RE: Blue Planet11 Dec 2017 20:53
OilyChan. I think there is a difference between the NAO concerns over the price of Hinkley CFD deal and whether low carbon nuclear with its possible risks can be a useful part of our energy mix, I guess from what you say you are not keen on nuclear. From the REDT perspective I think that no nuclear in the mix will just further highlight the expensive intermittency issues created by Solar and Wind in densely populated high latitude countries like the UK.
More low cost storage for the grid will be essential for the UK grid either way, and in my view REDT is in the running for the number 2 slot after pumped hydro, which is limited for new installations by geography . I wish it were possible to have a stable low carbon grid without nuclear, but without some huge cost reductions of storage and some new breakthroughs in technology that is where we are in my view, which I think is carefully considered. Nuclear can be a bit flexible, but essentially is a great base-load provider for the grid. Nuclear is a long term product and as such great for strategic ownership by the country in some way, either the asset or the intellectual property or the construction responsibility. I agree with the Hinkley deal we have the worst of both worlds, state loan guarantees for the construction, and no upside if the costs are lower (fat chance).