The price of renwable energy

Too bad UK is so far away! Here in Canada, Hydro Quebec is selling electricity to US for 4.1 cents/ KWh.

I don't really understand the question. Who is "we"? The people of the UK? The true cost of the renewables is not set by policy but by the fundamental economics of generation. If the cost is subsidised, then you are simply making up the difference in taxes. You're perhaps paying about 4 - 6  times the direct cost of non-renewable energy per kwh at those quoted prices. Whether that's too much depends on your view of the externalised environmental, health & safety costs of non-renewables.

Chaps

I used to buy energy (gas and electricity) for a living before I retired.

The figures quoted by the OP are just one of a dozen quoted and comparing final costs is complex because of taxes etc.

However as a rough guide the cheapest for of energy is gas but we are dependant on Russia for that.

Coal and nuclear are the cheapest way of producing a non interuptable supply but they both have their environmental issues.

Renewables are undoubtably clean and will benefit our children and the environment . The downside is that they are inefficient and hence unreliable compared to the traditional forms of energy production.  Windmills are fine when there is wind but a week of little or no wind causes problems.

Our major problem is that most countries in Europe buy and sell energy to each other on an hourly basis, the electricity that your pc is using to read your computer could have been produced in the UK,  France, Germany, Spain as well as others and collectively supply is reducing as coal fired plants are being closed down and every European country has dithered and still continues to dither over the use of coal and nuclear. Relying on renewables will not provide an uninterupable supply and we are 4 years away when demand exceeds supply throughout Europe.

Regards

Mick

Yes

A couple of quick points.

Nuclear is considered as a "renewable" energy source. It will basically last as long as the sunshine, wind, hydro and tides. Coal, gas and oil are considererd non-renewable.

The UK commited to reduce its non-renewable power stations and increase its renewable supplies as part of its carbon reduction committment to the environment. This was done in the clear knowledge that renewable energy requires more effort to produce and hence is more costly.

To incentivise private investment in renewable energy supply, the government commited to provide a strike price for this energy at the guaranteed rates that I quoted above. As Mick said above, the power generating companies sell power across Europe on an hourly (or so ) basis. A goodly chunk of the UK's power is imported via Sellindge in Kent. The buying/selling bidding process no doubt reflects generating costs and supply/demand and represents a volatile market. To a certain extent this is reflected in varying selling prices to consumers, including to the likes of "you" and "me" through the "Distribution" companies

However, if the government is incentivising private finance renewable investment, with guaranteed minimum prices as I indicated in the OP, will this tend to raise the price of energy or reduce it ?

I'm surprised tidal power is not on your list, since all the UK is surrounded by ocean water with tidal differences favorable for energy production. It certainly seems a more practical means of renewable power than nuclear.

Tidal is one of the most expensive renewable energy sources Joerand

I was remotely involved in a project a few years ago using barrier technology & maintenance was the most significant downside.  The sea is full of all sorts of life that wants to take over anything & the need for very frequent & costly maintenance is significant.

This is a table of costs starting 2011 up to estimated 2040

Estimated (levelised) costs (pence/kWh) of renewable & low-carbon electricity generation

That's a telling response, Mike. There are plenty of red herrings out there in "renewable" energy production. Bioethanol and hydrogen, for example, can use more energy to capture and deliver than they "save" in direct emissions from the end user.

Red herrings run amok in the renewable energy sector.  The technology just isn't there yet in many cases.  I would love to have my dwelling run completely on solar and tell my power company to bugger off, but the scale of economics is not feasible.  Living off the grid just sounds too good to be true.

And the government subsidies in the USA become the business unto itself....look at the Solyndra debacle, and the entire ethanol boondoggle.  You don't need to actually make a product that is rational and economically sensible, just hook your spigot up to the government teat...after all, taxpayers are a limitless supply of fresh capital, and congressmen are fairly cheap on a ROI basis.

And I think wind farms are the biggest red herring of all; noise polluters, horribly unsightly over a large area, especially in light of the output generated. And as it turns out here, killing birds at a pretty good clip, including (ironically) bald eagles.

I have read where nanotechnology may be where solar actually becomes feasible on a large scale deployment.  Currently it is akin to trying to drive a water turbine by catching rain.  I hope it happens; the sun is always there, and if it ever isn't, we'll not have anything to worry about anyway.

It may tend to reduce the actual unit price of the renewable energy by encouraging some efficiencies that come from scale. Offsetting this is that investors may choose even more expensive options than they otherwise would consider plausible (windmills in non-windy or expensive places, for example).  In any case it will increase the average total price paid by the consumer (power bills plus subsidising taxes) due to encouraging a higher percentage of expensive renewables in the "mix". This ignores the external health, safety and environmental benefits of renewables. 

Of course, historically, nuclear power is by far the safest and has the lowest environmental impact of all energy sources.

The windmill-bird kill thing is overstated by those that don't like the the look/sound of windmills. The effect of windmills is absolutely dwarfed by bird mortality due loss of habitat as we continue to infest the planet, cars and cats. (The low frequency sickness syndrome has also been thoroughly debunked.)

But I agree they're ugly things. In some circumstances they are starting to be economically competitive, though. At least we can take them back down once we have better options.

100% winkyincanada

I am a signed up & active member of the birding world,  but in recent years at association meetings I've avoided discussions about wind farms at meetings as there lies misinformation, blinked visions & other demons. 

Truth be told they are ugly visual polluters & apart from hill/mountain tops & close to coast, are pretty poor at generating power.  Many in UK located around rural communities seem to have been installed to satisfy well meaning but misguided communities & politicians.   

Anyhow, rant over,  bird kills are very low around wind farms.  I've seen the evidence, they will scare off some birds & the species numbers in the localities are affected, but most species just learn to live around them.  yes there are some fatalities & it makes press headlines when its rare or cute, & of course the level is more than that if the wind farm was not there.  But it needs to be put in perspective. 

This is a graphic of bird kills in USA - I guess the same percentage numbers are good for UK & Europe.  And NB: this is LOGARITHMIC scale - so please read the numbers, don't just look at the bar graph as a picture. 

Remarkable numbers. I am particularly surprised by the hunting numbers. I despair for our future when it seems so many people continue to derive pleasure from killing things.

"sunshine, wind, hydro and tides" are listed in my post directly above yours.

Studies into using the Bristol Channel/River Severn have shown the probable cost to be unecconomic. Building New/for/Old nuclear power stations at the existing sites is the most practical way forward. 

PS, after typing the above I read Mike's post and see he has given a far more comprehensive response than mine.

I have a vague recollection that EdF are producing nuclear generated electricity in France at c.£45/MWh ie about half the price guaranteed for new nuclear power in the UK. Does anybody know if this is correct ?

If they eat them then what is wrong with that?  If they don't then I agree 100%.

And I would expect the number of bird killings overall to be low given the relatively low numbers of wind farms.  However, I would also include them in the "loss of habitat" to many living things.  Regarding bald eagles in the USA, inasmuch as it is 100% illegal to kill one even accidentally, where is the culpability for the ones that have died in wind farm accidents?

Where has there been (unbiased) data regarding economic competitiveness?  I would be interested to read it.

Again, I would love to be energy independent, and I am sure some day we will be there as technology improves, but I think a lot of what passes today as alternative energy is wasting my tax money.

Incidental take (mortalities) of threatened and endangered species, species of concern, and protected species would be estimated during the project planning and permitting processes, at both the federal and state level. Permitting agencies would need to be satisfied that the project included all reasonable measures to avoid and minimize incidental take. Suitable mitigation for any remaining take would have to be approved, and would amount to enhancement measures for individual species, possibly outside the project area. Mitigation might include habitat improvements or other population enhancements. Ultimately, the permitters would have to be satisfied that net take by the project will be zero. Of course, this all adds to the cost of energy production.

Although bald eagles have are no longer listed in the US under the Endangered Species Act, they are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Lacey Act.

I'd like to see what they include in the list they use to base the costs of nuclear energy production.

Can this price ever be close to accurate given the time scale the waste remains dangerous?

http://www.theguardian.com/env...e-environment-agency

I'm not vegetarian. I don't have a problem with things being killed for food. I just think that deriving pleasure from killing things is barbaric and perhaps even psychopathic.

The material contained in that facility if of such a low level it could be buried in regular landfill without issues. It is more true than ever that nuclear power is the safest and most environmentally friendly cost-effective way that we can generate power.

The "issues" around waste disposal are vastly overstated by the hysterical opponents of nuclear power. Simple uninformed, nimbyism stands in the way of perfectly safe, long term waste storage solutions.