Comments on: Industry reacts to Helm review https://www.newpower.info/2017/10/industry-reacts-to-helm-review/ Expert information for all those invested in the UK's energy future Fri, 20 Feb 2026 08:08:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6 By: Mark Howitt https://www.newpower.info/2017/10/industry-reacts-to-helm-review/#comment-14982 Mark Howitt Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:00:21 +0000 http://www.newpower.info/?p=4073#comment-14982 Prof Helm completely overlooks large scale electricity storage, which is cheap enough to build and operate in a level playing field without subsidy, and which can balance renewables completely, complementary to batteries, DSR and interconnectors. I fail to understand the consistent head-in-sand approach to large scale, long duration (>100MW, 500MWh) electricity storage: because their policies actively discourage its development, they conclude that it doesn’t exist cost-effectively. All we need is a set of long term contracts, and we can build it with private capital and zero subsidy. And it can have zero or minimal emissions within the price; we also have a transitional technology that can be retro-fitted to existing power stations.

]]> By: Colin Megson https://www.newpower.info/2017/10/industry-reacts-to-helm-review/#comment-14755 Colin Megson Sat, 28 Oct 2017 12:55:41 +0000 http://www.newpower.info/?p=4073#comment-14755 Maybe Lawrence Slade could follow through on this: “…a low carbon energy system comes at the lowest cost to customers. And we are committed to working together with the Government to look at the best ways of ensuring that the billions of investment needed can be delivered competitively…”

He needs to point out to his members that investing £1,800 million in building a 950 MW offshore wind farm and settling for a CfD price of £57.50/MWh is ludicrous. Even if the that price was received for the whole 25 year lifespan, it would only reach £3,660 million and £28.28 of each £57.50 received would be needed to cover the cost of building it – then there’s O & M on top of that.

If EFP contracts become a reality – which they should in fairness to other low carbon technologies – investment in offshore wind at competitive prices would become insane.

On the other hand, CfD or EFP contracts make no difference to the price bids nuclear power can make.

Investing a mere 22% more – that’s £2,200 million in a 440 MW Small Modular Reactor [SMR] will generate 3.3X more income – that’s £11,980 million [a build content of £10.56 in every £57.50 received]:

https://smart-and-fabb.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/invest-22-more-in-smrs-and-get-over-3x.html?view=sidebar

]]>