My Christmas list for prioritising some generation technologies over others.

So it looks like the Government are still working hard to get Sizewell C built[1], despite the high cost of the technology that will lock in several generations to high electricity prices.

The subsidy for Hinkley Point (the one already being built) uses the same system used for other generation technologies. Unfortunately for the Government, this means the huge cost of the HPC deal is very easy to calculate. The recent offshore wind CfD prices are under ￡50MW/hr which is half of the price awarded to Hinkley Point C.

This is no doubt why the cost of the deal that gets Sizewell C built will not be so clear. Ministers are talking about “taking a stake”.

My main problem with this is that UK Government’s determination to get Sizewell C built is a big departure from what has been a very successful market-based system to support new electricity generation.

It implies instead a centrally-planned electricity generation mix and undisclosed assumptions on the optimum level of non-flexible nuclear generation in our system. These assumptions need to be transparent and subject to challenge and scrutiny.

Have they considered the system costs of nuclear plants being unable to turn off during periods of high renewable generation? Displacing lower cost renewable generation, driving up bills?

The government has been clear in the past that they believe all generators, including new technologies such as Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon, should be subject to the same level of price competition. Swansea Bay was not awarded a generous subsidy because, in theory, it was cheaper to build offshore wind.

Still if this is the direction of travel and we are departing from the ‘level playing field’ and ‘technology neutrality’ to prioritise technologies that can provide services to the UK system as well as a winter baseload, there are a number that could do with the kind of support that the UK Government is planning on providing to Sizewell.

Here is my Christmas list. What is on yours?

Hydropower. This oft overlooked little technology importantly generates consistently over the winter months. Well-designed (expensive) systems can be big or small, provide storage, system services and improve ecology of our rivers and lakes. The investment could be good for hundreds of years but does not leave a radioactive legacy. Please can we introduce a generous Feed-In-Tariff just for hydropower?

Tidal Basins. These can provide a big chunk of predictable power and can also provide storage and system services. The investment provides lots of jobs and leaves infrastructure that will be good for general use for hundreds of years. Also has the potential to regenerate areas and does not leave a radioactive legacy. Please can you ‘take a stake’ in a couple of these?

Geothermal. Another consistent baseload runner providing heat and power through the winter, needs help to become a proven technology and has big up-fronts costs with no subsidies available. How about ‘taking a stake’ in this?

Offshore wind in the South and West. If we are talking about system services, it is clear the UK need more balanced wind generation. At present we are putting all our eggs in the ‘cheap to develop East Coast’ basket and when the wind stops there, we lose most of our generation. Please can we have higher subsidies available for offshore wind that is built in ‘harder to develop but provides system benefits’ areas? In particular overturn your decision to deny planning to Navitus Bay?

Thanks Santa!

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55299511