The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/09/go-...
Development of modular nuclear reactors to be supported by the government.
JD said:
£57.50 / MWh
Seems pretty cheap.
That's the lowest subsidy take for installation 5/6 years from now.Seems pretty cheap.
Compare that to the graph above.
The difference is paid by the consumer.
Now consider that with policies presumably still favouring "renewables" when they are producing unsupported investment in any other form of generation that up to now have been viable, just about, at lower wholesale prices, will be even less likely.
So policy seems to be to fill the North Sea and the Irish Sea and anywhere else that look vaguely likely with wind turbines, maybe the land with Solar panels and not spend too much time on the rest. Investment for gas, for example, the backup source of choice up to now, is hardly likely if there is simply going to be a flood of wind supply that might be delivered at a cost cheap enough for the politicians if not the consumers.
It should be interesting to see how that works out.
turbobloke said:
That makes my point exactly.
I was replying to a post - this keeps getting snipped out - about reductions in carbon dioxide due to turbines being less than expected, or words to that effect.
Did you read the paper (and no, I don't mean the Telegraph)I was replying to a post - this keeps getting snipped out - about reductions in carbon dioxide due to turbines being less than expected, or words to that effect.
http://bankssolutions.co.uk/powys/wp-content/uploa...
TL;DR : Instead of comparing Windfarm CO2 emissions with fossil fuel emissions, they're now comparing it with an average of the entire generating mix (fossil, nuclear, solar). Basically due to the success of offshore and solar, building new onshore wind on undisturbed peatlands has much diminished returns.
I think that's good on a number of levels.
LongQ said:
That's the lowest subsidy take for installation 5/6 years from now.
Compare that to the graph above.
The difference is paid by the consumer.
Now consider that with policies presumably still favouring "renewables" when they are producing unsupported investment in any other form of generation that up to now have been viable, just about, at lower wholesale prices, will be even less likely.
So policy seems to be to fill the North Sea and the Irish Sea and anywhere else that look vaguely likely with wind turbines, maybe the land with Solar panels and not spend too much time on the rest. Investment for gas, for example, the backup source of choice up to now, is hardly likely if there is simply going to be a flood of wind supply that might be delivered at a cost cheap enough for the politicians if not the consumers.
It should be interesting to see how that works out.
Forgive me, I don't understand how this all works.Compare that to the graph above.
The difference is paid by the consumer.
Now consider that with policies presumably still favouring "renewables" when they are producing unsupported investment in any other form of generation that up to now have been viable, just about, at lower wholesale prices, will be even less likely.
So policy seems to be to fill the North Sea and the Irish Sea and anywhere else that look vaguely likely with wind turbines, maybe the land with Solar panels and not spend too much time on the rest. Investment for gas, for example, the backup source of choice up to now, is hardly likely if there is simply going to be a flood of wind supply that might be delivered at a cost cheap enough for the politicians if not the consumers.
It should be interesting to see how that works out.
What is the difference between the £57.50 subsidy paid to a wind farm, and the guaranteed (strike price?) £92.50 of the new nuclear?
Are the two things not comparable?
The news seems to suggest those are the only numbers that matter ( from a generation cost perspective only)
Remember your seeing system buy and sell prices in the pool which is highly responsive to capacity and demand in each 30 minute slot.
Most generators such as ourselves sell most of our power on contract so the price is fixed a few years ahead.
Oh, and some wind power got strike prices above £97/MWH, think the highest was £138/MWH
And it's not £92/MWH for nuclear, that's only for Hinckley point C once it is generating, so doesn't apply yet.
Ahh, you did say new nuclear.
As I understand CfD, a generator will be guaranteed to get at least the strike price, so if the generator realises above that figure, no subsidy is paid.
This is in exchange for building generators the gov want.
Most generators such as ourselves sell most of our power on contract so the price is fixed a few years ahead.
Oh, and some wind power got strike prices above £97/MWH, think the highest was £138/MWH
And it's not £92/MWH for nuclear, that's only for Hinckley point C once it is generating, so doesn't apply yet.
Ahh, you did say new nuclear.
As I understand CfD, a generator will be guaranteed to get at least the strike price, so if the generator realises above that figure, no subsidy is paid.
This is in exchange for building generators the gov want.
Edited by Gary C on Monday 11th September 16:23
Edited by Gary C on Monday 11th September 16:30
Gary C said:
As I understand CfD, a generator will be guaranteed to get at least the strike price, so if the generator realises above that figure, no subsidy is paid.
This is in exchange for building generators the gov want.
The CfD is a contract for difference - i.e. a binding contract between the government and the generator to exchange the difference in price between the "strike price" and the market price.This is in exchange for building generators the gov want.
A strike price of £57.50 (2012 indexation) means that if the generator sells a MWh for less than £57.50 (re-indexed) then they receive a top-up from the government. Conversely, if the generator sells a MWh for more than the reindexed strike price, then they must pay the difference to the government.
The effect of the CfD is to guarantee an fixed, index-linked price for the sale of energy for the duration of the contract.
In effect, the subsidy is the difference between prevailing market prices and the strike price - and this therefore represents a dramatic reduction in size of the subsidy.
The effect of the CfD is to take market risk off the investors in the technology, but leave the technology risk. So, for example, the CfD contract has a termination date, based on a scheduled start date. If the project is delivered late, then this will shorten the duration of the contract, as the clock will start ticking on the agreed commencement date.
Edited by WatchfulEye on Monday 11th September 19:59
Australia walk back to reality.
https://amp.afr.com/news/goverment-walks-away-from...
The Clean Energy Target as proposed by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel will be overhauled and replaced with a policy that will place much greater emphasis on coal-fired baseload power and possibly a slower transition to renewable energy.
https://amp.afr.com/news/goverment-walks-away-from...
The Clean Energy Target as proposed by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel will be overhauled and replaced with a policy that will place much greater emphasis on coal-fired baseload power and possibly a slower transition to renewable energy.
XM5ER said:
Australia walk back to reality.
https://amp.afr.com/news/goverment-walks-away-from...
The Clean Energy Target as proposed by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel will be overhauled and replaced with a policy that will place much greater emphasis on coal-fired baseload power and possibly a slower transition to renewable energy.
There is hope. Finkel is an electrical engineer by education.https://amp.afr.com/news/goverment-walks-away-from...
The Clean Energy Target as proposed by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel will be overhauled and replaced with a policy that will place much greater emphasis on coal-fired baseload power and possibly a slower transition to renewable energy.
Low frequency event reported today.
Not been at work this week (yey in Kenya on safari !) but just caught up on some messages and I believe we have had a drop below 49.7hz activating some demand control.
Think it was an interconnector that tripped but there was insufficient availability.
Will be interesting to read the logs when I get back to work to see what affect it shad on us.
Not been at work this week (yey in Kenya on safari !) but just caught up on some messages and I believe we have had a drop below 49.7hz activating some demand control.
Think it was an interconnector that tripped but there was insufficient availability.
Will be interesting to read the logs when I get back to work to see what affect it shad on us.
Writing in the Daily Mail on a recent publication in Nature Geoscience the Labour MP Graham Stringer said:
In a study just published by the respected journal Nature Geoscience, a group of British academics reveals that the immediate threat from global warming is lower than previously thought, because the computer models used by climate change experts are flawed.
.
That discrepancy is ‘a big deal’, says Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, one of the authors of the study. He is absolutely right.
The importance of this new investigation cannot be downplayed.
It shows that so many of the assumptions behind the imposition of the fashionable eco agenda — such as the creation of vast, subsidised wind farms or the levying of green taxes — are wrong. Yet the environmental warriors show not a shred of embarrassment over these new findings.
There has been no word of apology, no sign of humility.
.
That discrepancy is ‘a big deal’, says Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, one of the authors of the study. He is absolutely right.
The importance of this new investigation cannot be downplayed.
It shows that so many of the assumptions behind the imposition of the fashionable eco agenda — such as the creation of vast, subsidised wind farms or the levying of green taxes — are wrong. Yet the environmental warriors show not a shred of embarrassment over these new findings.
There has been no word of apology, no sign of humility.
turbobloke said:
Writing in the Daily Mail on a recent publication in Nature Geoscience the Labour MP Graham Stringer said:
In a study just published by the respected journal Nature Geoscience, a group of British academics reveals that the immediate threat from global warming is lower than previously thought, because the computer models used by climate change experts are flawed.
.
That discrepancy is ‘a big deal’, says Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, one of the authors of the study. He is absolutely right.
The importance of this new investigation cannot be downplayed.
It shows that so many of the assumptions behind the imposition of the fashionable eco agenda — such as the creation of vast, subsidised wind farms or the levying of green taxes — are wrong. Yet the environmental warriors show not a shred of embarrassment over these new findings.
There has been no word of apology, no sign of humility.
.
That discrepancy is ‘a big deal’, says Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, one of the authors of the study. He is absolutely right.
The importance of this new investigation cannot be downplayed.
It shows that so many of the assumptions behind the imposition of the fashionable eco agenda — such as the creation of vast, subsidised wind farms or the levying of green taxes — are wrong. Yet the environmental warriors show not a shred of embarrassment over these new findings.
There has been no word of apology, no sign of humility.
turbobloke said:
Writing in the Daily Mail on a recent publication in Nature Geoscience the Labour MP Graham Stringer said:
In a study just published by the respected journal Nature Geoscience, a group of British academics reveals that the immediate threat from global warming is lower than previously thought, because the computer models used by climate change experts are flawed.
.
That discrepancy is ‘a big deal’, says Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, one of the authors of the study. He is absolutely right.
The importance of this new investigation cannot be downplayed.
It shows that so many of the assumptions behind the imposition of the fashionable eco agenda — such as the creation of vast, subsidised wind farms or the levying of green taxes — are wrong. Yet the environmental warriors show not a shred of embarrassment over these new findings.
There has been no word of apology, no sign of humility.
.
That discrepancy is ‘a big deal’, says Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, one of the authors of the study. He is absolutely right.
The importance of this new investigation cannot be downplayed.
It shows that so many of the assumptions behind the imposition of the fashionable eco agenda — such as the creation of vast, subsidised wind farms or the levying of green taxes — are wrong. Yet the environmental warriors show not a shred of embarrassment over these new findings.
There has been no word of apology, no sign of humility.
Good grief.
THE Myles Allen?
This appeared in some press reports a few days ago and seems not to have made it here until now.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/y...
It will be interesting to see how the project progresses.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/y...
It will be interesting to see how the project progresses.
LongQ said:
Myles Allen?
Good grief.
THE Myles Allen?
The one and only!Good grief.
THE Myles Allen?
An engineer friend who keeps in touch on climate matters suspects this is the first baby step in developing a part-face-saving exit strategy.
LongQ said:
This appeared in some press reports a few days ago and seems not to have made it here until now.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/y...
It will be interesting to see how the project progresses.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/y...
It will be interesting to see how the project progresses.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
The smaller RR version of Nuclear is certainly the way to go. Hinckley is already a design dinosaur and not what the country will need by the time it is built.
Not to mention horrendously expensive.
Although I can't see the majority of posters admitting that, having forever banged on that Hinckley IS the answer.
Smaller deployable (strategically in location and timescale) is the answer
Not quite, hickley has been signed for, it can not just be forgotten about, Hinckley plus smaller units is the answer.Not to mention horrendously expensive.
Although I can't see the majority of posters admitting that, having forever banged on that Hinckley IS the answer.
Smaller deployable (strategically in location and timescale) is the answer
PRTVR said:
Not quite, hickley has been signed for, it can not just be forgotten about, Hinckley plus smaller units is the answer.
Precisely.Hinkley C is an essential start in replacing our base load requirement following the decommissioning of coal and the older nuclear stations. A new fleet of SMRs would be ideal to get the job done properly so we will no longer have any need (if we ever have) of intermittent unreliables (wind & solar). Top up from CCGT is then all we'll need. Remember that we'll all want a reliable electricity supply when the ICE is given the final boot — if that ever happens,
The advantage of Hinkley is that there is already existig infrastructure and an exiting nuclear facility.
I would expect (but hope not) that any green-field new builds would run into oppostion from the usual suspects that would make the ant-fracking crowd look positively benign in comparison.
I would expect (but hope not) that any green-field new builds would run into oppostion from the usual suspects that would make the ant-fracking crowd look positively benign in comparison.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff