Great article starkly shows how flawed Labours mission is although i suspect they will recalibrate it and say their assumption on what the Torys would deliver has not been realised. The other massive flaw with their mission is that it requires a massive reconfiguration of the National Grid with huge amount of new infrastructure needed. Even with the massive build out of the grid in the 50/60's nothing was achieved on the scale now needed. Also in those days it was pretty much 100% supplied by British manufacturers today we massively rely upon imports from our old friends in Europe. And also as you say every country is jumping on this bandwagon so supply chains are going to be squeezed which will drive up prices and elongate deliveries.
What absolutely must happen, unlike coal, is gas has to be kept as prime source of generation for at least another ten years and we need to have robust supply arrangements in place for LNG as well as Norwegian gas.
If I take the weighted average AR3 CfD of the fixed offshore Dogger Bank as £40.96/MWhr at 2012 prices, and the building cost of this 3.6 GW as £9bn according to an October article in the Guardian (9/10) then, if building costs are proportional to the CfD price, which is now £73/MWhr at 2012 prices (AR6), I calculate the cost to build the additional 41 GW of fixed offshore wind alone will be £250bn at 2023 prices.
This figure of course does not include the cost to build the extra onshore wind and solar capacities, nor the floating offshore wind, nor the National Grid and local grid upgrades, nor the CCUS, nor the electrolysers, storage facilities and generators for long-term electricity storage using hydrogen, nor the costs of additional electrification…..
I somehow don’t think the £28bn/year by the end of the next Parliament that Labour has promised to spend is going to cover it.
Great article starkly shows how flawed Labours mission is although i suspect they will recalibrate it and say their assumption on what the Torys would deliver has not been realised. The other massive flaw with their mission is that it requires a massive reconfiguration of the National Grid with huge amount of new infrastructure needed. Even with the massive build out of the grid in the 50/60's nothing was achieved on the scale now needed. Also in those days it was pretty much 100% supplied by British manufacturers today we massively rely upon imports from our old friends in Europe. And also as you say every country is jumping on this bandwagon so supply chains are going to be squeezed which will drive up prices and elongate deliveries.
What absolutely must happen, unlike coal, is gas has to be kept as prime source of generation for at least another ten years and we need to have robust supply arrangements in place for LNG as well as Norwegian gas.
Another very good analysis.
If I take the weighted average AR3 CfD of the fixed offshore Dogger Bank as £40.96/MWhr at 2012 prices, and the building cost of this 3.6 GW as £9bn according to an October article in the Guardian (9/10) then, if building costs are proportional to the CfD price, which is now £73/MWhr at 2012 prices (AR6), I calculate the cost to build the additional 41 GW of fixed offshore wind alone will be £250bn at 2023 prices.
This figure of course does not include the cost to build the extra onshore wind and solar capacities, nor the floating offshore wind, nor the National Grid and local grid upgrades, nor the CCUS, nor the electrolysers, storage facilities and generators for long-term electricity storage using hydrogen, nor the costs of additional electrification…..
I somehow don’t think the £28bn/year by the end of the next Parliament that Labour has promised to spend is going to cover it.
And what will be the price of our electricity???