Value chain · CLM-1421
In plain terms
A 2016 Imperial College study run jointly with three renewable-energy companies found that adding wind to Britain's grid in 2030 would bring extra system costs of about 5 to 9 pounds for each megawatt-hour the wind farms produce, compared with adding nuclear, if the grid has a fair amount of storage and other flexibility. Most of that extra cost is back-up power stations for windless periods.
The claim as recorded
Imperial College estimated, with a whole-system model of the GB electricity system, that the system integration cost of offshore and onshore wind in 2030, measured against nuclear power, is around GBP 5-9/MWh across its medium to high flexibility scenarios, and that over 80% of it in those scenarios is the cost of building enough firm back-up capacity to keep the same security of supply. For solar PV it put the 2030 figure at GBP 10-15/MWh with medium flexibility.
Evidence behind this: T4: a university model study run as a joint industry project with RWE Innogy, Renewable Energy Systems and ScottishPower Renewables (title page). Usable for method and ranges; not independent confirmation of the sponsors' case.
Scope and limits
GB system modelled with Ireland and Continental Europe as neighbours; 2030; per MWh of the added plant's own output, not per MWh of demand; marginal (a 1 GW swap); relative to nuclear, so it is not the absolute cost of firming; the authors note it can be read as treating nuclear's own integration cost as zero, and that the effect of nuclear's large unit size is not charged to nuclear (p.9, footnote 10); cutting the largest unit from 1.8 GW to 0.5 GW would lower the renewables' figures by about 20% (p.11). Holding flexible options at counterfactual levels makes the figures conservative in the authors' view (p.4, footnote 4). The authors note possible double counting between the balancing part of the cost and balancing costs generators already pay (p.12), and say the study does not account for the part of the integration cost already paid by generators under current market arrangements (p.3). The range excludes the Low Flex (10.2 to 11.2) and No Flex (40.2 to 48.4) scenarios; see CLM-1422. Sponsored by RWE Innogy, Renewable Energy Systems and ScottishPower Renewables. Real 2015 prices. Not additive with, and not on the same basis as, CLM-1419, CLM-1420 or CLM-1423 to CLM-1428.
What it assumes
1 GW of nuclear removed and replaced by wind or solar capacity at the same GB emissions, with storage, demand response and interconnection held at the counterfactual levels (p.4); carbon intensity 100 g/kWh in 2030 (p.5); medium to high flexibility means the Mid Flex, Modernisation and Mega Flex scenarios and the variants built on Mid Flex (Table E.1); LCOE inputs mostly from DECC projections of December 2013, with some updated (p.6).
Where it comes from
p.12 (PDF p.16, read at a zoom 4 render): "SIC of offshore and onshore wind in 2030 (when compared against nuclear power) is found to be around £5-9/MWh across the medium to high flexible scenarios analysed in the study." The majority of this cost "(over 80% for flexible 2030 scenarios)" is associated with "the requirement to build sufficient firm (back-up) capacity when wind is added to the system, in order to maintain the same level of security of supply." Solar PV: "within the £10-15/MWh range with medium flexibility assumptions". SRC-782 p.4 (PDF p.8): changes in total system cost, excluding the LCOE of the two technologies swapped, "are divided by the annual output of the added low-carbon technology to establish its relative SIC against nuclear power in £/MWh." SRC-782 p.10 (PDF p.14), Table E.1 title (zoom 4 render): "in £/MWh, real 2015 prices".
Basis: GBP per MWh of the added technology's annual output, relative to nuclear; Table E.1 is "real 2015 prices" as printed (p.10); the p.12 sentence carries no price year of its own.
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-021 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1421
CLM-1421, Energy Aperture, as of 2016-10.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.