at which the switch is viable.

In the case of Tony Seba, the NIC and Lazards, just to name the ones I've posted links to in the past, the price point has been reached, and whilst RE may not match the 'package' that nuclear brings to the table at £104/MWh (in the case of the UK's new build) it would seem that the price differential of around £60/MWh between new RE and new nuclear is enough to add storage to make the leccy sources comparable, and at that point it's game over for nuclear as it brings nothing to the table anymore* that can't be done quicker and cheaper, and oh so much easier.

Not sure it's clear here but I think by RE + (RE+storage) you are implying that not all the RE needs to be stored?  Which I think is a very important point.  A significant amount of RE will be used as its produced. So for that proportion of the leccy produced then its a straightforward RE cost versus nuclear.  And RE won that one some time ago.  So the proportion of leccy which needs to be stored, RE+Storage cost  can now be greater than nuclear to a degree and nuclear overall will still lose.  

But even if RE + (RE + Storage) = nuclear surely any rational person (so not a current government minister) would choose the RE option because of the externalities?

You are absolutely spot on, and I should have made that clear. As you say it's important because it changes the amount of money available for storage per stored unit. If we store all the leccy (and ignore losses for a moment) then we have about £59/MWh to cover storage costs, (nuclear - RE generation cost), but if we only store half the RE leccy, as the rest is consumed directly when generated, then the spare cash is now equivalent to £118/MWh.
Looking at the figures folk are using for domestic battery storage, as the costs fall and the cycles rise, perhaps 5p/kWh is doable, so around £50/MWh even on a micro scale.

For large scale / longer term storage I'm assuming the cost will be much lower as the storage part of the cost is much cheaper than batts as it doesn't duplicate the conversion technology (such as leccy to H2, or leccy to liquid air), only the storage technology, which is effectively 'just' more storage tanks. But when you expand batts, you expand almost all the costs, as it's the storage (the batteries) that is the expensive part. Hopefully these lower CAPEX costs make up for the lower efficiencies.

So in a World where we store 50% of the RE generation, let's say 25% for intraday use, and 25% for long term use, then that £118/MWh difference between nuclear and RE is a massive amount, and hence why even after allowing for additional RE generation to cover lossess, and all the storage costs, RE + (RE + storage) comes out cheaper than nuclear.

Also worth pointing out (again) that nuclear also needs storage, since in the RE case the storage allows us to demand follow, to consume less at low periods, and to supply more at high demand periods, whereas the nuclear without storage option, means you have too much or too little at times, and then have to hide the storage need by 'only' having a small amount of nuclear, and calling it baseload.


For anyone who hasn't completely given up on me by now, I recently vomited up some numbers in a discussion on HPC and SC (Sizewell C) to show the sheer scale of the issue here:

I'm also holding on to the thin hope that the SC CfD will have to be so high to get France and China to agree that it'll then be too high for 'us' to accept, especially now that off-shore wind contracts are so flippin cheap. Back when HPC got the £92.50 deal, I think off-shore wind was around £160, whereas now, with inflation HPC is £104 with the latest off-shore wind at £45 and due to commission before HPC.
If we take the £59/MWh difference, quickly multiply it by 3,200MW x 92%cf x 24hr x 365days x 35yrs, that gives us £53bn to spend on additional RE generation and storage capacity.
Keep running with this and your mind starts to fight back and say that can't be right, we could have generation equal to HPC, plus £53bn to spend on say another 40GW of RE capacity and £13bn left over to buy storage kit and capacity.

Someone very wise (it was either Mart or Z) once told me that it is not just the cost of the storage but the number of cycles that matters - that battery might cost 5p per kwh if you put 5,000 cycles through it in 15 years but if you were instead using it for those windless winter spells like the one we are experiencing now then it might be 5 cycles per year rather than 300 and the cost per cycle there for 60x higher.

Martyn1981

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

Martyn1981 said:

I think it comes down to ideology, and even fear of change, and of course fear of change is perfectly natural, so it shouldn't be ignored.
My way around the nuclear v's RE + (RE + storage) economics is simple, I've learnt from Zeupater that if in doubt apply the 'Z test', or to put it simply, test it to the extreme!
So it might be hard to believe that RE + (RE + storage) can economically compete with nuclear, but (to steal a phrase) 'at what cost?'

If nuclear cost £1m/MWh, then clearly RE wins. How about £10k/MWh, or £1k/MWh, or £200/MWh? Once we apply the Z test it becomes clear that nuclear isn't essential, if the same job can be done more economically. Now, some might not believe that £100/MWh can be beaten by RE + (RE + storage), but once the principle is established, and can't be denied, then it simply becomes an issue of settling on the price at which the switch is viable.

In the case of Tony Seba, the NIC and Lazards, just to name the ones I've posted links to in the past, the price point has been reached, and whilst RE may not match the 'package' that nuclear brings to the table at £104/MWh (in the case of the UK's new build) it would seem that the price differential of around £60/MWh between new RE and new nuclear is enough to add storage to make the leccy sources comparable, and at that point it's game over for nuclear as it brings nothing to the table anymore* that can't be done quicker and cheaper, and oh so much easier.

Not sure it's clear here but I think by RE + (RE+storage) you are implying that not all the RE needs to be stored?  Which I think is a very important point.  A significant amount of RE will be used as its produced. So for that proportion of the leccy produced then its a straightforward RE cost versus nuclear.  And RE won that one some time ago.  So the proportion of leccy which needs to be stored, RE+Storage cost  can now be greater than nuclear to a degree and nuclear overall will still lose.  

But even if RE + (RE + Storage) = nuclear surely any rational person (so not a current government minister) would choose the RE option because of the externalities?

You are absolutely spot on, and I should have made that clear. As you say it's important because it changes the amount of money available for storage per stored unit. If we store all the leccy (and ignore losses for a moment) then we have about £59/MWh to cover storage costs, (nuclear - RE generation cost), but if we only store half the RE leccy, as the rest is consumed directly when generated, then the spare cash is now equivalent to £118/MWh.
Looking at the figures folk are using for domestic battery storage, as the costs fall and the cycles rise, perhaps 5p/kWh is doable, so around £50/MWh even on a micro scale.

For large scale / longer term storage I'm assuming the cost will be much lower as the storage part of the cost is much cheaper than batts as it doesn't duplicate the conversion technology (such as leccy to H2, or leccy to liquid air), only the storage technology, which is effectively 'just' more storage tanks. But when you expand batts, you expand almost all the costs, as it's the storage (the batteries) that is the expensive part. Hopefully these lower CAPEX costs make up for the lower efficiencies.

So in a World where we store 50% of the RE generation, let's say 25% for intraday use, and 25% for long term use, then that £118/MWh difference between nuclear and RE is a massive amount, and hence why even after allowing for additional RE generation to cover lossess, and all the storage costs, RE + (RE + storage) comes out cheaper than nuclear.

Also worth pointing out (again) that nuclear also needs storage, since in the RE case the storage allows us to demand follow, to consume less at low periods, and to supply more at high demand periods, whereas the nuclear without storage option, means you have too much or too little at times, and then have to hide the storage need by 'only' having a small amount of nuclear, and calling it baseload.


For anyone who hasn't completely given up on me by now, I recently vomited up some numbers in a discussion on HPC and SC (Sizewell C) to show the sheer scale of the issue here:

I'm also holding on to the thin hope that the SC CfD will have to be so high to get France and China to agree that it'll then be too high for 'us' to accept, especially now that off-shore wind contracts are so flippin cheap. Back when HPC got the £92.50 deal, I think off-shore wind was around £160, whereas now, with inflation HPC is £104 with the latest off-shore wind at £45 and due to commission before HPC.
If we take the £59/MWh difference, quickly multiply it by 3,200MW x 92%cf x 24hr x 365days x 35yrs, that gives us £53bn to spend on additional RE generation and storage capacity.
Keep running with this and your mind starts to fight back and say that can't be right, we could have generation equal to HPC, plus £53bn to spend on say another 40GW of RE capacity and £13bn left over to buy storage kit and capacity.

Someone very wise (it was either Mart or Z) once told me that it is not just the cost of the storage but the number of cycles that matters - that battery might cost 5p per kwh if you put 5,000 cycles through it in 15 years but if you were instead using it for those windless winter spells like the one we are experiencing now then it might be 5 cycles per year rather than 300 and the cost per cycle there for 60x higher.

Nice try, but I think you are trying to confuse intra-day storage, mostly likely batts, and several cycles per day, with large scale longer term storage, which will cycle far less often. Hence the paragraph following the 5p/kWh example, where I suggested the CAPEX would be lower and help to make up for the lower efficiencies.

Coastalwatch

Just to ease Marts concern of domination on the matter of new nuclear I got to wondering just what the CO2 emissions of Sizewell C will amount to during it's construction? Following a bit of searching I came across the passages below which I found even more disturbing than I could have imagined.

The figures below are taken from EDF's own estimates to show that a net gain of CO2 emissions will not commence until 2040 at the earliest! Until that date they will be unecessarily accelerating the very emissions we desparately need to contain.

EDF’s Sustainability Statement for SZC [3] breaks down the carbon content of construction of 5.74 million tonnes (Mt) of carbon equivalent (CO2e) as: 84% from the materials used, 4% construction activities, 5% materials transport and 5% worker transport.

"Construction of Sizewell C (SZC) is expected to begin in 2022. EDF claims SZC will be online in 2034,"

“it is conservatively estimated that GHG emissions from the construction of Sizewell C will be offset within the first six years of operation assuming the equivalent energy were otherwise to be generated by the anticipated mix of grid electricity generation sources.” [12]

Therefore, even on EDF’s assumptions, SZC cannot make a positive contribution to the UK’s net zero target until 2040, assuming that it is finished on schedule. [13]

Alternative assumptions from authoritative sources such as National Grid show that grid intensity will be much lower than forecast by BEIS and EDF and, far from reducing emissions, SZC will actually increase them from the construction process and from the emissions associated with the nuclear fuel.