Skip to main content

UK offshore wind price cap raised – for the next CfD round

After a review of the evidence, including the impact of global events on supply chains, the government has raised the maximum price offshore wind projects can receive in the next UK Contracts for Difference (CfD) next year. Infamously, in the last round in September, with gas prices and materials costs rising, the price cap was set too low for offshore wind and there were no bids for projects – which came as a big shock since it had been doing very well.  Some predicted the ‘end of wind power as we know it’, and it certainly was worrying, with some plans for new projects being halted. 

However, on reflection, what was arguably more worrying was that the government had been warned about this problem, but had done little about it. Thankfully, now it has. So for the next round, the maximum strike price has been increased by 66% for offshore wind projects, from £44/MWh to £73/MWh, and by 52% for floating offshore wind projects, from £116/MWh to £176/MWh, also for Allocation Round 6 (AR6).  

The government says ‘this will help ensure projects are sustainably priced and economically viable to compete in AR6, building on the success of previous CfD auctions. These have so far awarded contracts totalling around 30GW of new renewable capacity across all technologies since 2014’. It adds that  ‘in AR6, offshore wind will also be given a separate funding pot in recognition of the high number of projects ready to participate. This will ensure healthy competition among a strong pipeline of projects, helping the UK deliver on its ambition of up to 50GW of offshore wind by 2030, including up to 5GW of floating offshore wind’.   

Will that work? Not everyone is sure. It does make offshore wind look expensive, around £100/MWh in current money index linked, unless the actual bids in the event come out lower. They may well do. We shall see next year.  Inflation rates may fall. They had partly been due to the impact on gas prices of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and that had knock on effects even in countries like the UK that didn’t rely on Russian gas imports. And so it also hit the cost of most energy – and not just renewables. But that may change, even if energy retail prices are still high most places. 

Hopefully renewables will now start  to change that, by getting cheaper again- that does seem likely for PV in some cases and possibly also for offshore wind.  To help them in the next phase in the UK, we need to improve the CfD system. But the current plan may not be enough. Energy expert Adam Bell has suggested that the Government ‘should move from a budget for each round to an energy volume it wishes to contract, informed by the work of the Future System Operator. The actual mechanics of the auction do not need to meaningfully change to achieve this. Bids for a volume at a price can still be stacked up, but once the volume cap is breached the auction closes. This enables Government to be more confident it can hit its targets’.

The support systems in some EU countries may have weathered the cost inflation storm a bit better than the UK, and the USA’s Inflation Reduction Act is said to have been successful in protecting and indeed promoting renewables. Of course, the US does not have much of an offshore wind programme yet, but the Biden Administration is now committed to increasing its capacity from 42 MW in 2022 to 30 GW by 2030. However, that could cost over $100 billion. So getting costs down is important.  Given the general rise in material costs, offshore wind in the U.S. is said to be nearly 50% more expensive now than in 2021, so there’s a way to go. But it is trying.  

Back in the UK, as we have seen, although the UK government has responded to the CfD cap problem, it does not seem to want to do much more than adjust the price target and leave it up to the market to sort. To be fair, the recent Autumn Budget did allocate £960 million to clean energy manufacturing, as part of £4.5 bn for strategic manufacturing sectors, to be available for five years from 2025. So some of that is meant for clean energy via the UK’s Green Industries Growth Accelerator, which will invest in UK supply chains across carbon capture, utilisation and storage, electricity networks, hydrogen, nuclear & offshore wind. But, there’s not going to be very much from this for offshore wind . 

By contrast, in terms of general government financial support, the big money is mostly being reserved for some of the other technologies, with nuclear and Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage both being heavily backed in the Budget report. Small Modular Reactors have already been given some state support (e.g. for Rolls Royce) and the Budget sees Great British Nuclear attracting co-funding for rapid SMR expansion. At one stage there was talk of £20bn being needed for pump priming.

However, moving on to bigger things, the Budget says that ‘while the initial focus of GBN will be on Small Modular Reactors, further large Gigawatt-scale projects will also be considered subject to value for money, relevant approvals & technology readiness and maturity, to help deliver net zero’. It goes on ‘nuclear energy will also be included in the green taxonomy, subject to consultation, encouraging private investment.’ And it says ‘This package is essential for the transition to net zero & confirms the government’s support for the growth of these critical green industries in the UK’.  

In addition, the Budget report says the government will ‘provide up to £20 billion available for early deployment of Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage’, to help meet the government’s climate commitments, with a shortlist of projects promised soon, with more possible the follow.  So offshore wind may get some backing, and the new CfD will help, but it has rivals- CCUS and nuclear- which seem likely to get more backing. That is despite them being arguably more expensive, less viable and slower to deploy. For example, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis says that, with its initial emphasis on blue hydrogen, the CCUS plan could potentially deep the country’s dependence on fossil gas.  And Sir John Armitt, chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, saying ‘we don’t see nuclear as really having a significant part to play in any new stations other than Hinkley before 2035.’ Meanwhile, under a new Crown Estate leasing round, three floating wind farms will be located off the coast of South Wales and South West England, with a combined capacity of up to 4.5GW. This will be the first time floating wind farms have been deployed on a commercial scale.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Global Energy Outlooks - BP v Jacobson

The share of renewables in global primary energy may increase ‘from around 10% in 2019 to between 35-65% by 2050, driven by the improved cost competitiveness of renewables, together with the increasing prevalence of policies encouraging a shift to low-carbon energy’. So says BP in its latest Global Energy Outlook . It does see wind and solar accounting ‘for all or most of the growth in power generation’, but even at the top of the range quoted, it still falls a lot short of the renewable ‘100% of total energy’ scenarios that have been produced by some academics in recent years.  To fill the gap to zero net carbon, BP sees wide-scale use being made use of carbon capture technology, as well as some nuclear power. And it says ‘Natural declines in existing production sources mean there needs to be continuing upstream investment in oil and natural gas over the next 30 years’. You won’t find much support for these fossil and nuclear options in the scenarios produced by Stanford Universi...

Renewables beat nuclear - even with full balancing included

A new Danish study comparing nuclear and renewable energy systems (RES) concludes that, although nuclear systems require less flexibility capacity than renewable-only systems, a renewable energy system is cheaper than a nuclear based system, even with full backup: it says ‘lower flexibility costs do not offset the high investment costs in nuclear energy’.  It’s based on a zero-carbon 2045 smart energy scenario for Denmark, although it says its conclusions are valid elsewhere given suitable adjustments for local conditions. ‘The high investment costs in nuclear power alongside cost for fuel and operation and maintenance more than tip the scale in favour of the Only Renewables scenario. The costs of investing in and operating the nuclear power plants are simply too high compared to Only Renewables scenario, even though more investment must be put into flexibility measures in the latter’.  In the Danish case, it says that ‘the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 bil...

The IEA set out a way ahead

The International Energy Agency's new Global Energy Roadmap sets a pathway to net zero carbon by 2050, with, by 2040, the global electricity sector reaching net-zero emissions. It wants no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. And by 2035, it calls for no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars. Instead it looks to ‘the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation’.  The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 GW by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 GW. All in, this is four times the record level set in 2020. By 2050 it wants about 24,000 GW of wind and solar to be in place. A major push to increase energy efficiency is also seen as essential, with the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030, about three times the av...