To boost renewables in the economy....

Martyn1981

cells wrote: »

but they wont be extremes if the dream of PV and Wind power are to become a reality they will be the norm.

50GW PV 50GW Offshore-Wind 50GW CCGT would result in something like 60% renewables 40% NG. In those cases the majority of the solar output will be sold into very depressed prices and a lot of the wind too.

you seem to be arguing two things. one that pv and wind is great and will take over the world the day after tomorrow and then arguing that well we don't plan to install a lot of pv so they wont crush their own prices

Actually I haven't been saying anything of the sort. As per previous discussions, you keep exaggerating the views of others, just so you can then knock them down.

I've mentioned PV supplying about 10% of UK leccy (more with storage). It's not a massive figure, but still highly respectable, especially if it does this at one of the lowest prices, better still if subsidy free. I seem to recall you saying a similar figure (~10%) would work ok. That's about 30GWp.

Of course large amounts of PV and wind will push down spot prices at peak generation times, but surely that's a good result. You keep arguing that the technology (PV) will kill itself if we have too much, by depressing prices too far. But that works for any industry, and they typically find a sweet spot to operate within.

The biggest loser from lower spot prices would be nuclear, but new nuclear is to be protected with 35yr CfD contract prices (£93/MWh). These contracts will start at a point in time when new PV, and new on-shore wind will already be subsidy free. To make it even worse for nuclear, expect many of the PV farms to remain operational after their 15yr CfD ends - since CAPEX will have been covered in the original contract, and with 30+yr life expectancies on panels, and very low OPEX, the farms should be viable post subsidy.

I don't know what will happen to wind farms (on or off shore). I know they have shorter lifespans and higher OPEX, so perhaps they will shutdown at the end of their subsidy period.

And in fairness, new nuclear is expected to operate for 60 years, so 25yrs post subsidy.


Here's the good news, we have moved from effectively zero PV generation, to around 3% (looking at 2015 capacity and 2016 generation potential), so if we continued what we are doing, then we could complete a pre-storage UK PV rollout by 2025.

In reality, the government has now made a major shift away from PV and on-shore wind, promoting more expensive off-shore wind, nuclear and gas (presumably with fracking).

We've now reached a stage where even the Americans are criticising UK renewable policies.

Mart.

MFW_ASAP

silverwhistle wrote: »

Really? On another thread there were complaints that Martyn gives too many links, and I've never noticed many references in your own emotive laden posts.

That's because my posts are generally about how unfair it is to place the burden of solar subsidies onto electricity bills, which means that those on low income are disproportionately carrying a heavier load than those on higher incomes (similar to VAT).

I doubt I need to submit proof for this as it's as true and obvious as saying that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Though perhaps for dunderheads like yourself...?

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Actually I haven't been saying anything of the sort. As per previous discussions, you keep exaggerating the views of others, just so you can then knock them down.

I've mentioned PV supplying about 10% of UK leccy (more with storage). It's not a massive figure, but still highly respectable, especially if it does this at one of the lowest prices, better still if subsidy free. I seem to recall you saying a similar figure (~10%) would work ok. That's about 30GWp.

Of course large amounts of PV and wind will push down spot prices at peak generation times, but surely that's a good result. You keep arguing that the technology (PV) will kill itself if we have too much, by depressing prices too far. But that works for any industry, and they typically find a sweet spot to operate within.

The biggest loser from lower spot prices would be nuclear, but new nuclear is to be protected with 35yr CfD contract prices (£93/MWh). These contracts will start at a point in time when new PV, and new on-shore wind will already be subsidy free. To make it even worse for nuclear, expect many of the PV farms to remain operational after their 15yr CfD ends - since CAPEX will have been covered in the original contract, and with 30+yr life expectancies on panels, and very low OPEX, the farms should be viable post subsidy.

I don't know what will happen to wind farms (on or off shore). I know they have shorter lifespans and higher OPEX, so perhaps they will shutdown at the end of their subsidy period.

And in fairness, new nuclear is expected to operate for 60 years, so 25yrs post subsidy.


Here's the good news, we have moved from effectively zero PV generation, to around 3% (looking at 2015 capacity and 2016 generation potential), so if we continued what we are doing, then we could complete a pre-storage UK PV rollout by 2025.

In reality, the government has now made a major shift away from PV and on-shore wind, promoting more expensive off-shore wind, nuclear and gas (presumably with fracking).

We've now reached a stage where even the Americans are criticising UK renewable policies.

Mart.

In germany they dont have 10% PV yet but solar output crushes prices during its hours of operation. For example they were 50 euro at 7am and then during 9am to 3pm when solar output was high prices were below 35 euro/MWh then by 6pm prices were up to nearly 60 euro again. So prices were nearly half during high solar times during that day.

it is even worse on the weekends. for example on one sunny day on a sunday prices between 10am to 3pm were below 5Euro/MWh and for about 1 hour there were negative.

So if in Germany with closer to 6% from solar at some times the price is crushed to near zero (<0.36p/KWh) how will the UK react installing not 6% but 10% solar? And although the number of hours of low prices is low, eg 9 to 3, thats when most the solar output is


it is clear that solar PV is just a fuel saver and even in this fake accounting system the market is starting to value it as a fuel saver and the more and more is added the clearer it will become.

PV has to work for not £50 a MWh but for £0-£20 a MWh

---

The first of the USA nukes are starting their application processes for life extensions to 80 years and these are the nukes built 50 years ago so I see no reason why the new AP1000s and EPRs could not last a hundred+ years (or 65+ unsubed years) if the old nukes are going to be around for 80 or more years.

or maybe in 35 years time when the nuclear CFDs run out they will close the nukes rather than operate them for 30% of the time to try and fill in the times the sun and wind are off (or maybe the nukes will get further subsidies to stay open and run only 30% of the time) all thanks to a broken fiddled 'market'