Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday September 12 2017, @02:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the and-less-radioactive dept.

Energy from offshore wind in the UK will be cheaper than electricity from new nuclear power for the first time.

The cost of subsidies for new offshore wind farms has halved since the last 2015 auction for clean energy projects

Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a subsidy of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23.

This compares with the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant securing subsidies of £92.50 per megawatt hour.

Nuclear firms said the UK still needed a mix of low-carbon energy, especially for when wind power was not available.

Both nuclear and wind receive subsidies, but for the first time wind is coming to market with less, so providing the same electricity with less cost to the public than nuclear.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Whoever on Tuesday September 12 2017, @02:51PM (23 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @02:51PM (#566754) Journal

    The "£57.50" isn't a subsidy of that amount. It's a guaranteed price. That's all the wind farm operator will receive.

    Unless, of course, somehow, electricity from other sources is free. That would make it a subsidy. Is electricity from other sources free?

    The summary is a blatant misrepresentation of the article and both Phoenix666 and Fnord666 should be ashamed of themselves (or are they really one person?).

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Overrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:16PM (12 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:16PM (#566764) Journal

    The "£57.50" isn't a subsidy of that amount. It's a guaranteed price. That's all the wind farm operator will receive.

    Guaranteed price on a demand/supply market can act as subsidies, if the price falls lower than that (which is likely, especially with the increase of supply). More or less, that guaranteed RoI, i.e. a safety net for the developer.

    What's also interesting:

    The subsidies, paid from a levy on consumer bills, will run for 15 years - unlike nuclear subsidies for Hinkley C which run for 35 years.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by choose another one on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:46PM (5 children)

      by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:46PM (#566781)

      > The subsidies, paid from a levy on consumer bills, will run for 15 years - unlike nuclear subsidies for Hinkley C which run for 35 years.

      Experience shows nuke plants last longer. The AGRs in the UK were years late and had many construction problems, but they are all expected to last 35yrs+. The previous generation Magnox reactors (all shutdown now) lasted up to 47yrs I think.

      The wind farm that used to be a landmark (or intrusion on the view, depending on your opinion) from the offices where I worked in the 90s' is now gone. It lasted only 20 yrs in total and for the last few years the turbines stood idle and broken - apparently uneconomic to repair - so energy generation lifespan of 15yrs sounds about right. Good news is that they are relatively easy and quick to decommission and return the landscape to what it was, unlike nuke plants.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:58PM (1 child)

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:58PM (#566838)

        I think they expect the newest nukes to work for 60 years.

        It is not impossible that the company/administration managing the wind farm you were looking at, either ran out of money for maintenance (for political reasons, bad management, or because the type of turbine wasn't viable for that place after subsidies expired), or decided to use that money to build more profitable or less ugly power in a different place.
        Nuclear power is still mostly stuck in the 60s (newer tech is barely coming live now), with astronomical new-entrant costs and no real competition. Conversely, wind power tech has gone leaps and bounds in the last ten years, so what made sense building 15 years ago can be only good for the scrapyard today.

        • (Score: 1, Troll) by choose another one on Wednesday September 13 2017, @01:38PM

          by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13 2017, @01:38PM (#567214)

          > It is not impossible that the company/administration managing the wind farm you were looking at, either ran out of money for maintenance

          It is more that they (quite possibly deliberately) let the turbines decay to the point where they would be too expensive to fix, and then applied to replace them (so they had money available) with newer bigger ones (that would get newer bigger subsidies and hence make bigger profits). It was a gamble that failed - I don't think many people were actually against them when they were turning and doing something useful, but once they were ugly broken stumps opposition to them grew, after all what was to stop the new ones becoming even bigger broken ugly stumps in a few more years? Planning permission was refused and they were ordered to removed the old broken ones.

          > Conversely, wind power tech has gone leaps and bounds in the last ten years, so what made sense building 15 years ago can be only good for the scrapyard today.

          So 15yr subsidy makes sense, no sign the improvement is slowing down.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @05:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @05:43PM (#566870)

        The best cheapest way to decommission a nuke plant is to bury it where it stands, after blowing up all the really tall shit. And it will leave future archeologists wondering what the ancient mounds and weird purple plants growing on them are.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by krishnoid on Tuesday September 12 2017, @06:45PM (1 child)

        by krishnoid (1156) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @06:45PM (#566909)

        Only problem is that all that used wind won't degrade for another 50 years, and will keep cycling around. I hear that stuff causes birth defects.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 13 2017, @09:14AM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday September 13 2017, @09:14AM (#567142) Homepage
          Yeah, it's even been used for sonic attacks - did you miss the recent Cuban embassy story?
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:39PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:39PM (#566824)

      Guaranteed price on a demand/supply market can act as subsidies, if the price falls lower than that

      Yes, but unless the market price falls to zero, a guaranteed price of £57.50/MWh is never a subsidy of £57.50/MWh. But the latter is what the summary claims.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 12 2017, @05:07PM (3 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 12 2017, @05:07PM (#566850) Journal

        Yes, but unless the market price falls to zero, a guaranteed price of £57.50/MWh is never a subsidy of £57.50/MWh. But the latter is what the summary claims.

        I think you are unfairly shaming Phoenix666.

        My understanding is: they are now bidding for subsides the UK govt is offering, the bid being not the absolute level of subsidies, but the expected minimum guaranteed price. It wasn't necessarily so in the past, but in this today context, the terminology used is "bidding for subsidies", with the disambiguation considered perhaps evident for the UK-nians. If I'm right, it is not Phoenix666 that instilled a false view of the situation, but BBC itself.

        Checking:

        The figures for offshore wind, from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, were revealed as the result of an auction for subsidies, in which the lowest bidder wins.
        ...
        EDF added that energy from new nuclear plants would become cheaper as the market matures, as has happened with offshore wind.
        Eyes will be raised at this suggestion, as nuclear power has already received subsidies since the 1950s.
        ...
        Energy analysts said UK government policy helped to lower the costs by nurturing the fledgling industry, then incentivising it to expand - and then demanding firms should bid in auction for their subsidies.

        I could not find anything in TFA that explicitly says: "the level of subsidies will cover the difference between the selling price and the bid offer".

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 13 2017, @09:18AM (2 children)

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday September 13 2017, @09:18AM (#567143) Homepage
          Yes, this is a BBC wording issue. It's terrible english - it's been businessified, with added weaseling to expedite confusification of the reader, so that the MBA-less masses remain ignorant of what the corporatists in power are doing with the public's money.

          Editors could have made the quoting more quotey, so there's be no confusion, admittedly.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:42AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:42AM (#567178)

            It's terrible english

            That's not english - it's british.

            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 14 2017, @03:38AM

              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday September 14 2017, @03:38AM (#567611) Homepage
              it's business/marketting speak, I think the US leads the development of that tongue nowadays.
              --
              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2, Troll) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 12 2017, @06:43PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @06:43PM (#566907)

      I was going to say: Here on the other side of the pond, Americans are still paying for the nuke plants built over 40 years ago. It's partially because the utilities are gouging, as they always do, but it's also that those things are really expensive to operate.

      Of course, we could reduce the operating costs if we just let them dump nuclear waste any old which way, but that would create substantial costs for everyone around the plant. I have to admit this one's personal, as I'm about 10 miles downwind and downstream from a nuke plant right now.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 12 2017, @05:31PM (8 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @05:31PM (#566864) Journal

    From TFS: "Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a subsidy of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23.

    This compares with the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant securing subsidies of £92.50 per megawatt hour."

    It's handily there, for your reference, in the summary. The source is the BBC; of course, they are fake news so take that with a grain of salt. Fortunately, you saw right through them and their fake news and have now corrected the record.

    Sadly, you cannot shame me because I have no shame. Just ask my wife when I wear wife-beater t-shirts in public.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tfried on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:09PM (4 children)

      by tfried (5534) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:09PM (#566918)

      Perhaps part of the problem is - yet again - that you insist on writing:

      Phoenix666 writes: <quote>[Some snippet that happens to include a link to the actual source of itself]</quote>

      rather than one of the many simple and unambiguous quotation formats that have been suggested to you, repeatedly. Such as:

      Phoenix666 writes: Found at [source]: <quote>[An actual quote from the source, without any added or removed links]</quote>

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 12 2017, @10:05PM (3 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @10:05PM (#566984) Journal

        OK. You get what you get, so don't get upset.

        You're welcome to jump right in and show us all how it's done.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by tfried on Wednesday September 13 2017, @06:27AM (2 children)

          by tfried (5534) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @06:27AM (#567099)

          Sorry for my tone, I guess, it's just that I am having difficulty understanding why you - insist (there, I said it, again) - on your buggy submission format.

          Yes, I do appreciate your submissions. A lot. I am definitely not asking you to stop them, I am not asking you to do creative writing on them, I am not trying to accuse you of plagiarism, I'm pointing out a plain but easy-to-fix bug in your quotation format. Also, yes, I am a leecher wrt SN, I know I am, that is not likely to change, but frankly, I don't see what that has to do with anything. When a user reports a plain bug in my software, "I don't care" may be sometimes make for a valid answer. "Provide a patch" is a valid answer too, where applicable. But "so go write your own software" is ...?

          Ok, why is it a bug? I'll try to explain in baby-steps:
          1. You are starting your submissions with "Phoenix666 writes:", as is relatively standard on SN. The colon indicates that the "what" you write is to follow in a separate sentence, immediately following the colon.
          2. Often this "what" starts with a literal quote, immediately. Which quite simply reads as if it was you writing those words. Consider a plain English example to understand the problem:

          Tfried writes: I am confused!

          Who is confused, here? Tfried, obviously.
          3. Adding quotation marks or quote-markup does not help at all, unfortunately:

          Tfried writes: "I am confused!"

          Tfried writes:

          I am confused!

          Both are totally standard, common place notations for a literal speech authored by Tfried, with no indication that this could be a third-party quote.
          4. Believe it or not, I was honestly mislead by that several times, until I gradually came to learn that in the context of SN, and submissions by Phoenix666, an initial quote should generally by attributed to a third party, and that further the first link inside that quote is not actually part of the quote, but a link to the source. Totally. Not. Obvious. Proper quoting just does not work that way.
          5. Others have pointed out the same problem, repeatedly. But eventually they usually give up on it, just like they give up on telling Arik not to misuse the <code> markup, or on Ethanol to stop trolling.

          A large variety of simple, concise, and unambiguous quotation formats are available. Please don't insist on a plain wrong format just because it's what you've been doing for so long.

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 13 2017, @02:01PM (1 child)

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @02:01PM (#567223) Journal

            The "Phoenix666 writes:" is not something the submitter actually writes. It's hard-coded in the slashcode. Submit it as a change request to TMB and the SN guys who work on the code.

            If it bothers you enough, volunteer to code it and submit it to TMB and the guys who maintain the repository; they're always happy to have help. If others are bothered by it, too, then that's more reason for you to step up and be the change you want to see. It shouldn't be too hard, technically.

            FWIW, the quoting and linking conventions are congruent with what was standard practice at Slashdot (as in, the link to the source was used to emphasize a point or the thrust of the article by using the text of the excerpt itself), which Soylent grew out of, so it's been done this way more or less for 20 years. It may conflict with editorial practice elsewhere and annoy those used to those conventions, but in online terms it's venerable.

            And since Slashdot held such an influential place in online communities, who's to say it's not the new standard? It annoys the crap out of me that people use "impact" as a transitive verb in any context other than, "to strike something physically and leave a mark, as in, 'the meteor impacted the earth and left a crater,'" and that illiterates cannot, cannot spell 'lose' correctly, as in, 'lose your lunch,' choosing instead the utterly, comically incorrect, 'loose,' but I have to at some level accept that people that know how to do things right are vastly outnumbered by people who don't, and that trying to fight that is a fool's errand. Times change.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 2) by tfried on Wednesday September 13 2017, @02:50PM

              by tfried (5534) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @02:50PM (#567236)

              Look, it is not the "Phoenix666 writes:" that is bothering me. I don't think that's a particularly elegant solution, and in fact, it is the relevant difference that breaking the "green site quotation format", for good. Worst of both worlds, in combination. However it is entirely straight-forward to avoid ambiguous quotes under the constraint of starting with a hard-coded "Submitter writes:". Most (not all) of your co-submitters do.

              The most obvious solution is to simply put something - anything - before the quote, since that makes it clear that yet another level of speech is starting, i.e. it removes the ambiguity that the quote could be attributed to you, directly. If you do not want to think up some introductory words, each time, the easiest solution is to make that something the source info. I.e.:

              Phoenix666 writes:
              From http://where.did.you/find/this [did.you]:

              Whatever you want to quote

              This very simple format is a no-brainer to both the submitter, and the reader. It further avoids making non-obvious modifications to the quote, such as inserting a link. A gazillion variants of this format are possible. Pick the one that you like best.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:15PM (2 children)

      by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:15PM (#566921) Journal

      No, it doesn't say that. What it says now (and at the time I posted earlier) is:

      Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a guaranteed price of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 12 2017, @10:03PM (1 child)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @10:03PM (#566983) Journal

        Well I copied & pasted from the article in question. I don't alter copy in any way except to occasionally replace paragraphs with an ellipsis.

        It seems the BBC went back and edited the article in place. It's a web page, not a print edition, so they can do that.

        Please aim your slings and arrows at the Beeb.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:23AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:23AM (#567173)

          Adding links is an alteration.

  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 12 2017, @05:39PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @05:39PM (#566869) Journal

    BTW Fnord666 and I are not the same person. We do, however, seem to share an affinity for evil. I know that's why I do what I do, because I'm evil [youtu.be]!

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.