Give us a fracking break!

Author
Discussion

FredClogs

14,041 posts

160 months

Wednesday 19th October 2016
quotequote all
s2art said:
I am not going to defend Hinkley, its madness. What subsidy? Are you bonkers? The entire renewables industry relies on subsidies. See https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016...

For starters.
I'm no expert here, but the ROCs are issued by the government and then the money that is made from them (as shown in that link) is through dealing and selling them on the open carbon offsetting market. So no tax payer money is given to electricity generators via the ROC scheme, likewise the LECs.

motco

15,918 posts

245 months

Wednesday 19th October 2016
quotequote all
rolando said:
motco said:
Why isn't more being spent on the only reliable source of green energy: tidal power? All the other common ones - wave, wind, and solar depend on unreliable natural phenomena. Tides come and go regardless of the sun and the wind. Of course there's always geothermal power but that's a location specific source.
Yes, agree tides are predictable but
  • financial cost is prohibitive
  • environmental issues (sorry greenies)
  • studies have shown that even with a practical number of tidal installations around our island coast there would be a serious issues with intermittency requiring the inevitable back-up from other sources (i.e. duplication)
Financial cost is prohibitive - like offshore wind then!
Environmental issues - like all windmills then!
Intermittency? How? Tides always happen regardless of weather, and not even all at once either so the nodes (high and low tide when flow is zero) ripples around the coast.

Sorry I remain unconvinced.

johnfm

13,668 posts

249 months

Wednesday 19th October 2016
quotequote all
FredClogs said:
s2art said:
I am not going to defend Hinkley, its madness. What subsidy? Are you bonkers? The entire renewables industry relies on subsidies. See https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016...

For starters.
I'm no expert here, but the ROCs are issued by the government and then the money that is made from them (as shown in that link) is through dealing and selling them on the open carbon offsetting market. So no tax payer money is given to electricity generators via the ROC scheme, likewise the LECs.
Fred

Most of the Renewables Obligation (and other) renewables subsidies (FiTs, ROCs, RHIs) are paid for by levies added to electricity bills.

So while 'taxpayers' aren't paying them via taxation, all electricity users are via the levy added to electricity charges.

In general, the renewable subsidies were a reaction to the UK's commitment to reduce CO2. Presumably, the substantial returns to investors were intended to stimulate investment in renewables, drive down technology prices through increased demand etc and stimulate private money in R&D as there are then profit motive benefits.

My view as an energy lawyer is that investment fund managers, land owners, lawyers, tech advisors and renewable equipment manufacturers have made quite a lot. Typical IRR for renewables deals are in the 15-18% range. Not bad when bank interest rates are near zero.

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Wednesday 19th October 2016
quotequote all
rolando said:
durbster said:
The push for renewables isn't for profit, it's because we are trying to find an alternative to fossil fuels.
So you think farmers were bending over backwards to build wind turbines on their land? Were they doing this because they thought they were saving the planet or to stuff their pockets with subsidies paid for by us all through ever-increasing electricity bills?
I'll leave it there.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The whole point of a subsidy is that it is a financial incentive to get something done, therefore somebody will be receiving that financial benefit.

It's the same idea as those schemes where you can be paid for feeding the unused electricity from your solar panels back into the network.

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Wednesday 19th October 2016
quotequote all
motco said:
Financial cost is prohibitive - like offshore wind then!
Environmental issues - like all windmills then!
Intermittency? How? Tides always happen regardless of weather, and not even all at once either so the nodes (high and low tide when flow is zero) ripples around the coast.

Sorry I remain unconvinced.
Tidal is certainly should be part of the mix, bit it has issues.

Firstly, it's much harder to scale than other renewables. You have to have a big barrage or a large lagoon to really make it work. A small lagoon like Swansea is hoping for is still a Billion Sterling. That's huge compared to wind and solar.

Environmental impacts aren't yet properly understood. You're going to have considerable impact on the locals sand beds, but also beaches and harbour access. Plus, there aren't that many suitable locations to choose in the UK to maximise the tidal range.

http://www.innovationresearchfocus.org.uk/Issues/9...

Tidal also relies on the difference in water levels inside and outside the lagoon. The best power can be extracted when the differential is at its greatest. Which extends the deadspots in the power generation cycle.

Wind is quick, cheap, has minimal impact and small decommissioning costs. It's certainly not the answer, but it's a deserving part of the energy mix.

hidetheelephants

23,739 posts

192 months

Wednesday 19th October 2016
quotequote all
durbster said:
s2art said:
durbster said:
But that's missing the point. The push for renewables isn't for profit, it's because we are trying to find an alternative to fossil fuels.
If that were true then the money should be going into research not subsidies. The reason so much money is being wasted is political.
Aye, true.

Current renewables (and maybe things like fracking) are the short-term solution to limit the scale of the problem and make politicians look like they're on the case. I would like to see more investment in pure RnD but I suppose creating a market for the technology has led to big improvements already, so competition is driving the technology forward.
The problem with leaving it to the market but with arbitrary and absurd rules is that you don't get anything disruptive out of it as invariably any non-approved prospect is high risk and VC runs away at speed from such things. The end result is a bunch of improved mouse traps in the form of solar panels and windmills; they're better and cheaper than the solar panels and windmills available 20 years ago but only iteratively.

FredClogs said:
s2art said:
durbster said:
But that's missing the point. The push for renewables isn't for profit, it's because we are trying to find an alternative to fossil fuels.
If that were true then the money should be going into research not subsidies. The reason so much money is being wasted is political.
What "subsidy" are you talking about? The feed in tariff?

The nuclear industry was given massive state aid via academic research for decades, but it is maybe a bit more complex than a windmill. The government has just signed a contract that will see us pay x4 the current price for electricity over many decades, ok it's not state aid but it is essentially state price fixing, of the entire market.
There has been very little money for any kind of research into nuclear power in the last 25 years unless it was to solve problems encountered in operating the existing fleet or developing decommissioning techniques; money for research into new technology was reduced significantly in the 1970s and more or less stopped after 1992. This is illustrated by the song and dance made by the coalition about the whopping £17m they earmarked for new research in 2010-15, little as it was even that was a massive increase on the 2/3rds of fk all spent by Blair or Brown.

durbster said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The whole point of a subsidy is that it is a financial incentive to get something done, therefore somebody will be receiving that financial benefit.
That's fine but the proscriptive and short-term nature of the incentives meant the only things getting encouraged were windmills and solar panels; either method is a poor way of generating electricity and all that has been achieved is that we've become better at generating poor quality power.

rolando

2,116 posts

154 months

Thursday 20th October 2016
quotequote all
motco said:
rolando said:
motco said:
Why isn't more being spent on the only reliable source of green energy: tidal power? All the other common ones - wave, wind, and solar depend on unreliable natural phenomena. Tides come and go regardless of the sun and the wind. Of course there's always geothermal power but that's a location specific source.
Yes, agree tides are predictable but
  • financial cost is prohibitive
  • environmental issues (sorry greenies)
  • studies have shown that even with a practical number of tidal installations around our island coast there would be a serious issues with intermittency requiring the inevitable back-up from other sources (i.e. duplication)
Financial cost is prohibitive - like offshore wind then!
Environmental issues - like all windmills then!
Intermittency? How? Tides always happen regardless of weather, and not even all at once either so the nodes (high and low tide when flow is zero) ripples around the coast.

Sorry I remain unconvinced.
Cost is far in excess of offshore wind. (approx. prices /kW)
New gas fired: £500 to 900
New coal: £1300 to 2800
On-shore wind: £3300 to 7400
Off-shore wind: £3500 to 14,200
Tidal: £16,000 to 18,000

re intermittency, can I refer you please to http://euanmearns.com/a-trip-round-swansea-bay/ which investigates the cumulative generating capacity of the six proposed tidal sites at the time of publication last year. You will see that there are regular times with zero generation for which 100% back-up would be required.

motco

15,918 posts

245 months

Thursday 20th October 2016
quotequote all
rolando said:
Cost is far in excess of offshore wind. (approx. prices /kW)
New gas fired: £500 to 900
New coal: £1300 to 2800
On-shore wind: £3300 to 7400
Off-shore wind: £3500 to 14,200
Tidal: £16,000 to 18,000

re intermittency, can I refer you please to http://euanmearns.com/a-trip-round-swansea-bay/ which investigates the cumulative generating capacity of the six proposed tidal sites at the time of publication last year. You will see that there are regular times with zero generation for which 100% back-up would be required.
Thanks for costs figures Rolando. Of course all new technologies start off excessively expensive and falls in costs would occur. Intermittency, yes - but... If you look at one or a few sites in one region of course at the turn of the tides output would fall to zero, but the tides ripple around the coast and if sites were suitably placed there would be a mean output at all times - guaranteed. Wind and solar will never be that reliable. Anyway a suitable mix of sources would be the best eggs-in-basket distribution. I asked why so little is being spent in terms of effort on tidal. Perhaps you have put your finger on it - cost. Had this happened before all the money had been spent for political reasons on technologies that can obviously never be constant, there would be a greater appetite for R&D in tidal power?

Pooh

3,692 posts

252 months

Thursday 20th October 2016
quotequote all
This seems to have potential for tidal generation without the negative environmental impacts.

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/pentland-...

rolando

2,116 posts

154 months

Thursday 20th October 2016
quotequote all
motco said:
If you look at one or a few sites in one region of course at the turn of the tides output would fall to zero, but the tides ripple around the coast and if sites were suitably placed there would be a mean output at all times - guaranteed.
Take another look at Figure 1 in the link then Figure 6. No, it isn't guaranteed as this study shows, with sites scattered around the English coast.

rolando

2,116 posts

154 months

Thursday 20th October 2016
quotequote all
durbster said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The whole point of a subsidy is that it is a financial incentive to get something done, therefore somebody will be receiving that financial benefit.

It's the same idea as those schemes where you can be paid for feeding the unused electricity from your solar panels back into the network.
My point was that landowners are generally in it for profit, nothing else.

motco

15,918 posts

245 months

Thursday 20th October 2016
quotequote all
rolando said:
motco said:
If you look at one or a few sites in one region of course at the turn of the tides output would fall to zero, but the tides ripple around the coast and if sites were suitably placed there would be a mean output at all times - guaranteed.
Take another look at Figure 1 in the link then Figure 6. No, it isn't guaranteed as this study shows, with sites scattered around the English coast.
My underlining
Link said said:
With a more judicious selection of lagoon sites it would of course be possible to combine output from the sites into something that does resemble baseload generation. But it can’t be done with the sites Tidal Lagoon Power plc has selected. The fact that Tidal Lagoon Power plc haven’t acknowledged this can only charitably be called an oversight.
I admit I hadn't considered the neap/spring tide vaiations and I agree with the article that these are synchronised around the country. It would be necessary to rate the plant(s) such that the baseload is met during neap tides.

MartG

20,620 posts

203 months

Thursday 20th October 2016
quotequote all
A major issue with tidal barrages is silting. There is one currently being considered for the mouth of the River Wyre at Fleetwood, but if you look at how much the river has silted up since dredging of the ferry terminal was halted, even without a barrage further blocking the flow, then it is pretty clear a barrage would be silted up fairly quickly unless extensive ( expensive ) dredging is carried out regularly.

Large RoRo ferries used to dock here, and still floated even at low tide !




Now they'd be left high and dry at low tide, assuming they could get in at all !


rolando

2,116 posts

154 months

Thursday 20th October 2016
quotequote all
motco said:
I admit I hadn't considered the neap/spring tide varations and I agree with the article that these are synchronised around the country. It would be necessary to rate the plant(s) such that the baseload is met during neap tides.
Eye wateringly expensive

Efbe

9,251 posts

165 months

Thursday 20th October 2016
quotequote all
rolando said:
stuff
interesting to compare our costs against those of other countries on here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_...

rolando

2,116 posts

154 months

Thursday 20th October 2016
quotequote all
Efbe said:
interesting to compare our costs against those of other countries on here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_...
Thanks for that link where prices are per MHh produced. I quoted per kW installed capacity. Only the UK's DECC shows cost /MWh for tidal which is 3-4 times that of nat. gas without CO2 capture and considerably more than offshore wind. In both cases the "fuel" is free but the running costsand capital cost over the life of the projects out of all proportion.

Efbe

9,251 posts

165 months

Thursday 20th October 2016
quotequote all
rolando said:
Thanks for that link where prices are per MHh produced. I quoted per kW installed capacity. Only the UK's DECC shows cost /MWh for tidal which is 3-4 times that of nat. gas without CO2 capture and considerably more than offshore wind. In both cases the "fuel" is free but the running costsand capital cost over the life of the projects out of all proportion.
yep, assumed as much.

quite substantial differences in costs per country on there too.

FredClogs

14,041 posts

160 months

Thursday 20th October 2016
quotequote all
Efbe said:
rolando said:
stuff
interesting to compare our costs against those of other countries on here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_...
I think it's incredibly hard to quantify long term costs of nuclear, especially when you read stuff like this...

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edf-ordered-to-s...

rolando

2,116 posts

154 months

Thursday 20th October 2016
quotequote all
FredClogs said:
I think it's incredibly hard to quantify long term costs of nuclear, especially when you read stuff like this...

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edf-ordered-to-s...
One wonders still if gov't has made the right decision re Hinkley C. I'm not against the project in principal but have had my doubts for a long time about the choice of technology and the main contractor. But that's another subject.

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Thursday 20th October 2016
quotequote all
motco said:
Thanks for costs figures Rolando. Of course all new technologies start off excessively expensive and falls in costs would occur. Intermittency, yes - but... If you look at one or a few sites in one region of course at the turn of the tides output would fall to zero, but the tides ripple around the coast and if sites were suitably placed there would be a mean output at all times - guaranteed. Wind and solar will never be that reliable. Anyway a suitable mix of sources would be the best eggs-in-basket distribution. I asked why so little is being spent in terms of effort on tidal. Perhaps you have put your finger on it - cost. Had this happened before all the money had been spent for political reasons on technologies that can obviously never be constant, there would be a greater appetite for R&D in tidal power?
2 issues, tidal range is the biggest factor for lagoon projects. Tidal range is greatest in sites such as Bristol channel and Anglesey. It's inefficient to place them elsewhere.

Also, the technology in tidal lagoons is relatively known. It's the logistics of building a huge lagoon that's the greatest cost.