Comments on: The wider lessons from nuclear power cost inflation http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/10/22/776 A critical appraisal of issues in the move to a low-carbon economy Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:02:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bob Wallace http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/10/22/776/comment-page-1#comment-2774 Bob Wallace Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:34:57 +0000 http://www.carboncommentary.com/?p=776#comment-2774 Does the UK ever look at solutions which lie outside it's boarders? You have vast amounts of wind power. Would it be worth your while to look east or west for places where you might contract for pump-up hydro storage? Or to contract/build solar plants in Southern Europe? In other words, might it be a better idea to put your money into the European SuperGrid than to build very expensive nuclear plants? Does the UK ever look at solutions which lie outside it’s boarders?

You have vast amounts of wind power. Would it be worth your while to look east or west for places where you might contract for pump-up hydro storage? Or to contract/build solar plants in Southern Europe?

In other words, might it be a better idea to put your money into the European SuperGrid than to build very expensive nuclear plants?

]]> By: chrisc http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/10/22/776/comment-page-1#comment-2634 chrisc Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:50:16 +0000 http://www.carboncommentary.com/?p=776#comment-2634 Chris, I'm wondering why you think specific rates for specific methods of generation make more sense than a uniform carbon price ? Doesn't setting particular tarriffs imply that we know which methods are best in advance of finding out what the actual economics are ? Or are you thinking about the politics of actually implementing this? I think that the major advantage of a floor (ideally increasing year on year) on the price of carbon is that it favours all approaches equally. If nuclear is too expensive or risky then energy companies will invest in renewables instead. An added bonus is that encourages energy conservation as well and generally works against dodgy government subsidies to favourite technologies (e.g. BioFuels) Btw what is the rationale for the microgeneration feed-in tariffs? Are lots of little windmills /PV arrays really more cost effective than a smaller number of big ones? Chris,
I’m wondering why you think specific rates for specific methods of generation make more sense than a uniform carbon price ? Doesn’t setting particular tarriffs imply that we know which methods are best in advance of finding out what the actual economics are ? Or are you thinking about the politics of actually implementing this?

I think that the major advantage of a floor (ideally increasing year on year) on the price of carbon is that it favours all approaches equally. If nuclear is too expensive or risky then energy companies will invest in renewables instead. An added bonus is that encourages energy conservation as well and generally works against dodgy government subsidies to favourite technologies (e.g. BioFuels)

Btw what is the rationale for the microgeneration feed-in tariffs? Are lots of little windmills /PV arrays really more cost effective than a smaller number of big ones?

]]> By: P Hughes http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/10/22/776/comment-page-1#comment-2626 P Hughes Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:52:43 +0000 http://www.carboncommentary.com/?p=776#comment-2626 Chris It is interesting to compare the cost estimates above (£70-80 per MWh) with the range of estimates being quoted by Joe Romm and Amory Lovins in the US ($250 - 300 / £170 - 200 per MWh). http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf Any thoughts on this fourfold disparity? Chris

It is interesting to compare the cost estimates above (£70-80 per MWh) with the range of estimates being quoted by Joe Romm and Amory Lovins in the US ($250 – 300 / £170 – 200 per MWh).
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

Any thoughts on this fourfold disparity?

]]>