Morocco-UK HVDC solar PV interconnection

[AE-NMidlands]

Hopefully it will come in at nuclear(ish) prices, since the Gov is at the very least pretending to support nuclear. And this scheme should be faster, and as you say, probably a shorter CfD, perhaps 15yrs not 35yrs?

What?
Maybe you meant that with cheap generation the cabling costs might allow it to come in at something comparable with nuclear?

This has no massive concrete or steel infrastructure, no need for procuring nuclear fuel from dubious places with terrible human rights records, no massively expensive fuel fabrication needs, no armed guards 24/7 in perpetuity, no highly-active waste "disposal" costs (also in perpetuity,) no huge decommissioning costs... That's before we start adding in the costs of "insurance" against anything going wrong - which of course is left in the laps of future taxpayers.
On the other hand, I guess the whole of a failed cable is recyclable, unlike the difficult bits of a nuke...
A

[Mart]

Hopefully it will come in at nuclear(ish) prices, since the Gov is at the very least pretending to support nuclear. And this scheme should be faster, and as you say, probably a shorter CfD, perhaps 15yrs not 35yrs?

What?
Maybe you meant that with cheap generation the cabling costs might allow it to come in at something comparable with nuclear?

This has no massive concrete or steel infrastructure, no need for procuring nuclear fuel from dubious places with terrible human rights records, no massively expensive fuel fabrication needs, no armed guards 24/7 in perpetuity, no highly-active waste "disposal" costs (also in perpetuity,) no huge decommissioning costs... That's before we start adding in the costs of "insurance" against anything going wrong - which of course is left in the laps of future taxpayers.
On the other hand, I guess the whole of a failed cable is recyclable, unlike the difficult bits of a nuke...
A

What? Of course I meant with the cabling costs, as I explained in several posts?

For Morocco, I assume that the cost of generation will be very low, perhaps £20/MWh or less, just like the Iceland link example I specified.

But, the cost of that leccy, when it reaches the UK, has to include the cost of getting it there, and that is very significant for both this and the Iceland scheme.

I mentioned nuclear, because if the Gov is now supporting it, and pushing for more, then a price for this that is comparable to (hopefully cheaper) than nuclear, would make it hard to refuse, since it is for all intents and purposes almost 24/7/365.

No need to tell me how bad nuclear is, but this Gov doesn't seem to care, and such concerns are easily ignored ..... but the 800lb economics gorilla is much harder to ignore. So pick your battles, and your tactics, and your strategies - in this case, compare it to nuclear and beat them at their own game (cost, predictability, speed to deliver), especially if the hoped for CfD has a term length shorter than that for nuclear.*

*Whilst most CfD's seem to have set lengths, and RE is typically 15yrs, I believe that lengths can be negotiated for individual projects (such as Swansea Tidal Lagoon trying to get a very long contract, but not index linked). So this project might not have 'normal' T&C's, and be agreed (or not) separately from the normal auction programme.

[Mart]

Perhaps the CfD they are hoping for would be longer than 15yrs, or the £48 may be using the standard 2012 pricing, which today would be approx £60/MWh index linked. But regardless, it seems very low, which could be good news if it's cheaper than I thought, or bad news if it's a nonsense figure.

Onshore wind, batteries, PV and a monster HVDC cable for very marginally more than current off-shore wind in easy waters close to the UK? Hmmm...
For comparison Viking Link is 1.4GW and 500 miles for £1 Bn. So this is twice the capacity and 5 x the length, so ballpark £10 Bn just for the cable. And they're expecting to build everything for £16 Bn, at least when they're talking to the financial press. Not buying it.

Just a thought, but as it will be 4 cables, not 1 or 2, would that help reduce costs if all cables are laid at the same time, and in the same trench, or am I clutching at straws?

The risk of the cables damaging each other is far worse than the increased cost of another trench.

Do you think it's possible at those numbers? I want to believe it, but it seems too far from expectations, and I don't want to be naive, and the Iceland costings (with cabling) where a real eye-opener. Mind you the Iceland figures are very old now, would costs have fallen with better technology, my guess would be the opposite due to rising material costs?

[Ken]

I have a lot of problems with nuclear as identified above and it does not add up until you consider

" the wind dont blow and....." this is so strong its like we know if we step out in front of a car its not good. At that point you can go for something which is known, nuclear, or go for something which is still in its infancy, ENOUGH storage and more RE. If you have the weight of gov on your shoulders i can see the sense of going for the known. If you have a old gas boiler and want to be green do you throw out the boiler and hope other things work or do you keep the old until such time as you have proved the new works.

This proposal, which i believe makes economic sense and the many others as Mart says will stop the gov going more down the nuclear route mainly because the money men will smell the profit in RE with a qicker return for little risk.

[Paul_F]

Do you think it's possible at those numbers? I want to believe it, but it seems too far from expectations, and I don't want to be naive, and the Iceland costings (with cabling) where a real eye-opener. Mind you the Iceland figures are very old now, would costs have fallen with better technology, my guess would be the opposite due to rising material costs?

My view is that there are always going to be incentives to minimise expected costs at this stage in a project, and that the CfD mechanism will tend to inflate financing costs (exactly as it did for Hinkley C). My **feeling** is that we'll end up with CfD pricing broadly similar to Hinkley C or Sizewell C, albeit probably with a somewhat shorter duration given the expected lifespan of the infrastructure. And my expectation would be that the cost of materials would not dominate in the HVDC installation (even for an extremely long cable like this) so wouldn't be crippled by commodity price changes.

Note: my personal view is that we're facing a problem we need to throw the kitchen sink at. That means this, Hinkley C, Sizewell C, Icelink, etc. all at once are needed to decarbonise the economy as a whole, not just the electricity sector.

[dan_b]

Thanks for the info on Morocco. If they're also rapidly decarbonising anyway, then that certainly takes away a lot of moral objection!
Good point also on Spain-France-European SuperGrid capacity. I guess again that's something that needs reinforcing anyway. Maybe if this project goes ahead and is a success, that actually makes it easier to justify more European HVDCs, and then more huge solar in Africa?

Ok I'm sort of convinced. The tech already exists, apparently there is more investment money available than there are viable projects for clean energy at the moment (according to someone I heard on Fully Charged Podcast a few weeks ago) - so in that case why not? Build it and build it quickly? (trying to steer clear of the yeah but nuclear debate!)

What I don't understand is why this project would export all of its power to the UK and completely by-pass the rest of mainland Europe, or indeed local Moroccan demand first?

Wouldn't it be more useful in the shorter, and longer term, if Morocco first connected itself into the European Super Grid via Spain? It's just across the Straits?

Also i see Morocco's own electricity generation mix is, shall we say, dirty. They should/could decarbonise their own grid mix first?

• That's the easy one - a company based in the UK is funding it, and as far as Morocco is concerned they really don't much care where the power goes once it leaves their shores, just that the money comes in reliably.
• Sorta-kinda. Just connecting to Spain isn't terribly helpful since the Spanish have got lots of PV already. Given a strongly reinforced pan-European grid, absolutely - but at the moment the size of the interconnections between France and Spain is only 2800 MW and they're working to increase it to 5000 MW. Fundamentally Spin can't absorb this much additional power and as a result pricing would be very poor.
• Total electricity consumption in Morocco was 40 TWh in 2020 (last date I can find figures for) of which 30 TWh is fossil. They've got 10GW of wind and solar in the pipeline for their own use by 2030, which should provide 25-30 TWh/year. Essentially they're on course to more or less decarbonise their grid by 2030 even without this project.

[Mart]

Do you think it's possible at those numbers? I want to believe it, but it seems too far from expectations, and I don't want to be naive, and the Iceland costings (with cabling) where a real eye-opener. Mind you the Iceland figures are very old now, would costs have fallen with better technology, my guess would be the opposite due to rising material costs?

My view is that there are always going to be incentives to minimise expected costs at this stage in a project, and that the CfD mechanism will tend to inflate financing costs (exactly as it did for Hinkley C). My **feeling** is that we'll end up with CfD pricing broadly similar to Hinkley C or Sizewell C, albeit probably with a somewhat shorter duration given the expected lifespan of the infrastructure. And my expectation would be that the cost of materials would not dominate in the HVDC installation (even for an extremely long cable like this) so wouldn't be crippled by commodity price changes.

Note: my personal view is that we're facing a problem we need to throw the kitchen sink at. That means this, Hinkley C, Sizewell C, Icelink, etc. all at once are needed to decarbonise the economy as a whole, not just the electricity sector.

Many thanks, and of course I appreciate it's just your own personal best guess. Will be fascinating to watch this develop, assuming it does develop. With the UK hopefully exporting excess off-shore wind too, then we are actually getting ever closer to the idea of Desertec (circa 2011).

See slide 8:

Desertec - Western Europe / N. African super grid

[Paul_F]

Good point also on Spain-France-European SuperGrid capacity. I guess again that's something that needs reinforcing anyway. Maybe if this project goes ahead and is a success, that actually makes it easier to justify more European HVDCs, and then more huge solar in Africa?

Worth also thinking about it as a bypass to what would otherwise be a very crowded HVDC system. Ultimately, we need this as well as more European HVDC, not as a replacement for it.

Ok I'm sort of convinced. The tech already exists, apparently there is more investment money available than there are viable projects for clean energy at the moment (according to someone I heard on Fully Charged Podcast a few weeks ago) - so in that case why not? Build it and build it quickly? (trying to steer clear of the yeah but nuclear debate!)

If I was in charge I'd do so. Given the current government I think it'll take a while.
As for "yeah but nuclear" - it's worth noting this uses different supply chains, a different labour force and probably different money. The two are almost completely independent decisions.

[Adokforme]

If you think Morocco - UK is stretching reality then just check out the link below!

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/04/27/ ... australia/

[AE-NMidlands]

I wonder how they allow for eventualities in comparing the costs of cable vs. shipping ammonia? It will cost a hell of a lot for copper (or aluminium?) it is inflexible and subject to agressive attack (hostilities: apparently the US and the USSR both had subs designed to disrupt deep-sea cables of all sorts) and it is all along the "ring of fire" where the pacific floor is going down under east Asia.

Also that article has an interesting picture of a solar array:

Presumably close to the equator you might as well angle panels east and west to maximise morning and evening generation. (Also it has just occurred to me that between the two tropic lines the sun is both N and S of you at different times of year. Maybe they are aligned N & S, rather than E & W!