Wind and solar are cheaper than thought, admits UK government

Re:Wind and solar are cheaper than thought, admits UK govern... by michaelt on Thursday August 27, 2020 @07:09PM (#24299697)

For example, the UK's "Hinkley Point C" nuclear plant expansion has the following subsidies [1]

* Guaranteed minimum price for the electricity generated, well above current market rates. Taxpayer pays £92.50 per Megawatt Hour - when the wholesale price of electricity has been £35-£42 for the last year or so. The guaranteed price rises with inflation, and lasts 35 years.

* Loan guarantees, reducing their interest rates.

* Guaranteed maximum price for waste disposal, taxpayer pays anything above that.

* Capped liability / reduced insurance requirements for nuclear accidents. Taxpayer pays if an accident exceeds their insurance.

* Guaranteed maximum cost for decommissioning. Taxpayer pays if decommissioning costs more than predicted.

When the whole project was kicked off it was pre-brexit and our politicians were pro-chinese-investment. So a nuclear plant built with French expertise and Chinese money seemed like a great way to replace our ageing coal-fired power plants and keep the lights on.

[1] https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/united...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wind and solar are cheaper than thought, admits UK govern... by ebalit on Friday August 28, 2020 @07:44AM (#24303726)

I don't know enough about the UK nuclear program, so I might be wrong, but it seems wrong to compare a guaranteed price to an ongoing price.

Could you even get someone else to guarantee you an inflation pegged price of electricity for the next 35 years? And in that case, how much would it cost?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wind and solar are cheaper than thought, admits UK govern... by jerven on Friday August 28, 2020 @10:12AM (#24305047)

Yes, many offshore windfarms will do this. At about 40GBp, in somewhat current tendering (Contract for difference (CFD) auction round 3, UK). Although normally on a 15 year period (for arbitrary reasons Hinkley Point C was allowed a 35 year period and did not participate in the 2015 CFD auction).

I think anyone would love to offer a CFD over a 35 year timeline, only HinkleyPoint C (and Sizewell C in the same agreement) where offered these conditions. i.e it makes financing much easier.

HinkleyPoint C is in planning since 2008 or so, not exactly a quick process. Real construction since 2018 (but some prep work done in the decade leading up to this.) Expected generation is in 2025/2026. This sounds bad but is actually decent, 10 years from idea to generation is common and outliers exist in both directions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wind and solar are cheaper than thought, admits UK govern... by ebalit on Friday August 28, 2020 @01:59PM (#24308012)

Do you know where I could read more about this scheme?

How do they guarantee that they will actually provide the energy at a given time? Are they pairing wind with another power plant?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wind and solar are cheaper than thought, admits UK govern... by jerven on Monday August 31, 2020 @09:16AM (#24331127)

That is not what is guaranteed (nor at Hinkley Point C (HPC)), what is guaranteed that in the period a Mw produced for the grid is paid at least the strike price (but maybe more). Hinkley Point C will have have downtime for refuelling and other reasons. So needs to be paired with another power plant.

The CFD for hinkley point is available and is a few hundred pages.

Part of reason for the strike price with HPC is that they expected offshore to cost 85 GBP in 2025, while it costs 50 GBP in 2020.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wind and solar are cheaper than thought, admits UK govern... by ebalit on Monday August 31, 2020 @07:20PM (#24336885)

I don't think that the downtime of a nuclear reactor is similar to wind and solar (less often and can be scheduled).

Thanks for the explanation on CFD. One of the advantages of nuclear is its predictability, it seems unfortunate if this isn't what was bought by the UK.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Wind and solar are cheaper than thought, admits UK govern... by ebalit on Friday August 28, 2020 @07:42AM (#24303723)

The parent comment was talking about nuclear being subsidized in France and your example is in the UK. My point was about France if it was not obvious.

[ Parent | on HN ]