EDF - Hinkley Point 'C'

Author
Discussion

Scuffers

Original Poster:

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
at this rate, it's just not going to happen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35741772

wonder what plan B is?

Dave?


eliot

11,365 posts

253 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
wonder what plan B is?
Solar panels illuminated by massive LED lights powered by Wind turbines. The wind turbines will be blown round by big electric fans powered by solar farms.

Scuffers

Original Poster:

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
in the mid-term, you just know we are going to have to build some more coal plants...

sure, they will be dressed up as 'clean-coal' are all that bull, but they will be built.


v8250

2,724 posts

210 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
There is no plan B. EDF shares nosedive on the news. This is a ridiculous project that's going to cost UK taxpayers very, very heavily for many decades. The EDF FD has resigned for good reason, most likely knowing the existing agreement will lose too much money...and when the French see they're going to lose money they demand more. It will be UK plc that pays an even greater cost for this project, exactly the same as project SST...Concorde.

Scuffers

Original Poster:

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
v8250 said:
There is no plan B. EDF shares nosedive on the news. This is a ridiculous project that's going to cost UK taxpayers very, very heavily for many decades. The EDF FD has resigned for good reason, most likely knowing the existing agreement will lose too much money...and when the French see they're going to lose money they demand more. It will be UK plc that pays an even greater cost for this project, exactly the same as project SST...Concorde.
you're probably right, the project is doomed to fail on all sides.

they are proposing to build a reactor system that's yet to be proven, the two currently in build are already disasters.

what I don't get (and I await the flack) is why we can't just simply build ones like we already have? - hell we build enough different ones!

based on the experience of running them for 20+ years, pick the one that's done best, and duplicate it, several times.

they have all worked pretty well overall, they may not be cutting edge, but can we as a country afford to be cutting edge when money is tight and the big blackout is coming?






speedy_thrills

7,760 posts

242 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
If the unit price required to avoid subsidisation in 2025 is approx. three times the current unit price should the project be going ahead?

Looking at this from EDFs perspective across Europe electricity prices have slumped, delaying a commitment to sink a large chunk of capital on building more capacity (especially when there won't be any return until after 2025, the reactors they are using are still being developed and other projects are running late and over budget) would seem a prudent move. Also Standard & Poor's have already told them they'll be downgraded if they commit to Hinkley.

The economics of this look dubious to me, there isn't much of a market for turning gold into lead.

Scuffers

Original Poster:

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
speedy_thrills said:
If the unit price required to avoid subsidisation in 2025 is approx. three times the current unit price should the project be going ahead?

Looking at this from EDFs perspective across Europe electricity prices have slumped, delaying a commitment to sink a large chunk of capital on building more capacity (especially when there won't be any return until after 2025, the reactors they are using are still being developed and other projects are running late and over budget) would seem a prudent move. Also Standard & Poor's have already told them they'll be downgraded if they commit to Hinkley.

The economics of this look dubious to me, there isn't much of a market for turning gold into lead.
forget the rest of the EU for a moment.

UK elec price has not slumped at all, have you seen your P/Kwh reduce? Gas has, not electric, in fact, most suppliers seem to be slowly ramping up nigh rate costs too whilst holding day rates high.

Power generation is a long term game, in 10 years half our nucs are out, currently we have nothing to replace them with, not helped by shutting yet more perfectly serviceable coal stations.




speedy_thrills

7,760 posts

242 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
UK elec price has not slumped at all...
Historic data on wholesale energy prices is available online for free.

Scuffers

Original Poster:

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
speedy_thrills said:
Scuffers said:
UK elec price has not slumped at all...
Historic data on wholesale energy prices is available online for free.
Wholesale maybe, retail no chance.

louiebaby

10,651 posts

190 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
speedy_thrills said:
Scuffers said:
UK elec price has not slumped at all...
Historic data on wholesale energy prices is available online for free.
Energy Price = historically low.
Non-Energy Costs = Historically high

Net effect -> little, if any, reduction in the unit rates.

Scuffers

Original Poster:

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
I assume that in the non energy costs is running interconnects to wind and solar?

louiebaby

10,651 posts

190 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
I assume that in the non energy costs is running interconnects to wind and solar?
There have been a number of government incentives to drive investment towards renewable energy generation, (amongst other incentives.)

Wind and Solar are two of the technologies to have benefited from these incentives, but biomass is also involved.

The other non-energy costs that make up a significant amount of your costs are the transmission and distribution of the energy around the country. The maintenance and upgrading of the aging national grid is not a cheap job.

There are also issues with balancing the network, and making sure that there is enough power to go round at times of peak demand. A few times a year, emergency generators are used to bolster the regularly managed generation, and it costs a lot of money to have this on standby.

Scuffers

Original Poster:

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
louiebaby said:
The other non-energy costs that make up a significant amount of your costs are the transmission and distribution of the energy around the country. The maintenance and upgrading of the aging national grid is not a cheap job.

There are also issues with balancing the network, and making sure that there is enough power to go round at times of peak demand. A few times a year, emergency generators are used to bolster the regularly managed generation, and it costs a lot of money to have this on standby.
understood, but just how much of this work is directly related to the growth of wind and solar as opposed to just maintenance and renewal work on the grid?

for example, just how much does it cost to run an interconnect out to offshore wind?

as for paying for fields of diesel gensets...........




hidetheelephants

23,776 posts

192 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
you're probably right, the project is doomed to fail on all sides.

they are proposing to build a reactor system that's yet to be proven, the two currently in build are already disasters.

what I don't get (and I await the flack) is why we can't just simply build ones like we already have? - hell we build enough different ones!

based on the experience of running them for 20+ years, pick the one that's done best, and duplicate it, several times.

they have all worked pretty well overall, they may not be cutting edge, but can we as a country afford to be cutting edge when money is tight and the big blackout is coming?
If Brian George, the guy who brought Sizewell B into commission within a couple of months of the 7 year schedule and under budget, is still alive, give him a cheque book and set him to it. He can hardly make a bigger arse of it than EDF.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Monday 7th March 13:36

Scuffers

Original Poster:

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
If Brian George, the guy who brought Sizewell B in to commission within a couple of months of the 7 year schedule and underbudget, is still alive, give him a cheque book and set him to it. He can hardly make a bigger arse of it than EDF.
amazing article..

Just how did we f**k it up so badly from then to now?

here we are 21 years later still f**king about over the next one.


gazapc

1,319 posts

159 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
understood, but just how much of this work is directly related to the growth of wind and solar as opposed to just maintenance and renewal work on the grid?

for example, just how much does it cost to run an interconnect out to offshore wind?

as for paying for fields of diesel gensets...........
The costs for building the connections (whether onshore or offshore) are borne by the project developer, hence in essence some of the subsidy offered pays towards the grid upgrades.

The Government did this based on 2014 bills which provides nice graphic: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/policy-impacts-on-pric...

£36 per year for large scale renewables and £9 for small scale (rooftop FIT). Now this will have increased since last year but gives you an idea of the order of magnitude.

The other thing is that renewables tend to reduce wholesale prices when they are generating. So if a subsidy of say £90/MWh is offered the cost to the consumer isn’t just that but £90/MWh minus X where X is the reduction in wholesale price.
A recent study on this 'merit order effect' found the resultant drop in cost when calculated ‘net’ to be over 50%. This same effect will also apply to subsidies for nuclear.

http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/media/W1siZiIsIjU2MjRk...

Scuffers

Original Poster:

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
gazapc said:
The costs for building the connections (whether onshore or offshore) are borne by the project developer, hence in essence some of the subsidy offered pays towards the grid upgrades.

The Government did this based on 2014 bills which provides nice graphic: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/policy-impacts-on-pric...

£36 per year for large scale renewables and £9 for small scale (rooftop FIT). Now this will have increased since last year but gives you an idea of the order of magnitude.

The other thing is that renewables tend to reduce wholesale prices when they are generating. So if a subsidy of say £90/MWh is offered the cost to the consumer isn’t just that but £90/MWh minus X where X is the reduction in wholesale price.
A recent study on this 'merit order effect' found the resultant drop in cost when calculated ‘net’ to be over 50%. This same effect will also apply to subsidies for nuclear.

http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/media/W1siZiIsIjU2MjRk...
hang on a minute!

how the f**k is that right?

I can only assume that the non decc figures include some massive carbon tax or the like?

How can adding costs to cover wind/solar subsidies make it cheaper?


gazapc

1,319 posts

159 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
hang on a minute!

how the f**k is that right?

I can only assume that the non decc figures include some massive carbon tax or the like?

How can adding costs to cover wind/solar subsidies make it cheaper?
It doesn’t, it just reduces the headline figure for the subsidy handed out. Wholesale price is different and completely separate to the subsidy.

When the wind blows or the sun shines more generation is available vs demand and so the wholesale price decreases.

Overall the cost is still higher but not as high as simply looking at the total subsidy handed out.

Made up example:
The headline figure for a subsidy of £50/MWh for 1000 MWh would be a £50,000 cost spread across consumers.
But if this reduces the wholesale price by £15/MWh when generating the ‘net’ cost is £50,000 - £15,000 = £35,000.

The study is saying that the net cost of wind and solar is 50% lower than the headline figure.

Scuffers

Original Poster:

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
still makes no sence, how does the non DECC wholesale price start at more than the DECC price?

I assume they are implying a reduction in usage with all the green tech> (Smart meters etc)?

hidetheelephants

23,776 posts

192 months

Monday 7th March 2016
quotequote all
The study is bks; the magical MOE is completely failing to account for the opportunity cost of having stand-by from coal, gas or increasingly now diesel. Just because the subsidy arrangement and the way the electricity market rules work right now make this happen doesn't mean it has actually become cheaper.

Also the interconnects are not solely paid for by the developer; we've just spooged over half a billion building the Beauly-Denny power line just so the whirligigs can be connected.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Monday 7th March 14:14