Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

NigeWick · 4 February 2017 at 11:33AM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

We're well passed the point that the savings from PV/on-shore wind v's HPC are far, far greater than the cost of building gas back up. So for nuclear costs, we could get the equivalent volume of generation (but intermittent) from cheap RE, plus gas capacity standing idle if necessary. Then invest further price differential savings in storage.

The way renewable energy and battery costs are still coming down I do think all that is required to have a completely renewable system is political will plus fair subsidies/contracts for difference and a carbon tax on fossil burning. The problem as I see it is I suspect. many politicians are getting money, favours, party donations or whatever from nuclear and fossil interests. They just do not realise that prolonging nuclear and fossil energy businesses is going to cost money as well as endangering human lives and the environment. Apart from lives and environment there is the energy independence of our country at stake.

theboylard · 8 February 2017 at 9:20AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38894030

Before it gets twisted out of context, surprised were not heard more out of this?

But does it include the subsidies for nuclear, under the low carbon banner?

Martyn1981 · 8 February 2017 at 10:20AM

theboylard wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38894030

Before it gets twisted out of context, surprised were not heard more out of this?

But does it include the subsidies for nuclear, under the low carbon banner?

It's a bit controversial, as it doesn't reflect the reduced cost of electricity due to RE reducing peak prices. This helps to reduce the subsidy cost a bit, but the main issue as I understood it a year or so back when the government started to 'panic' about the LCF (levy control framework), is that they underestimated the capacity factors of off-shore wind. So off-shore wind generates more than expected, so whilst the payment per MWh is still the same, the 'volume' of payments is therefore higher as the amount of MWh's is greater. So we pay more subsidy, but get more leccy.

The subsidies for current nuclear aren't in there as they appear in national taxes, not leccy prices, but the new subsidies for nuclear such as HPC will add to our bills in the late 20's when (if?) it finally comes on line and starts to displace some FF's.

The next bit is boring and perhaps better to ignore, but breaks down some of the subsidies and the changes as we move forward:

For new nuclear, that's HPC, in 2016 monies for the latest contracts we get:
HPC £102/MWh
PV £83/MWh
On-shore wind £83/MWh
Off-shore wind £120/MWh

The PV and on-shore wind contracts were issued in early 2015. Similar cost contracts were issued in Europe. However recent PV (in Germany) and on-shore wind (in Italy) auctions were £60/MWh, reflecting the rapidly falling costs.

Off-shore wind is expected to hit £100/MWh any day now in the UK, and hopefully go sub £85/MWh by the mid 2020's.

PV and wind contracts are 15yrs, allowing quick replacement as costs keep falling. The HPC deal is for 35yrs.

The wind and PV costs also reflect the cost of building out the electricity infrastructure, and the cost of the 'bases'. For off-shore wind this is estimated at about 40% of the cost, so replacement of the turbines when they reach an end of life (say 20yrs) could see new contracts at 40% less as these costs won't need duplicating. So even if they remained at £120 (not £100, or £85) we might see £72/MWh (£120 @ 60%).

The NAO revised the HPC subsidy (element) up from £6bn to £30bn here (see pages 40/41), note that on-shore wind and PV look like they will be subsidy free against a wholesale price prediction of £70/MWh in 2027, when HPC will start to receive £32/MWh in average subsidy (£102-£70).

For current nuclear subsidies, it gets harder. The decommissiong costs are incredible, several £bns per year for about another century.

I did spend ages about 3 years trying to find current subsidies, but there is very little info available. I asked around, with some folk in the nuclear industry (fission and fussion) and was told I won't find the specific info, however I was directed to a few reports suggesting it was around 2p/kWh in 1990, which would be about 5p today ...... but as I say, nothing I thought was definitive.

In 2016 monies, with the HPC deal at £102/MWh, and assuming the wholesale leccy price is £70/MWh in 2027 (see NAO report page 40), then the cost of the subsidy will be approximately:
£32/MWh x 3,200MW x 24hrs x 365 days x 91% capacity factor = £816m

Assuming - 30% of leccy consumed by households, and 25m households, then the cost to each household for HPC (not all nuclear) would be about £10.

That rises to £13 in 2035 when wholesale prices are predicted to drop to £60/MWh.

NigeWick · 8 February 2017 at 11:31AM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

For current nuclear subsidies, it gets harder. The decommissioning costs are incredible, several £bns per year for about another century.

I am now totally against nuclear. Decommissioning costs will actually go on until the stuff has dissipated its harmful radiation, about 300,000 years. Should some naughty person or group decide to sabotage a site then a real disaster would follow. The cost of construction and generation is now prohibitive compared to the reducing costs of renewables.

Then there's accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
Have you ever heard of a solar or wind spill causing large amounts of contamination? Neither have I.

Renewable energy has numerous advantages over nuclear, coal, gas or diesel generation:-

1. The cost is coming down rapidly in the near future will be the cheapest form of electricity generation.
2. It can be produced and stored locally in a house, business or factory using batteries.
3. 2 means that it would be more difficult for somebody to disrupt electricity to a large area.
4. It is ideal for small local developments as at 2.
5. It will stop us producing so much pollution.

Martyn1981 · 9 February 2017 at 2:30PM

Trying to be positive about nuclear and the planned sister plant at HPC ....... um ...... hopefully they'll have found all the problems by the time HPC is built??????

OOOh I've got one ..... "Good news for HPC sister nuclear powerstation - delays in construction mean it only went bang with a little 'b'!"

French nuclear power plant explosion: Blast at EDF's Flamanville station 'does not cause radioactive leak'

Martyn1981 · 9 February 2017 at 2:34PM

Waitrose rolls out new green truck fleet

The company has bought 10 new compressed natural gas (CNG) powered trucks, which are able to run for up to 500 miles on green gas produced through anaerobic digestion.

Although the trucks cost 50 per cent more to buy upfront than a diesel alternative, Waitrose expects the vehicles to deliver significant fuel cost savings over their working life, alongside substantial environmental benefits.

Biomethane is up to 40 per cent cheaper than diesel to buy and emits 70 per cent less carbon dioxide, as well as dramatically cutting down on nitrogen dioxide emissions responsible for poor air quality.

michaels · 9 February 2017 at 6:26PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

It's a bit controversial, as it doesn't reflect the reduced cost of electricity due to RE reducing peak prices. This helps to reduce the subsidy cost a bit, but the main issue as I understood it a year or so back when the government started to 'panic' about the LCF (levy control framework), is that they underestimated the capacity factors of off-shore wind. So off-shore wind generates more than expected, so whilst the payment per MWh is still the same, the 'volume' of payments is therefore higher as the amount of MWh's is greater. So we pay more subsidy, but get more leccy.

The subsidies for current nuclear aren't in there as they appear in national taxes, not leccy prices, but the new subsidies for nuclear such as HPC will add to our bills in the late 20's when (if?) it finally comes on line and starts to displace some FF's.

The next bit is boring and perhaps better to ignore, but breaks down some of the subsidies and the changes as we move forward:

For new nuclear, that's HPC, in 2016 monies for the latest contracts we get:
HPC £102/MWh
PV £83/MWh
On-shore wind £83/MWh
Off-shore wind £120/MWh

The PV and on-shore wind contracts were issued in early 2015. Similar cost contracts were issued in Europe. However recent PV (in Germany) and on-shore wind (in Italy) auctions were £60/MWh, reflecting the rapidly falling costs.

Off-shore wind is expected to hit £100/MWh any day now in the UK, and hopefully go sub £85/MWh by the mid 2020's.

PV and wind contracts are 15yrs, allowing quick replacement as costs keep falling. The HPC deal is for 35yrs.

The wind and PV costs also reflect the cost of building out the electricity infrastructure, and the cost of the 'bases'. For off-shore wind this is estimated at about 40% of the cost, so replacement of the turbines when they reach an end of life (say 20yrs) could see new contracts at 40% less as these costs won't need duplicating. So even if they remained at £120 (not £100, or £85) we might see £72/MWh (£120 @ 60%).

The NAO revised the HPC subsidy (element) up from £6bn to £30bn here (see pages 40/41), note that on-shore wind and PV look like they will be subsidy free against a wholesale price prediction of £70/MWh in 2027, when HPC will start to receive £32/MWh in average subsidy (£102-£70).

For current nuclear subsidies, it gets harder. The decommissiong costs are incredible, several £bns per year for about another century.

I did spend ages about 3 years trying to find current subsidies, but there is very little info available. I asked around, with some folk in the nuclear industry (fission and fussion) and was told I won't find the specific info, however I was directed to a few reports suggesting it was around 2p/kWh in 1990, which would be about 5p today ...... but as I say, nothing I thought was definitive.

In 2016 monies, with the HPC deal at £102/MWh, and assuming the wholesale leccy price is £70/MWh in 2027 (see NAO report page 40), then the cost of the subsidy will be approximately:
£32/MWh x 3,200MW x 24hrs x 365 days x 91% capacity factor = £816m

Assuming - 30% of leccy consumed by households, and 25m households, then the cost to each household for HPC (not all nuclear) would be about £10.

That rises to £13 in 2035 when wholesale prices are predicted to drop to £60/MWh.

With a CFD does the level of subsidy depend on the prevailing market price so if energy prices are lower than forecast the cost of the CFD subsidy goes up?

If so shouldn't the govt have hedged this risk?

Martyn1981 · 9 February 2017 at 7:27PM

michaels wrote: »

With a CFD does the level of subsidy depend on the prevailing market price so if energy prices are lower than forecast the cost of the CFD subsidy goes up?

If so shouldn't the govt have hedged this risk?

Yes. If the price is lower, the subsidy is higher. But the total cost remains the same, as any receipts higher than the strike price have to be paid back.

So, for the consumer, we know that HPC leccy will cost us £102/MWh (2016 prices), regardless of the going wholesale price at the time.

In fairness to the government, and if you look at the NAO report, they were expecting higher leccy prices, and higher renewable energy prices back in 2012 when the strike price (then £92.50) was agreed. that's why the subsidy element of HPC was revised up from the £6bn estimate in 2013, to £30bn in 2016.*

I'm only guessing, but ....... I suspect some of the future wholesale price reduction might also reflect the higher generation than expected from wind and PV. Now, when the 15yr subsidies end, on-shore wind will probably be good for another 10yrs, off-shore perhaps 5yrs, and PV possibly 15-25 years. These 'powerstations' will then be selling to the grid at market spot prices.

I'm assuming they'll keep on producing as the bulk of their costs are CAPEX (capital expenditure), whereas for FF generators, the bulk of their costs are OPEX (operating expenditure) primarily fuel. So just like a domestic PV system in 15-20yrs, you may have to replace the inverter, but you should get another 20yrs generation for approx £1k. If you think about that, and separate the first 20yrs away against the FiT (generation and capital cost), then the second 20 years at say 90% efficiency on a 4kWp system could give you a generation cost of 1.5p/kWh .......... seriously .............. try it!

For a PV farm or wind farm, if they've covered their costs and profit in the CfD term (15yrs), then another 5-25yrs of generation will be dirt cheap.

* Edit: I thought the HPC deal was too high in 2012, but not ridiculous. It's only the astonishingly rapid fall in RE costs since then that have moved HPC from expensive to disastrous. The question is, why did the government slash and burn on-shore wind and PV subsidies in 2016, whilst re-affirming the deal for HPC?

michaels · 9 February 2017 at 11:38PM

So for consumers paying more on their bills towards cfd payments is the flip side to lower overall prices rather than higher bills absolutely?

Martyn1981 · 10 February 2017 at 8:40AM

michaels wrote: »

So for consumers paying more on their bills towards cfd payments is the flip side to lower overall prices rather than higher bills absolutely?

Yes, spot on.

Obviously any CfD (or ROC or FiT) make the bill higher, as the leccy costs more than the wholesale price, otherwise it wouldn't need a subsidy. But once that decision has been made then the £102 (for example) hits our bills regardless as spot price + top up, always coming to £102, or £120 for the latest off-shore wind, or £83 for on-shore wind and PV. The question for HPC is could we have got a better deal at a lower price? Or perhaps, could other technology have done it for less (PV/wind/tidal + storage or overcapacity with capping).

In Germany, they have one of the lowest market prices for leccy, as intermittent renewables are driving down the prices, but they also have one of the highest retail leccy prices once the subsidies are added on.

In the long run it's fine as we'll see all the higher subsidies start to fall off, replaced with ever lower newer subsidies, then hopefully no subsidies. Off-shore wind may go below £100 this year for new contracts, but we'll still be paying the £120, £140, £155 contracts till they end.

Hopefully this explains my contempt for the HPC deal. By 2030-35 most of the expensive contracts will be ending or close to an end, with hopefully many/most subsidy free or close to the £60-£70/MWh the NAO predict for wholesale prices. But HPC will only be starting it's 35yr deal at £102, well above the spot prices.

Lastly, and sorry fro the waffle, but don't think too badly of the current subsidies, they aren't as bad as they appear as they do reduce costs from general taxation (health costs from pollution, shift of existing nuclear subsidies, cost of dealing with the impacts of AGW (CO2 emissions)), so they are pushing up the leccy price, but that price is artificially low, with costs hitting us elsewhere.

Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free