Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

_Jimlad_ said:
I would not be jumping in on solar right now. Government grants on that sort of stuff is surely around the corner. Plus electric is not the major problem. It's gas !
Click to expand...
In the UK, currently about 40% of our electricity comes from Gas. Yes this is decreasing every year, and the renewables % is creeping up, but energy costs are set by the highest cost generation type.
 
Energize said:
The government has announced 25% nuclear by 2050 so I wouldn't call that "dead".
Click to expand...

That is just the point. They have announced that they will waste billions of pounds on dead technology. Whether any of those announced will ever see the light of day is yet to be seen. Hopefully someone will pull the plug before hundreds of billions are thrown away.


Construction on a new reactor, Flamanville 3, began on 4 December 2007.[6] The new unit is an Areva European Pressurized Reactor type and is planned to have a nameplate capacity of 1,650 MWe. EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion[6] and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.[7] The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022.

Nuclear isn't about low cost, it's about price stability and energy security. Large scale battery storage technology is a pipe dream at the moment, like fusion it's always "just a few years away", on the other hand nuclear is a proven technology,
Click to expand...
This is largely nonsense. Grid scale batter technology already exist, is already a proven technology, is already widely deployed at commercial ROI. California has 23.5GH battery sotrage plants with aggrements in place, all part of the net-zero initiative by 2045.

and as France has demonstrated you can get a plant built in 4 years if you run a tight ship.
Click to expand...

Except their newest nuclear plant is over 10 years behind schedule.

Construction on a new reactor, Flamanville 3, began on 4 December 2007.[6] The new unit is an Areva European Pressurized Reactor type and is planned to have a nameplate capacity of 1,650 MWe. EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion[6] and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.[7] The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022.
Click to expand...

For some perspective on battery technology.
Click to expand...

NO, that is largely irrelevant junk. Energy density is meaningless for grid storage. You are getting confused with electric cars maybe.
 
_Jimlad_ said:
I would not be jumping in on solar right now. Government grants on that sort of stuff is surely around the corner. Plus electric is not the major problem. It's gas !
Click to expand...

no grants for solar will be coming, it’s well past the point of viability. My hope is the SEG gets increased from around 4p to 10p.

Electric is 4x the cost of gas due to generation costs and environmental / social Levi’s. It’s also not as seasonal.

grants for home based nuclear would be nice.
 
Foghorn Leghorn said:
It was the current government that closed the FiT subsidies back in early 2019, why would they introduce something new, especially when the industry is currently booming thanks to the price rises over the last six months.
Click to expand...

This government probably won't but the next might, looks like even without the gas price hike we need to be switching to renewables a lot faster than originally planned (if governments around the world pay any attention).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60984663

Peaking by 2025 is fairy-tale stuff surely
 
Puzzled said:
This government probably won't but the next might, looks like even without the gas price hike we need to be switching to renewables a lot faster than originally planned (if governments around the world pay any attention).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60984663

Peaking by 2025 is fairy-tale stuff surely
Click to expand...

2025 is a fairytale, but it is possible for most countries to be 95% plus renewable energy from about 2035. This requires large immediate investments in wind, solar snd battery installation, but also manufacturing.

Germany announced they will be 100% renewable by 2035

https://www.reuters.com/business/su...-energy-renewable-sources-by-2035-2022-02-28/

It would be even easier for the UK to achieve that given the massive offshore energy potential.
 
D.P. said:
Germany announced they will be 100% renewable by 2035
Click to expand...
that was pre Ukraine -won't they reviewing that now - their emergency gas rationing proposal , they were planning a gradual transition off of gas.

D.P. said:
Nuclear is absolutely the last thing we need right now. It doesn't solve any problem with the energy crisis, will just burn through billions and billions before the projects are scrapped as renewable energy will be literally 100x cheaper than nuclear....
Click to expand...
from earlier smr link Canada has just cued up an SMR that could be ready in 2028 -
Have any countries effectively connected up many small renewable suppliers on their grids dealing with the economies of scale of hardware/faults/harmonics .. and again, with Ukraine in mind, can we still afford to depend on China for storage batteries.

the european GDP loss through Ukraine is a big set back, let alone future trade/political allegances.
 
crazyDAJT said:
something looks off with these calculations to me..

Payback depends on how much of the Solar you use. As it cost you around 30p to import and you get around 4p for any export.

Using your numbers:
3648 kWh * 28.3429p / kWh = £1,034 if you use 100% of it.

100% is unrealistic without a battery, I used the link below to play with the numbers. I came to the conclusion that although it increases the cost a battery helps with payback. I can also charge it at 7p/kWh on Octopus go during the winter.

if you can divert as much spare generation to a car, battery or water heater and avoid export!

i am getting a system installed in about 2 weeks 4.5kw PV and 8.2 kwh battery for around £8.5K, payback won’t be significantly less than 10 years and I think electricity will be pushing 40p within a year or two.

https://www.solarguide.co.uk/solar-pv-calculator

Edit, I have just used the above and it suggests around £540 savings per year at 50% usage. So payback of around 10 years. Push the utilisation up and as the price per kWh increases payback is faster
Click to expand...

Yeah with the fact I'm only home after 7pm and out by 6am it means I will not really be about to utilise solar because my energy usage is when almost no electric is being generated so I'd only be selling back to grid.

As I mentioned a little later a battery would probably have to be the way but even then due to the extra quoted cost it ends up similar.

I don't have electric car or water heater so those are no go there. I was quoted 3.7kW PV with 8.2kW battery at £10.2k. With the figures given it would still be 13yr.

I don't believe that energy costs will remain this high come two to three year tbh. Expect it to drop close to Feb/March pricing by then meaning it doesn't seem viable for myself tbh at moment.
 
Last edited:
To note today a project I'm working on for work are talking about putting 60tonnes of battery with renewable energy source on top of their multi story carpark.

Haven't got much more on details but this project is about to start foundations in a month and they have already started re-evaluating to suit the future outlook.
 
D.P. said:
That is just the point. They have announced that they will waste billions of pounds on dead technology. Whether any of those announced will ever see the light of day is yet to be seen. Hopefully someone will pull the plug before hundreds of billions are thrown away.


Construction on a new reactor, Flamanville 3, began on 4 December 2007.[6] The new unit is an Areva European Pressurized Reactor type and is planned to have a nameplate capacity of 1,650 MWe. EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion[6] and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.[7] The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022.
Click to expand...

Using the phrase "dead technology" doesn't reflect well on your knowledge of nuclear. Obviously the first reactor is going to cost more to build, you can't use the 1st reactor as a reference point for a representative example. We just spent £100B on HS2 which is enough to build 5 Hinkley point C's which would completely replace gas. China is already building Gen 4 fast reactors and any country that doesn't follow suit is not going to be able to produce enough power for our demands in 2050.

This is largely nonsense. Grid scale batter technology already exist, is already a proven technology, is already widely deployed at commercial ROI. California has 23.5GH battery sotrage plants with aggrements in place, all part of the net-zero initiative by 2045.
Click to expand...

California has rolling blackouts every year because of solar power failing the grid. We haven't seen battery storage that can yet solve the problem of highly variable renewable energy production on a national scale.

NO, that is largely irrelevant junk. Energy density is meaningless for grid storage. You are getting confused with electric cars maybe.
Click to expand...

Not at all, one of the biggest advantages that nuclear has is that it produces a huge amount of energy in a small footprint. Battery chemistry and longevity is very important for grid storage unless you want the landscape smothered in wind turbines and batteries.
 
Last edited:
_Jimlad_ said:
I would not be jumping in on solar right now. Government grants on that sort of stuff is surely around the corner. Plus electric is not the major problem. It's gas !
Click to expand...

Energize said:
A lot of people only use electric. I don't have gas.
Click to expand...

Depends on how you digest it. Gas is used to fuel the turbines that make electricity. The idea being your solar a) means you offset consumption (use less of grid import) and b) hopefully sell some back (export). Gas costs everyone if they are using it in the power stations, they have to buy it to give you electric.

I hope jimlad is right on the former part though as grants would be welcome right now and kick start a movement for sure!
 
gpuerrilla said:
Depends on how you digest it. Gas is used to fuel the turbines that make electricity. The idea being your solar a) means you offset consumption (use less of grid import) and b) hopefully sell some back (export). Gas costs everyone if they are using it in the power stations, they have to buy it to give you electric.

I hope jimlad is right on the former part though as grants would be welcome right now and kick start a movement for sure!
Click to expand...

The only thing that matters is whether solar will pay for itself or not.
 
chrcoluk said:
Is it realistic though, if we funding new nuclear stations, we not going to retire them at that date they would only be online for a few years. Or do we consider nuclear renewable?
Click to expand...

California has blackouts every year, so if that's what 100% renewable brings, count me out lol.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...using-electricity-black-outs/?sh=132219961591

Why California’s Climate Policies Are Causing Electricity Blackouts

Millions of Californians were denied electrical power and thus air conditioning during a heatwave, raising the risk of heatstroke and death, particularly among the elderly and sick.

The blackouts come at a time when people, particularly the elderly, are forced to remain indoors due to Covid-19.


At first, the state’s electrical grid operator last night asked customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use. But after power reserves fell to dangerous levels it declared a “Stage 3 emergency” cutting off power to people across the state at 6:30 pm.

The immediate reason for the black-outs was the failure of a 500-megawatt power plant and an out-of-service 750-megawatt unit not being available. “There is nothing nefarious going on here,” said a spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator (CAISO). “We are just trying to run the grid.”

But the underlying reasons that California is experiencing rolling black-outs for the second time in less than a year stem from the state’s climate policies, which California policymakers have justified as necessary to prevent deaths from heatwaves.
Click to expand...

There is enough uranium and thorium nuclear fuel to last until the end of the Earth, so for all intents and purposes nuclear is just the same as renewable.
 
chrcoluk said:
Is it realistic though, if we funding new nuclear stations, we not going to retire them at that date they would only be online for a few years. Or do we consider nuclear renewable?
Click to expand...

Although its probably not classed as renewable, its better than burning fossil fuels. It maybe not the best solution but it should buy some time in order to shift into sustainable targets. Thing is as we have said in many threads, it should have been actioned decades back so we would not be in such a mess now and well on with the zero targets!
 
Energize said:
California has blackouts every year, so if that's what 100% renewable brings, count me out lol.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...using-electricity-black-outs/?sh=132219961591



There is enough uranium and thorium nuclear fuel to last until the end of the Earth, so for all intents and purposes nuclear is just the same as renewable.
Click to expand...
Hmm…

https://calmatters.org/commentary/2...tric-grid-is-not-ready-to-meet-climate-goals/

may have missed your point but this paints a different picture to me…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom