UK wind electricity cheaper than nuclear: data

New offshore wind power is now cheaper than nuclear in Britain.
New offshore wind power is now cheaper than nuclear in Britain.

The price of electricity from offshore wind in Britain has dipped below the level guaranteed to Hinkley Point, raising questions about the construction of the vast nuclear power station.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy disclosed Monday the results of auctions for state subsidies for three new offshore farms.

Denmark's DONG Energy won the auction to build Hornsea Two, which will become the world's biggest offshore wind farm off the coast of Yorkshire in northern England.

Germany's Innogy and Norway's Statkraft won the auction for Triton Knoll off Lincolnshire in eastern England, while Moray in Scotland was won by a consortium comprising EDP Renovaveis of Portugal and ENGIE of France.

"The projects, which are set to generate over three gigawatts of electricity, enough to 3.6 million homes, demonstrate that the UK continues to be an attractive place to invest in clean energy," the department said in a statement.

The companies lodged bids for the so-called "strike price" they will be paid by the state for electricity generated, with the lowest amounts securing the deals.

Those prices have tumbled to £74.75 (82.36 euros, $98.52) per megawatt hour for projects deliverable in 2021/2022, and to £57.50 for projects due in 2022/2023.

'Nail in the coffin'

The price of offshore wind has fallen far below that of nuclear, with the planned Hinkley Point C power plant in southwestern England having secured subsidies of £92.50 per megawatt hour.

The gigantic Hinkley project was awarded to a French-Chinese consortium—led by French giant EDF—last year but has been plagued by long delays and cost overruns.

"Today's results mean that both onshore and offshore wind are cheaper than gas and nuclear," noted trade body RenewableUK in a statement on Monday.

However, the Nuclear Industry Association cautioned in another statement that "one technology alone can't solve the UK's power challenge".

Wind and solar production have the drawback of being unpredictable, with countries needing to call on gas, coal or nuclear plants to raise output if there is no breeze or sun.

British government wind power subsidies have now halved since the last auction was held in 2015.

Environmentalists have long urged the government to focus on renewable sources like wind and solar power to meet Britain's energy needs.

Opponents have criticised the high guaranteed Hinkley price level, which is fixed over 35 years and rises with inflation.

Lawmaker Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green Party, said the massive price drop for offshore wind should be the "nail in the coffin" for new nuclear power.

"The government's undying commitment to new nuclear risks locking us into sky-high for years to come," Lucas warned.

'Big step forward'

Meanwhile, Michael Ware, partner at BDO's corporate finance division, said Monday's announcement raised questions over the future of tidal and wave energy—which are more costly.

"We were pleasantly surprised by the low price bids in the latest auction," Ware told AFP, describing it a "vindication" of government policy.

"However, it does beg the obvious question of where a £57.50 strike price leaves other nascent technologies, such as tidal and wave, which are probably not economically viable at that level.

"It also puts the (price) being paid for Hinkley Point into sharp perspective."

Nevertheless, Ware added it was "a big step forward in the transition to a renewable (energy) grid".


Explore further

Shell-led consortium to build 700MW offshore Dutch wind farm

© 2017 AFP

Citation: UK wind electricity cheaper than nuclear: data (2017, September 11) retrieved 27 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-09-uk-electricity-cheaper-nuclear.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
989 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 11, 2017
Cost's economically are not the problem.

Energy maintenance is.

The watts of energy put into the grid vs. the watts you put out to build and maintain a windmill are net negative.

Need better materials engineering for this.

JRi
Sep 11, 2017
I'm not against wind but I don't get it. Why do we tax payers still need to pay subsidies to wind power if it is already cheaper than other alternatives?

Sep 11, 2017
Why do we tax payers still need to pay subsidies to wind power if it is already cheaper than other alternatives?
Because it's still more expensive on background - the wind power needs backup, the backup needs grid and right these more expensive energy sources, like the nuclear, to work. And vice-versa: once wind blows, then you need to switch off these backup source, which makes the wind unpredictable and redundant and as such cheaper electricity source at the market. Every unpredictable electricity source is less valuable and as such cheaper one for grid regulators. And vice-versa: the electricity sources which can be easily and fast turn on/off are more valuable. The nuclear is very reliable energy sources, but it's bad backup of wind, because cannot be turned on/off easily (the reactors produce heat a long time after their shutdown, which is dangerous and expensive operation decreasing life-time of nuclear plant).

Sep 11, 2017
It is not a matter of cheaper at specific conditions. At other conditions, as when the wind is not blowing, wind electricity is not even an option. It is not possible to rely on this as a main source of electricity.

Sep 11, 2017
The renewable power industry is founded on half truths. Without these lies there would be no funding. People will eventually find out that they have been duped but will not blame a corrupt government that is in bed with corrupt donors.

Sep 12, 2017
The issue seems to be when peakers are needed and how progressively low marginal costs steal the bacon.

Given TOU(Time of Use) opportunities are abundant, the wind and sun are always blowing or glowing somewhere, hydro can peak but usually does little to none, base load nuclear must provide peakers for shutdowns but cannot capture dynamic profits, gas fired are inherently peakers, battery storage provides exceptionally fast peaker energy for short durations.

And thus the profit conundrum, profit depends on a good low risk mix and adaptable local regulation. The argued chaos shows a market exists for dynamic efficient energy and energy use, as it should. Keep up the good fight boys, but, keep it clean!

Sep 12, 2017
When people in the UK said that prices for wind energy would fall by a third in 10 years they were mocked.
Now prices have halved within 3 years.

Go figure.

Sep 12, 2017
Diversification is security. Which is why we have nukes.

Sep 12, 2017
The nuclear is very reliable energy sources, but it's bad backup of wind, because cannot be turned on/off easily


It cannot be turned entirely on/off, but the EPR at Hinkley Point C has a ramping capacity of 5% nominal power per minute between 60 - 100% output. That is it can increase or decrease power by 160 MW per minute, and it has an load following reserve of 1300 MW.

Below 60% it can still adjust, but slower.

The issue is not that nuclear power cannot adjust to varying load, but that it's uneconomical to do so. The fuel costs next to nothing compared to the price of the powerplant, so the less energy it produces the more expensive the energy becomes. That is why EDF is demanding such high strike prices to even consider the deal : they know they will be throttled and lose opportunities to sell power, so they demand higher prices for the rest of the time

The other reason is that EDF is covering their own losses elsewhere by demanding higher prices off of UK.

Sep 12, 2017
the wind and sun are always blowing or glowing somewhere


Yes, but that "somewhere" is inconveniently half-way around the world.

Solar power is on for everyone in the same time zone, plus minus two hours, which pretty much covers the entire continental Europe. Similiarily, wind power correlates with itself within 600 miles (1000 km) because the weather fronts are often that large, so for a small country like the UK really doesn't get the averaging effect at all.

Hence why the renewable schemes have to reach mad scales, like DESERTEC which proposes to wire the entire Europe, North Africa and the Middle East into a single supergrid.

Sep 12, 2017
Of course no mention of SAFE Thorium molten salt fission reactors. :(

Sep 12, 2017
It's cheaper because it is not included fossil-fueled power plants to keep lights on when wind is not blowing.
Without fossil fuels, wind and solar cannot keep lights on, or be manufactured. Ban fossil fuels, and wind/solar (fossil parasites) die.

Sep 12, 2017
Conveniently left out of the conversation are the diesel farms that are being constructed all over England to supplement unreliable sun and wind generation. Nothing could be less efficient than using a valuable transportation fuel to generate electricity. This shows how little the renewable energy industry really cares about emissions and true costs.

Sep 12, 2017
Nothing could be less efficient than using a valuable transportation fuel to generate electricity


Grid scale diesel engines don't run on diesel oil, but on natural gas. They're compression ignition engines - hence the name.

Diesel would be far too expensive to use. Only small amouts are used to provide the ignition source, as natural gas won't ignite on compression by itself.

Sep 12, 2017
Grid scale diesel engines don't run on diesel oil, but on natural gas. They're compression ignition engines - hence the name
Ahaaa good catch.

Sep 12, 2017
We have been following the falling price of wind for many years. Consistent under estimation of the adoption of renewables by supposed experts such as the iea has been interesting to watch - https://cleantech...recasts/ Costs are almost certainly going to continue down - https://cleantech...26-bnef/ Interesting to then watch the flurry of anti renewable misinformation flowing around the internet. Take this gem from MR166 "This shows how little the renewable energy industry really cares about emissions and true costs." When the reality is that the great work done by the engineers in the energy world have led to pretty dramatically falling C02 levels in countries like Britain (MR was referencing Britain). https://www.thegu...dy-finds

Sep 12, 2017
Eikka
Grid scale diesel engines don't run on diesel oil
Do you have sources for that information. My understanding was that due to some really poor regs - the Brits actually incentivized diesel gennys a couple of years back. While they only account for a very small % of generation and pollution - the whole deal was egg on the policy makers face. Here are a couple of articles - https://www.ft.co...37d1e096 https://www.thegu...el-farms MR - you could chime in with a source for stating - "diesel farms that are being constructed all over England to supplement unreliable sun and wind generation" If you read the article I linked - you will see that the loop hole is being plugged.

Sep 12, 2017
dramatically falling C02 levels in countries like Britain
Wind and solar are 70-80% coal and/or gas plants. Most of CO2 reduction is due to replacement of coal by natural gas.
Whoever promotes renewables to solve climate change is either uninformed or in the pocket of the gas/fracking lobby.
We have been following the falling price of wind for many years.
Faux-green lobby masks consequential costs, exclude preferential access to grid, grid adaptation, back up capacity payments, subsidies, storage, etc.

Sep 12, 2017
Wind and solar are 70-80% coal and/or gas plants
I have no idea what this sentence means.
Most of CO2 reduction is due to replacement of coal by natural gas
Well - being that natural gas also generates C02 - you would have to have a pretty complex data analysis to make that assertion. However - based on this kind of data - https://cdn.theco...v8i4.png it is fair to say that most of the coal generation was picked up by gas, and some by renewables and nukes. I don't see a problem here. You notice that there was a big drop in gas usage between 2010 and 2012 - and so clearly the gas infrastructure is in place. So while the renewable infrastructure is built out - gas is a better option than coal. The bigger goal is C02 reduction - which will be accomplished by transitioning to renewables and/or nukes - which is happening. Wind happens to be the cheapest option - so wait and see what happens.

Sep 12, 2017
The reasons why nukes are more expensive are irrelevant. They are. Guess the British will be building a lot more wind farms.

Get over it.

Sep 13, 2017
Do you have sources for that information


Well, you can see what sort of powerplants they're building. Large diesel engines are actually built with multi-fuel capacity, so they can run on anything from bunker oil to natural gas, depending on price and availability. Strategic reserves of oil are kept to keep them running in case of supply problems.

https://www.warts...n-jordan

The inauguration of IPP3, the world's largest internal combustion engine (ICE) power plant, takes place today at the plant site near Amman, Jordan. The plant is powered by 38 Wärtsilä 50DF multi-fuel engines with a combined capacity of 573 MW.

IPP3 provides fuel flexibility. The tri-fuel plant can run on heavy fuel oil (HFO), light fuel oil (LFO) and natural gas. Currently HFO is used due to shortage of natural gas. The plant will start to use LNG-based natural gas later this year

Sep 13, 2017
Well - being that natural gas also generates C02 - you would have to have a pretty complex data analysis to make that assertion.


Not really. It's sufficient to observe that coal powerplants are generally older types without combined cycle operation, which leads to lower efficiency, and the CO2 intensity of gas over coal is much lower. Coal makes approximately double the CO2 per unit energy.

The combined effect of increasing efficiency and lower carbon content of the fuel reduces CO2 emissions by 50-75% for the same amount of electricity supplied.


Sep 13, 2017
I have no idea what this sentence means.


Suppose you intend to generate 1000 MW of electricity and no more, because you cannot find buyers for any more. If you build 1000 MW of wind turbines, the average output will be around 25-35% of the demand while the peaks reach close to 1000 MW - and the rest has to come from somewhere else.

Wind power has the property of being "peaky", that is it generates 50% of the energy in just 15% of the running time, which means the other supply cannot be something slow like nuclear power, and since hydroelectric power cannot expand, and biofuels are in short supply, the only option left over is oil and gas.

Solar power is even worse than wind, with average capacity factors just 10-15%.

Without effective and cheap energy storage schemes or vast supergrids in the foreseeable future, one can only expand these renewables by expanding the use of oil and gas.

Sep 13, 2017
Of course there's the option of building extra wind power and simply throwing away whatever power you don't use to increase the fraction from renewables, but that runs into cost issues and policy issues, as in the current subsidy schemes at least in the UK, you actually have to compensate owners for any power they aren't allowed to sell.

So it's a double waste - buy more turbines than you can use, and pay for not using them.

Sep 13, 2017
Of course there's the option of building extra wind power and simply throwing away whatever power you don't use to increase the fraction from renewables,
Then there is the same argument for Hinkley point - correct? And you have the additional problem of the extra cost of nuclear. One of the big goals is the reduction of C02 emissions - due to an acknowledgement that climate change is a serious problem. Not every one agrees with that position - but the Brits obviously do - hence their program to phase out coal.

Sep 13, 2017
Then there is the same argument for Hinkley point - correct?


Not precisely, but in broad strokes, yes.

If nuclear power has to be throttled down, then it becomes less economical to run. To some extent this is true for all types of powerplants. Peaking power and load following is always more expensive than not, because the equipment always costs something, yet it isn't used to its full potential.

For wind and solar power however the problem is greater because their peak production accounts for so much of the total output and their "fuel" costs are zero.

And you have the additional problem of the extra cost of nuclear.


Nuclear power per se isn't particularily expensive. EDF is normally selling nuclear power for about £40 per MWh instead of the £92/MWh or whatever it was that they are demanding for Hinkley Point. That's far far cheaper than any proposal for wind power.


Sep 13, 2017
Somebody tell Eikka he is SO last century!

He does not believe me, stuck in those Tar Pit cultures.

Then, there is this:http://www.reuter...2N1LT2OW

"Citing cost drop, U.S. government shifts focus of solar funding
Nichola Groom
Sept 12 (Reuters) - The cost of solar energy has hit a U.S. government target three years ahead of schedule, prompting the Energy Department to change the focus of its solar program to integrating higher levels of the renewable power technology with the power grid.

The DOE's SunShot Initiative, launched in 2011 by the administration of President Barack Obama, set a goal of reducing the price of utility-scale solar to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2020. The cost at that time was about 28 cents per kwh. On Tuesday, DOE officials said its target has been met, largely due to a sharp drop in the cost of solar panels."

Sep 13, 2017
goal of reducing the price of utility-scale solar to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2020.


Irrelevant point, as the discussion was about the need for additional load following and how to manage that.

And utility scale solar at 6 cents has to compete with utility scale natural gas power at around 4 cents. Neither has anything to do with how much the actual consumers pay in power prices, which include the cost of load following and peaking powerplants as needed to account for the rapid power fluctuations caused by solar power.

The reality of the situation is, in California and elsewhere, that with increasing renewables, gas consumption increases in lock-step.

Sep 13, 2017
Re. gas consumption; see chart:

http://www.natura...83646808

Not every one agrees with that position - but the Brits obviously do - hence their program to phase out coal.


Of course, but the question wasn't about coal. It was about whether renewables are truly weaning us off of fossil fuels, or whether we're just replacing one type of fossil fuel with another, and if so wouldn't it be better to replace it with one that actually does zero CO2?

Sep 13, 2017
If renewable energies can be developed with adequate energy storage to account for the load following, then they can happily co-exist with nuclear energy and eventually displace it.

So in the mean time, in order to reduce CO2 output the fastest, instead of building renewables and gas power to back it up, shouldn't we be building nuclear power in wait for the storage technologies to catch up?

After all, nuclear power can load-follow at additional cost, but still at zero CO2. The storage technolgies benefit both nuclear and renewables, and when that becomes available, only then it becomes more sensible to go renewable.

Sep 13, 2017
Wind and solar are 70-80% coal and/or gas plants
I have no idea what this sentence means.
Capacity factor seems to be irrelevant in the eco-nuts' world to compute real costs of intermittent renewables, they seem to have no idea what capacity factor means, not even the difference between "installed capacity" and "energy produced", or pretend not to know, "they wash their hands in innocence, counting on our ignorance".
In the real world, it means if a solar panel, or a wind turbine, has capacity factor around 30% it can only produce power intermittently, typically less than 30% of the time, so the remaining 70% must be supplied by a fossil fuel power plant.
"How reliable is wind power? The installed capacity is increasing, but the assured performance remains virtually zero."
https://pbs.twimg...Kcrw.jpg

Sep 13, 2017
"shouldn't we be building nuclear power in wait for the storage technologies to catch up?"

Renewables have already passed nukes for new capacity, the new nukes are either being cancelled or are WAY over budget, or both, and, once again:

"(Obama) set a goal of reducing the price of utility-scale solar to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2020. The cost at that time was about 28 cents per kwh. On Tuesday, DOE officials said its target has been met,"

Want references to the 7 cent and 7.5 cent 24-hour Wind and PV power, both with storage included??

That 360-cycle hum you hear is the transmission line carrying clean renewable power to customers. It is the Death Song of nukes and coal.

Sep 13, 2017
Renewables have already passed nukes for new capacity
("installed capacity" ≠ "energy produced")
"Wind and solar are only useful for leveraging the fossil fuel mix,"
"All existing renewable technologies do is make the electricity system chaotic and provide greenwash for fossil fuels."
"I changed my mind as I ­realised you can't power a modern economy on solar and wind."
"Nuclear is the only technology that can lift everyone out of poverty and reverse human ­impact."
http://www.theaus...fde85717

Sep 13, 2017
Willie, you can cut and post all you want, but you cannot bring back nukes as power sources.

Sep 13, 2017
And you cannot power a small city, or a car, or a ship, with sunshine&breeze without cheap fossil fuels as backup. A day has twenty-four hours and the Sun shines on average 5-6 hours, about 3 hours of energy peak, so it hardly can recharge batteries which are neither cheap nor clean.

Sep 13, 2017
Eikka
So in the mean time, in order to reduce CO2 output the fastest, instead of building renewables and gas power to back it up, shouldn't we be building nuclear power in wait for the storage technologies to catch up?
Or we could keep building renewables - and develop the grid technologies to accommodate them - things like demand control, grid interconnections etc - http://www.ncsl.o...rgy.aspx This is what Britain is clearly doing. They are on target to close out all coal plants by 2030. Wind and solar can be built out much faster than nukes, and are cheaper. Build nukes - and tax payers are saddled with expensive power for the next 50 years. Distributed is the way to go - and today's article shows that Britain understands this.

Sep 13, 2017
And you cannot power a small city, or a car, or a ship, with sunshine&breeze without cheap fossil fuels as backup.


Tell that to 25 cities across the U.S. that are committed to doing just that - https://www.ecowa...492.html

Sep 14, 2017
And you cannot power a small city, or a car, or a ship, with sunshine&breeze without cheap fossil fuels as backup

I don't think you understand the word 'backup'. If wind and solar provide 350 days of power and you have to run the 'backup' for 15 days then you've saved a lot of fossil fuels. Fast acting powerplants (like gas powerplants) do not need to be kept running on full tilt (or even stand-by) 24/7 'just in case'.
Weather forecasts can give us warnings when wind and sun availability will be low well beyond the timeframes needed to start these up.

The Earth buffer systems can handle *some* CO2 (especially if the gas is sourced from biological waste). And with other forms of storage being built even that backup won't be needed in a very short timespan.

Sep 14, 2017
I don't think you understand the fact that wind and solar are not saving fossil fuels, not in Germany, not in California, nowhere.
"...coal provides 43% of the country's electricity...Even on windy days, coal is burned...Germany's greenhouse-gas emissions increased in 2016; even higher levels are likely in 2017"
http://www.nature...-1.22555
"When a nuclear power plant in Vermont recently closed, virtually all the generation capacity was replaced by natural gas."
"Carbon emissions increased by 3.1 million metric tons, reversing a long standing trend in New England."
https://uploads.d...d293.jpg
In theory maybe they reduce fossil fuel consumption, but in practice not, because intermittent renewables are extremely addicted on fossil fuels to manufacture/mine/transport/install/recycle their components and to compensate intermittencies.

Sep 14, 2017
"And you cannot power a small city, or a car, or a ship, with sunshine&breeze without cheap fossil fuels as backup"

Yes, you can, Willi-kins!

And they can do it for 7.5 cents /kWh, far less than any nuke plant.

Sep 14, 2017
And they can do it for 7.5 cents /kWh, far less than any nuke plant.
In your lalaland, of course yes, anything is possible, you just have to believe; but in the real world, not.
http://www.cerato...0Car.jpg
http://psipunk.co...y-01.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4DqhToH5p6U/hqdefault.jpg
http://assets.inh...tic1.jpg
https://lh5.googl...7884.jpg
7.5 cents /kWh
Oops! Previsously, solar/wind unicorn energy was offered for only 2¢/kWh, almost for free, with no subsidies and no extra costs or fees.

Sep 14, 2017
After all, nuclear power can load-follow at additional cost, but still at zero CO2. The storage technolgies benefit both nuclear and renewables, and when that becomes available, only then it becomes more sensible to go renewable.

Except of course all the CO2 generated to make the concrete and steel in the nuclear power plant, the CO2 emitted while mining uranium ore, and the CO2 emitted by whatever energy source is used to enrich the uranium.

Sep 14, 2017
@Eikka as usual trumpets about grid reliability while ignoring cost.

@Eikka, I'm not against nuclear, but gas plants appear to have hammered both nukes and coal based on cost. You appear to be arguing against a strawman, the point being that if we can handle grid issues with gas plants, then neither nuclear nor coal is a good idea.

Remember also that there are carbon costs associated with nukes: they take a lot of concrete, which is very expensive in CO2 terms to build.

Renewables are relatively cheap to build, compared to nukes, and this will be the driving paradigm. Plus renewables are far better in terms of waste control; another phantom cost you ignore for nukes besides the concrete.

My current position based on real costs (which you ignore) is renewables, plus gas for grid stability.

Sep 14, 2017
Except of course all the CO2 generated to make the concrete and steel in the nuclear power plant, the CO2 emitted while mining uranium ore, and the CO2 emitted by whatever energy source is used to enrich the uranium.
As if concrete and steel and other ores were not necessary for wind/solar farms structures, and as if fossil fuels were not necessary to compensate intermittencies.
When direct and indirect emissions are put into account, nuclear power is virtually carbon-free, far much more CO₂-free than intermittent renewables.
https://uploads.d...986a.jpg
"Energy density strongly determines environmental impact. High-density fuels require less mining, materials & land — & generate less waste."
https://pbs.twimg...4xNw.jpg
https://uploads.d...03b7.jpg

Sep 14, 2017
Baghdad Bob and Way-out Willie.

Sep 14, 2017
Willie
wind and solar are not saving fossil fuels, not in Germany, not in California, nowhere.
But that is not true. Today's article actually references 3 new wind farms - the largest being the largest off shore wind farm in the world. As we build out renewable energy - and take fossil fuel off line - we reduce C02, and the use of fossil fuels. Britain is one of many examples that can be used to show that your assertion is not true. Britain has reduced C02 emissions - by taking coal plants off line - and switching that generation over to more gas, and more renewables. Obviously that portion of the generation picked up by renewables (see today's article) is 'saving' fossil fuels. With falling costs - that percentage will continue to rise.

Sep 14, 2017
"In the UK, ... 75% support a mix of nuclear and renewables together."
http://www.power-....twitter
https://pbs.twimg...rraA.jpg
"More nuclear power you use the cheaper electricity prices are, the more solar & wind you use the higher"
https://pbs.twimg...occF.jpg
"Denmark is an excellent example of the scam called renewables."
"Once renewables reach a certain penetration in the grid, it becomes impossible to hide their hidden costs anymore."
https://pbs.twimg...l-QL.jpg
"nuclear most certainly can power the whole world and permanently liberate us from environmentally destructive fossil fuels and renewables"
"Unlike all other forms of renewable energy, nuclear isn't dependent on weather conditions to be effective. Nuclear energy provides a stable and reliable stream of energy, rain or shine."

Sep 14, 2017
I am confused Willie. Which part of your last post countered my assertion that your assertion
wind and solar are not saving fossil fuels, not in Germany, not in California, nowhere
was not true? I provided a concrete example (Britain) - that demonstrated that your assertion was false.

Sep 15, 2017
Renewables has a large share of biomass which emits more CO₂ than coal, then if there was any reduction it's mostly due to replacement of coal by natural gas.
UK 2017: 52% gas, 18% coal, 5% biomass, 3% wind, 1% solar
http://www.euanme...npie.png
Intermittent renewable still has low penetration in the grid, but if it grows up a little more it will be impossible to hide their hidden costs and inefficiencies anymore, as it's happening already in Denmark and Germany.

Sep 15, 2017
Willie
UK 2017: 52% gas, 18% coal, 5% biomass, 3% wind, 1% solar
Well - you are still unwilling to answer the question about your false information. But nice cherry picking on your energy sources. Fact is that renewables are at about 25% of the energy on an annual basis - which is of course the way an honest person would report - https://www.thegu...-in-2015 There are plenty of other sources on the web to support that fact. Of course as wind and solar continues to be built - the costs will continue down - and the percentage of generation will continue up.

Sep 15, 2017
Sunlight and breeze are renewables, but wind turbines and solar panels are not.
However, the "renewable energy" scam is renewable, forever.
https://pbs.twimg...gIg6.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...F2W_.jpg
"Germany is using >SIX TIMES as much wind/solar as France and generating >SIX TIMES the CO2. That's the reality of renewables & emissions"
https://pbs.twimg...ajYC.jpg

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more