OT: "Wind costs four times as much in the UK"

"A damning report from the Policy Exchange urges the government to hold the wind industry to its pledge to slash costs by the end of the decade. UK families are paying £95 per MWh for onshore wind, compared to £27 MWh in Brazil, according to its report."

"But offshore wind is about 50 per cent as expensive as onshore wind, with a strike price of £155 MWh. The most expensive technologies are tidal and wave power, which cost around £305 MWh."

"The EU Renewable Energy Target decrees that 15 per cent of all energy in the UK - or 30 to 35 per cent of electricity - is generated by renewable sources by 2020. But emissions from the electricity sector are already capped by a separate European Emissions Trading System."

"Part of the reason for Brazil?s low wind energy prices has been put down to unusually high wind speeds, a surplus of wind turbines and hidden incentives. Its wind turbines have much better capacity of up to 65 per cent, compared to up to 35 per cent in the UK and much of Europe."

Read more:

formatting link

Reply to
Terry Fields
Loading thread data ...

Subsidising a sector to get it off the ground is fine, but continuing to subsidise it at this stage just lines up companies to grab your (our) subsidy, and prevents the technology ever becoming viable or competitive.

On Radio 4 this morning, there was a comment contrasting the £95/MWh we are going to have to pay with the ?45/MWh which has just been agreed in France for something similar, i.e. we will be paying 2.3x as much as France. It was pointed out that no industrial customer will pay £96/MHh - that's not a viable competitive rate across the EU for industrial users.

Reply to
Andrew Gabriel

Might this have something to do with French nuclear power stations having been constructed a decade or more ago, so the capital cost has been substantially written down, while Hinkley 3 will be a new construction?

Reply to
Chris Hogg

France also has to look at renewing ageing nuclear power plants. Within the next decade, nearly half their plants will reach their designed 40 year life.

Colin Bignell

Reply to
Nightjar

everything to do with it. That and the raft of pointless boxticking that goes with nuclear plant construction these days.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

and the probability that they are paying zero for the land that it's on, instead of the (rumored) million quid per year per turbine in the UK

tim

Reply to
tim......

And how many of them will actually close, and how many will just have their life extended for another decade or two? With minimal fuel cost, and the capital all depreciated, they'd be as cheap as chips to operate, and many of them are already, I guess.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Maybe we should wire up all gymnasium machines to generators to get some of the power back from the people! grin

Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.