Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

edited 12 July 2021 at 10:38AM in Green & Ethical MoneySaving
6.4K replies 435.8K views
1457910642

Replies

  • CardewCardew Forumite
    28.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Rampant Recycler
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Martyn1981 wrote: »

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china--nuclear-power/
    Nuclear Power in China

    (Updated December 2015)
    •Mainland China has 30 nuclear power reactors in operation, 21 under construction, and more about to start construction.
    •Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give more than a three-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020-21, then some 150 GWe by 2030, and much more by 2050.
    •The impetus for increasing nuclear power share in China is increasingly due to air pollution from coal-fired plants.
    •China’s policy is for closed fuel cycle.
    •China has become largely self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle, but is making full use of western technology while adapting and improving it.
    •China’s policy is to ‘go global’ with exporting nuclear technology including heavy components in the supply chain.

    Most of mainland China's electricity is produced from fossil fuels, predominantly from coal. Two large hydro projects are recent additions: Three Gorges of 18.2 GWe and Yellow River of 15.8 GWe. In 2013 gross electricity generation (IEA figures) was 5433 TWh, this being 4091 TWh from coal, 99 TWh from gas, 112 TWh from nuclear, 7 TWh from oil, 920 TWh from hydro, 205 TWh from non-hydro renewables. Net supply was 5023 TWh and calculated consumption was 4493 TWh. Net export was 12 TWh in 2013, with that to Hong Kong being 9 TWh, adding to its 39 TWh generation (29 TWh from coal, 10 TWh from gas). Rapid growth in demand has given rise to power shortages, and the reliance on fossil fuels has led to much air pollution. The economic loss due to pollution is put by the World Bank at almost 6% of GDP,1 and the new leadership from March 2013 has prioritised this.* Chronic and widespread smog in the east of the country is attributed to coal burning.

    Even China needs electricity at night and when solar isn't generating!
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    12.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    UK power sector slashes emissions by almost a quarter in just two years
    Overall, renewable electricity generation rose 21 per cent last year to 64.7 TWh, while generation from gas rose 5.6 per cent to 101 TWh.

    In contrast, nuclear output fell 9.7 per cent to 64TWh due to planned and unplanned outages and coal was the biggest loser in the sector with generation slumping 23 per cent to 101TWh, due to the closure of several power stations and the conversion of a second unit at the Drax power station to biomass.

    The government predicted these trends are likely to continue as the first wave of renewable energy projects to secure price support contracts move into construction and more coal plants are retired.
    However, a growing number of green businesses and NGOs are concerned the decarbonisation of the power sector is not proceeding fast enough for the UK to meet its medium-term carbon targets. The country is currently off track to meet its carbon budget for the mid-2020s by around 10 per cent and ministers have said they will have to deliver a new plan to close the gap next year.

    Clean energy industry insiders are also fearful the sector could face an investment hiatus in the coming years as a result of recent policy changes, such as the steep cuts to solar subsidies announced last week, the 'halt' to onshore wind farms, the shelving of a planned £1bn of demonstration funding for new carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, and continued uncertainty over the amount of funding available for clean energy price support contracts.

    Mart.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Isn't it published/believed that FIT costs double what offshore wind farms cost for each ton of CO2 saved?
  • ed110220ed110220 Forumite
    1.3K Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    kevin6666 wrote: »
    Isn't it published/believed that FIT costs double what offshore wind farms cost for each ton of CO2 saved?

    Perhaps you mean *onshore* wind energy, the one the government is trying to kill off to appease some ukippers who believe their god-given right to a view free of wind turbines overrides any concerns about the economic, humanitarian and nature costs of climate change?
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    12.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    kevin6666 wrote: »
    Isn't it published/believed that FIT costs double what offshore wind farms cost for each ton of CO2 saved?

    I'm not entirely sure what you are saying, but for cost comparison purposes, the cost to bill payers to 'see' a MWh of leccy hit the grid (either as export or offset, both of which reduce the need for the grid to purchase a MWh of FF leccy and the subsequent CO2) is now(ish):-

    Off-shore wind today ~£150
    Off-shore wind £120 (2018)
    Nuclear £93 (2025?)
    On-shore wind £80 (2016)
    Large scale PV £80 (2016)
    Domestic PV today £150 (12.5p FiT + 2.5p export / kWh)
    Domestic PV after the reduction £69 (2016)

    Subsidies are 15yrs for wind and large scale PV, 20yrs for domestic PV and 35yrs for nuclear.

    To avoid cheating or hypocrisy, as I think the FiT cut is too hard, I'd suggest a 6p FiT is fairer than the 4.39p. Giving a total cost (with the addition of the export fee) of 8.5p/kWh or £85/MWh. This seems fair and comparable to on-shore wind and large scale PV, and far cheaper than off-shore wind.

    However, off-shore wind has a capacity factor of 40% to 45% (compared to ~25% for on-shore wind and ~11% for PV), which is worth a little extra as it helps with predictability and integration. Nuclear is predictable but looks like becoming the most expensive, potentially by a margin greater than the cost of storage, by the time it starts generating, and has already received 60yrs of subsidies.

    Mart.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    12.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    kevin6666 wrote: »
    Isn't it published/believed that FIT costs double what offshore wind farms cost for each ton of CO2 saved?

    PS: A lot of strange things are believed:-

    British public vastly overestimate solar support levels, poll finds
    British energy consumers are so uninformed of the costs associated with solar subsidies that the average person believes they are 22 times higher than they actually are, a new poll has found.

    The Solar Trade Association (STA) commissioned a YouGov poll to determine how U.K. energy consumers viewed support levels for solar PV. On average, respondents with a view estimated that support for solar adds £196 ($297) to a typical household energy bill a year when, in actual fact, that figure is just £9 ($13.6) per bill, per annum. The median estimate from the poll was £100 ($151), reflecting the same mismatched views revealed earlier this year following a similar poll on wind power.

    Mart.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • No I was referencing this:
    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2423671/feed-in-tariff-cuts-twitter-reacts

    "Even with significant cost reductions achieved in recent years, the FiTs scheme reduced carbon at a woefully inadequate rate of £380/tonne last year almost double even that of offshore wind at around £200/tonne. A review is long overdue."
  • Martyn1981Martyn1981 Forumite
    12.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    kevin6666 wrote: »
    No I was referencing this:
    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2423671/feed-in-tariff-cuts-twitter-reacts

    "Even with significant cost reductions achieved in recent years, the FiTs scheme reduced carbon at a woefully inadequate rate of £380/tonne last year almost double even that of offshore wind at around £200/tonne. A review is long overdue."

    Right, that makes more sense. Obviously the high rates paid under the FiTs scheme at the start will throw up figures like this.

    The important thing to note, now though, is that rates have dropped massively and that deployment costs are now lower than off-shore wind, which will start to swing things the other way, as time goes on.

    Please note, I have nothing against off-shore wind, it's an essential part of the mix having a different generation pattern to on-shore wind, and its higher cost is almost certainly justified, especially if costs continue to fall as they have done - though obviously it will now remain higher than on-shore wind and PV (per MWh or cost per tonne of CO2 saved).

    Mart.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981 wrote: »
    The important thing to note, now though, is that rates have dropped massively and that deployment costs are now lower than off-shore wind, which will start to swing things the other way, as time goes on.
    Mart.

    Guess you're optimistic people are still going to have FIT eligible systems installed in 2016+ then!

    Kinda think the scheme will be a good as dead myself in terms of new registrations.
  • CardewCardew Forumite
    28.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Rampant Recycler
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    kevin6666 wrote: »
    Guess you're optimistic people are still going to have FIT eligible systems installed in 2016+ then!

    Kinda think the scheme will be a good as dead myself in terms of new registrations.


    I hope you are correct, but people can be persuaded to buy anything using 'greenwash'.


    Before the FIT gravy train, people were sold solar thermal panels for huge prices using claims of savings that were criminal. These firms were 'Public Enemy No 1' according to the Trading Standards offices.


    Ironically it was to prevent such outrageous claims that all solar PV installation firms had to be MCS registered before FIT could be claimed. Has anyone heard of any firms having action taken against them?
Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest MSE News and Guides