The Alternative Green Energy Thread

JKenH

Sizewell C power station to be built as part of UK’s £14bn nuclear investment

Miliband said the “golden age” of nuclear investment was critical to the government’s net zero goals, which will probably require a significant increase in electricity demand, and said that it would not detract from investments in renewables.

“The truth is that we have this massive challenge to get off fossil fuels. That is the central driving ambition of the government’s clean energy superpower mission. We know that we’re going to have to see electricity demand at least double, by 2050.

“All of the expert advice says nuclear has a really important role to play in the energy system. In any sensible reckoning, this is essential to get to our clean power and net zero ambitions.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jun/10/sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-ed-miliband-investment

The BBC report

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said the investment was the "only way" to "take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis". 

The government insists that nuclear power provides enormous amounts of low-carbon, non-intermittent energy that forms a crucial part of the government's plans to almost completely eliminate fossil fuels from the UK's energy grid by 2030.

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gr3nd5zy6o

So it now seems nuclear is the "only way" to "take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis". Is the government finally acknowledging the limitations of renewable energy?

michaels

JKenH said:

Interesting article from the BBC. The text below is effectively their introduction to the issue of Zonal Pricing. It appears that even the BBC are now questioning the promise that renewables will deliver cheaper electricity. Is it a coincidence that this story lands the same day as the Beeb tries to win over Reform voters? https://www.thenational.scot/news/25224005.bbc-bosses-draw-plans-win-trust-reform-uk-voters/?ref=yahoo Whatever the motivation, the BBC running this content has moved the criticism of Net Zero from a predominantly right wing to a more centrist stage that is more difficult to ignore.

Britain's energy bills problem - and why firms are paid huge sums to stop producing power

The way the system currently works means a company like Ocean Winds gets what are effectively compensation payments if the system can't take the power its wind turbines are generating and it has to turn down its output.

It means Ocean winds was paid £72,000 not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded - one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day.

At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity.

Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland's largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy. 

Balancing the grid in this way has already cost the country more than £500 million this year alone, the company's analysis shows. The total could reach almost £8bn a year by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO), the body in charge of the electricity network.

It's pushing up all our energy bills and calling into question the government's promise that net zero would end up delivering cheaper electricity.

Now, the government is considering a radical solution: instead of one big, national electricity market, there'll be a number of smaller regional markets, with the government gambling that this could make the system more efficient and deliver cheaper bills.

But in reality, it's not guaranteed that anyone will get cheaper bills. And even if some people do, many others elsewhere in the country could end up paying more.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdedjnw8e85o

Lots of large and small numbers thrown around with little context.  If we contract wind at a cfd of 6p per kwh and nuclear at a cfd of 12p per unit then there is an awful lot of balancing and curtailment payments that can be paid and the wind energy still be cheaper than the nuclear.

JKenH

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Interesting article from the BBC. The text below is effectively their introduction to the issue of Zonal Pricing. It appears that even the BBC are now questioning the promise that renewables will deliver cheaper electricity. Is it a coincidence that this story lands the same day as the Beeb tries to win over Reform voters? https://www.thenational.scot/news/25224005.bbc-bosses-draw-plans-win-trust-reform-uk-voters/?ref=yahoo Whatever the motivation, the BBC running this content has moved the criticism of Net Zero from a predominantly right wing to a more centrist stage that is more difficult to ignore.

Britain's energy bills problem - and why firms are paid huge sums to stop producing power

The way the system currently works means a company like Ocean Winds gets what are effectively compensation payments if the system can't take the power its wind turbines are generating and it has to turn down its output.

It means Ocean winds was paid £72,000 not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded - one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day.

At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity.

Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland's largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy. 

Balancing the grid in this way has already cost the country more than £500 million this year alone, the company's analysis shows. The total could reach almost £8bn a year by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO), the body in charge of the electricity network.

It's pushing up all our energy bills and calling into question the government's promise that net zero would end up delivering cheaper electricity.

Now, the government is considering a radical solution: instead of one big, national electricity market, there'll be a number of smaller regional markets, with the government gambling that this could make the system more efficient and deliver cheaper bills.

But in reality, it's not guaranteed that anyone will get cheaper bills. And even if some people do, many others elsewhere in the country could end up paying more.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdedjnw8e85o

Lots of large and small numbers thrown around with little context.  If we contract wind at a cfd of 6p per kwh and nuclear at a cfd of 12p per unit then there is an awful lot of balancing and curtailment payments that can be paid and the wind energy still be cheaper than the nuclear.

Why, in that case, would the government want to go ahead with more nuclear generation? Grid resilience, perhaps? 

shinytop

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Interesting article from the BBC. The text below is effectively their introduction to the issue of Zonal Pricing. It appears that even the BBC are now questioning the promise that renewables will deliver cheaper electricity. Is it a coincidence that this story lands the same day as the Beeb tries to win over Reform voters? https://www.thenational.scot/news/25224005.bbc-bosses-draw-plans-win-trust-reform-uk-voters/?ref=yahoo Whatever the motivation, the BBC running this content has moved the criticism of Net Zero from a predominantly right wing to a more centrist stage that is more difficult to ignore.

Britain's energy bills problem - and why firms are paid huge sums to stop producing power

The way the system currently works means a company like Ocean Winds gets what are effectively compensation payments if the system can't take the power its wind turbines are generating and it has to turn down its output.

It means Ocean winds was paid £72,000 not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded - one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day.

At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity.

Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland's largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy. 

Balancing the grid in this way has already cost the country more than £500 million this year alone, the company's analysis shows. The total could reach almost £8bn a year by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO), the body in charge of the electricity network.

It's pushing up all our energy bills and calling into question the government's promise that net zero would end up delivering cheaper electricity.

Now, the government is considering a radical solution: instead of one big, national electricity market, there'll be a number of smaller regional markets, with the government gambling that this could make the system more efficient and deliver cheaper bills.

But in reality, it's not guaranteed that anyone will get cheaper bills. And even if some people do, many others elsewhere in the country could end up paying more.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdedjnw8e85o

Lots of large and small numbers thrown around with little context.  If we contract wind at a cfd of 6p per kwh and nuclear at a cfd of 12p per unit then there is an awful lot of balancing and curtailment payments that can be paid and the wind energy still be cheaper than the nuclear.

Why, in that case, would the government want to go ahead with more nuclear generation? Grid resilience, perhaps? 

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Interesting article from the BBC. The text below is effectively their introduction to the issue of Zonal Pricing. It appears that even the BBC are now questioning the promise that renewables will deliver cheaper electricity. Is it a coincidence that this story lands the same day as the Beeb tries to win over Reform voters? https://www.thenational.scot/news/25224005.bbc-bosses-draw-plans-win-trust-reform-uk-voters/?ref=yahoo Whatever the motivation, the BBC running this content has moved the criticism of Net Zero from a predominantly right wing to a more centrist stage that is more difficult to ignore.

Britain's energy bills problem - and why firms are paid huge sums to stop producing power

The way the system currently works means a company like Ocean Winds gets what are effectively compensation payments if the system can't take the power its wind turbines are generating and it has to turn down its output.

It means Ocean winds was paid £72,000 not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded - one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day.

At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity.

Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland's largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy. 

Balancing the grid in this way has already cost the country more than £500 million this year alone, the company's analysis shows. The total could reach almost £8bn a year by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO), the body in charge of the electricity network.

It's pushing up all our energy bills and calling into question the government's promise that net zero would end up delivering cheaper electricity.

Now, the government is considering a radical solution: instead of one big, national electricity market, there'll be a number of smaller regional markets, with the government gambling that this could make the system more efficient and deliver cheaper bills.

But in reality, it's not guaranteed that anyone will get cheaper bills. And even if some people do, many others elsewhere in the country could end up paying more.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdedjnw8e85o

Lots of large and small numbers thrown around with little context.  If we contract wind at a cfd of 6p per kwh and nuclear at a cfd of 12p per unit then there is an awful lot of balancing and curtailment payments that can be paid and the wind energy still be cheaper than the nuclear.

Why, in that case, would the government want to go ahead with more nuclear generation? Grid resilience, perhaps? 

Yes.  Turning wind turbines off is easy but finding substitute power when there is no wind isn't. 

gefnew

Fuel for trident subs and missiles.

QrizB

gefnew said:

Fuel for trident subs and missiles.

None of that comes from power reactors, though.

And Sellafield already has 200 tonnes of spare plutonium!

ed110220

shinytop said:

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Interesting article from the BBC. The text below is effectively their introduction to the issue of Zonal Pricing. It appears that even the BBC are now questioning the promise that renewables will deliver cheaper electricity. Is it a coincidence that this story lands the same day as the Beeb tries to win over Reform voters? https://www.thenational.scot/news/25224005.bbc-bosses-draw-plans-win-trust-reform-uk-voters/?ref=yahoo Whatever the motivation, the BBC running this content has moved the criticism of Net Zero from a predominantly right wing to a more centrist stage that is more difficult to ignore.

Britain's energy bills problem - and why firms are paid huge sums to stop producing power

The way the system currently works means a company like Ocean Winds gets what are effectively compensation payments if the system can't take the power its wind turbines are generating and it has to turn down its output.

It means Ocean winds was paid £72,000 not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded - one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day.

At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity.

Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland's largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy. 

Balancing the grid in this way has already cost the country more than £500 million this year alone, the company's analysis shows. The total could reach almost £8bn a year by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO), the body in charge of the electricity network.

It's pushing up all our energy bills and calling into question the government's promise that net zero would end up delivering cheaper electricity.

Now, the government is considering a radical solution: instead of one big, national electricity market, there'll be a number of smaller regional markets, with the government gambling that this could make the system more efficient and deliver cheaper bills.

But in reality, it's not guaranteed that anyone will get cheaper bills. And even if some people do, many others elsewhere in the country could end up paying more.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdedjnw8e85o

Lots of large and small numbers thrown around with little context.  If we contract wind at a cfd of 6p per kwh and nuclear at a cfd of 12p per unit then there is an awful lot of balancing and curtailment payments that can be paid and the wind energy still be cheaper than the nuclear.

Why, in that case, would the government want to go ahead with more nuclear generation? Grid resilience, perhaps? 

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Interesting article from the BBC. The text below is effectively their introduction to the issue of Zonal Pricing. It appears that even the BBC are now questioning the promise that renewables will deliver cheaper electricity. Is it a coincidence that this story lands the same day as the Beeb tries to win over Reform voters? https://www.thenational.scot/news/25224005.bbc-bosses-draw-plans-win-trust-reform-uk-voters/?ref=yahoo Whatever the motivation, the BBC running this content has moved the criticism of Net Zero from a predominantly right wing to a more centrist stage that is more difficult to ignore.

Britain's energy bills problem - and why firms are paid huge sums to stop producing power

The way the system currently works means a company like Ocean Winds gets what are effectively compensation payments if the system can't take the power its wind turbines are generating and it has to turn down its output.

It means Ocean winds was paid £72,000 not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded - one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day.

At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity.

Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland's largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy. 

Balancing the grid in this way has already cost the country more than £500 million this year alone, the company's analysis shows. The total could reach almost £8bn a year by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO), the body in charge of the electricity network.

It's pushing up all our energy bills and calling into question the government's promise that net zero would end up delivering cheaper electricity.

Now, the government is considering a radical solution: instead of one big, national electricity market, there'll be a number of smaller regional markets, with the government gambling that this could make the system more efficient and deliver cheaper bills.

But in reality, it's not guaranteed that anyone will get cheaper bills. And even if some people do, many others elsewhere in the country could end up paying more.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdedjnw8e85o

Lots of large and small numbers thrown around with little context.  If we contract wind at a cfd of 6p per kwh and nuclear at a cfd of 12p per unit then there is an awful lot of balancing and curtailment payments that can be paid and the wind energy still be cheaper than the nuclear.

Why, in that case, would the government want to go ahead with more nuclear generation? Grid resilience, perhaps? 

Yes.  Turning wind turbines off is easy but finding substitute power when there is no wind isn't. 

Nuclear is a hell of an expensive technology to be used as a backup power supply though. The economics are "challenging" to put it kindly even when used in baseload mode ie selling all the electricity it can produce. If it's only needed for a minority of the time it gets pretty nasty. And even having a lot of nuclear doesn't eliminate the problem eg France with all its nuclear capacity still needs a considerable backup (domestically and in neighbouring countries) as though its nuclear can supply more than its average demand, it can't cover peak winter demand so something else needs to be brought online. 

NedS

ed110220 said:

shinytop said:

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Interesting article from the BBC. The text below is effectively their introduction to the issue of Zonal Pricing. It appears that even the BBC are now questioning the promise that renewables will deliver cheaper electricity. Is it a coincidence that this story lands the same day as the Beeb tries to win over Reform voters? https://www.thenational.scot/news/25224005.bbc-bosses-draw-plans-win-trust-reform-uk-voters/?ref=yahoo Whatever the motivation, the BBC running this content has moved the criticism of Net Zero from a predominantly right wing to a more centrist stage that is more difficult to ignore.

Britain's energy bills problem - and why firms are paid huge sums to stop producing power

The way the system currently works means a company like Ocean Winds gets what are effectively compensation payments if the system can't take the power its wind turbines are generating and it has to turn down its output.

It means Ocean winds was paid £72,000 not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded - one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day.

At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity.

Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland's largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy. 

Balancing the grid in this way has already cost the country more than £500 million this year alone, the company's analysis shows. The total could reach almost £8bn a year by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO), the body in charge of the electricity network.

It's pushing up all our energy bills and calling into question the government's promise that net zero would end up delivering cheaper electricity.

Now, the government is considering a radical solution: instead of one big, national electricity market, there'll be a number of smaller regional markets, with the government gambling that this could make the system more efficient and deliver cheaper bills.

But in reality, it's not guaranteed that anyone will get cheaper bills. And even if some people do, many others elsewhere in the country could end up paying more.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdedjnw8e85o

Lots of large and small numbers thrown around with little context.  If we contract wind at a cfd of 6p per kwh and nuclear at a cfd of 12p per unit then there is an awful lot of balancing and curtailment payments that can be paid and the wind energy still be cheaper than the nuclear.

Why, in that case, would the government want to go ahead with more nuclear generation? Grid resilience, perhaps? 

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Interesting article from the BBC. The text below is effectively their introduction to the issue of Zonal Pricing. It appears that even the BBC are now questioning the promise that renewables will deliver cheaper electricity. Is it a coincidence that this story lands the same day as the Beeb tries to win over Reform voters? https://www.thenational.scot/news/25224005.bbc-bosses-draw-plans-win-trust-reform-uk-voters/?ref=yahoo Whatever the motivation, the BBC running this content has moved the criticism of Net Zero from a predominantly right wing to a more centrist stage that is more difficult to ignore.

Britain's energy bills problem - and why firms are paid huge sums to stop producing power

The way the system currently works means a company like Ocean Winds gets what are effectively compensation payments if the system can't take the power its wind turbines are generating and it has to turn down its output.

It means Ocean winds was paid £72,000 not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded - one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day.

At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity.

Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland's largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy. 

Balancing the grid in this way has already cost the country more than £500 million this year alone, the company's analysis shows. The total could reach almost £8bn a year by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO), the body in charge of the electricity network.

It's pushing up all our energy bills and calling into question the government's promise that net zero would end up delivering cheaper electricity.

Now, the government is considering a radical solution: instead of one big, national electricity market, there'll be a number of smaller regional markets, with the government gambling that this could make the system more efficient and deliver cheaper bills.

But in reality, it's not guaranteed that anyone will get cheaper bills. And even if some people do, many others elsewhere in the country could end up paying more.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdedjnw8e85o

Lots of large and small numbers thrown around with little context.  If we contract wind at a cfd of 6p per kwh and nuclear at a cfd of 12p per unit then there is an awful lot of balancing and curtailment payments that can be paid and the wind energy still be cheaper than the nuclear.

Why, in that case, would the government want to go ahead with more nuclear generation? Grid resilience, perhaps? 

Yes.  Turning wind turbines off is easy but finding substitute power when there is no wind isn't. 

Nuclear is a hell of an expensive technology to be used as a backup power supply though. The economics are "challenging" to put it kindly even when used in baseload mode ie selling all the electricity it can produce. If it's only needed for a minority of the time it gets pretty nasty. And even having a lot of nuclear doesn't eliminate the problem eg France with all its nuclear capacity still needs a considerable backup (domestically and in neighbouring countries) as though its nuclear can supply more than its average demand, it can't cover peak winter demand so something else needs to be brought online. 

So what do you envisage as the ideal makeup of the grid? What percentage of (gas)/nuclear/wind/solar/hydro/biomass/stored energy? Which sources can be turned on/off as required to meet demand. Can you still meet demand when there is no wind or sun?

Nuclear has the advantage in that it is always available (always on), but the disadvantage that it is very expensive and slow to build, and cannot be turned on/off to meet fluctuations in demand.

We simply have to accept that it's expensive transitioning from fossil fuels to other clean(er) energy sources. Yes, wind and solar should be cheaper per MWh, but no one is going to build a solar farm or wind farm if they can't sell the electricity when it's sunny/windy. Interconnects play a role, and are already used significantly across Europe and the UK allowing countries to help others meet their demand when they have excess generation. This can allow excess from renewables to flow around Europe to areas where it is less sunny/windy at the time. At the time I post this, 20% of the UK's demand is being supplied by Europe (https://grid.iamkate.com/) through interconnects.

The alternative is we build bigger sea defences or allow rising sea levels to take our coastal towns. Personally I'd rather spend tax payers cash on trying to prevent global warming / rising sea levels than trying to counteract the consequences which I see as futile.

On a more positive note, I think we need to get far more creative with our natural resources in the UK. We are an island with strong tidal flows which we have yet to energise. We can also use our coastal waters for pumped storage (see https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/german-institute-successfully-tests-underwater-energy-storage-sphere/ for a recent example of underwater energy storage).

QrizB

NedS said:

Nuclear has the advantage in that it is always available (always on), but the disadvantage that it is very expensive and slow to build, and cannot be turned on/off to meet fluctuations in demand.

...

 At the time I post this, 20% of the UK's demand is being supplied by Europe (https://grid.iamkate.com/) through interconnects.

We currently import electricity from continental Europe so frequently, and in such quantities, that it's as though one of France's larger nuclear power plants is solely supplying the UK.

Total current UK nuclear power capacity is about 6GW from five plants (4 AGR plus Sizewell B, the UKs only PWR, collectively enough to meet about 1/6th of UK electricity demand), all of about 1.2GW. The AGRs are all due to shut down by 2030. Hinckley Point C and Sellafield C will each bring 3GW of new capacity, so once both are built and operating we'll have slightly more capacity than we do now; but through most of the 2030s we'll have somewhat less.

Sizewell B was meant to be the first of a series of PWRs and we're now suffering the consequences of not having built those in the 1980s.

(Insert comment on the neglected state of UK infrastructure investment here.)

ed110220

QrizB said:

NedS said:

Nuclear has the advantage in that it is always available (always on), but the disadvantage that it is very expensive and slow to build, and cannot be turned on/off to meet fluctuations in demand.

...

 At the time I post this, 20% of the UK's demand is being supplied by Europe (https://grid.iamkate.com/) through interconnects.

We currently import electricity from continental Europe so frequently, and in such quantities, that it's as though one of France's larger nuclear power plants is solely supplying the UK.

Total current UK nuclear power capacity is about 6GW from five plants (4 AGR plus Sizewell B, the UKs only PWR, collectively enough to meet about 1/6th of UK electricity demand), all of about 1.2GW. The AGRs are all due to shut down by 2030. Hinckley Point C and Sellafield C will each bring 3GW of new capacity, so once both are built and operating we'll have slightly more capacity than we do now; but through most of the 2030s we'll have somewhat less.

Sizewell B was meant to be the first of a series of PWRs and we're now suffering the consequences of not having built those in the 1980s.

(Insert comment on the neglected state of UK infrastructure investment here.)

If we're talking of *backup* though, it's worth noting that the usual direction of flow can change to GB>France in cold winter weather when demand in France exceeds supply. In those conditions France can call on backup in Britain, Germany, Spain etc as well as on its own territory.