Didcot Powerstation Fire - Looks bad :(
Discussion
pgtips said:
Scuffers said:
assuming this is close to right (and I have no reason to doubt it)
this clearly makes a mockery of the price paid to the wind turbine company that are already well over this, before you include the costs of the grid/energy sales co's/etc.
I quoted the average consumer cost (broad brush including commercial customers.... domestics would pay slightly more). Today wind generators receive wholesale price (circa £55/MWh) plus a ROC (circa £45 /ROC) plus a value associated with the avoided costs for suppliers - approx. £10/MWh. They will pay about £10 /MWh for this 'contract' so receive a net £100 /MWh. It will vary a bit depending on location and contract structure. Fair to say they receive about double the current wholesale price. The costs of onshore wind (including capex, wind speed, construction and financing) vary from ~ 60 £/MWh through to 120 £/MWh... The Govt has now capped the tariff they can receive (90 £/MWh) under a new subsidy framework, but I expect actual prices will be slightly lower than that - 85 £/MWh. The main driver of lower wind prices, will be developers seeing a reduction in the project IRR.this clearly makes a mockery of the price paid to the wind turbine company that are already well over this, before you include the costs of the grid/energy sales co's/etc.
Fizpop said:
V8 Fettler said:
Fizpop said:
V8 Fettler said:
On the coldest, darkest winter's evening, when the frost is thick, the air is still and demand for electricity is at its highest, how much electricity will the windmills and solar be contributing to the grid?
It's the high cost of electricity that kills pensioners, primarily due to an incoherent energy policy, part of which is the drive to wind and solar.
There are lessons to be learnt .... from the Germans. More coal-fired Drax please.
You're stating the obvious, but that's why the UK generation mix is varied and managed. No one is arguing that wind and solar is as dispatchable as conventional generators.It's the high cost of electricity that kills pensioners, primarily due to an incoherent energy policy, part of which is the drive to wind and solar.
There are lessons to be learnt .... from the Germans. More coal-fired Drax please.
The renewable and energy efficiency levies that you reckon help kill pensioner's equates to only ten percent of the average bill and ironically covers initiatives such as insulating and fitting new boilers to those very same pensioners home.
I agree with the energy policy comment you make but its a consequence of a feckless government pandering to those voters who have the same uninformed views as you.
Drax by the way also claims renewable subsidy since it started blending woodchip with its coal. Whoda thunkit?
Please tell me how much electricity windmills and solar will contribute when the grid is under greatest stress on a dark, frosty still night. It is quite important.
I can present facts to you, such as the proportion of energy bills used for green initiatives - but if you're going to be blinkered to them, and refer to some mysterious 'real' costs - then there's not much point.
But for the record, that other 'conventional machinary' is running anyway. And as to the wider point, wind holding back other technologies - well that really is just nonsense.
I've accepted your reference re: 10% of typical bill is for windmills and solar, but you haven't responded to the issue of funding being diverted from the development of generation and transmission systems that would be bring real, tangible benefits, particularly when the windmills fail on a dark, still, cold winter's night.
Conventional generation systems should operate a maximum output to achieve maximum efficiency. At max output, how much do you think is left in reserve to support the failing output of a windmill? Or do we run the conventional generation system at below max efficiency to provide some reserve in case the output from a windmill should fail?
V8 Fettler said:
...claim that it doesn't matter that we are spending billions on electricity generation systems that offer nothing when the greatest demand is on the grid? Bizarre...
Indeed. Windymill costs now running at >£1.3trillion and counting.Pointless and unnecessary white elephants costing a fortune DO matter.
Fizpop said:
hidetheelephants said:
It isn't non-polluting or fuel-less; this is nonsense promulgated by the green lobby. For every windmill there is a spinning reserve back-up, which burns either coal or gas.
Wind generation is indeed nonpolluting and it uses no fuel. The majority of generation in the UK has backup thankfully, that's the benefit of a National Grid and an EU connected one at that. Wind isn't a base load generator, there is only 11GW installed in total.There's loads to read about it online - don't just adopt the views of the Daily Mail - that way an aneurism lies
V8 Fettler said:
You claim that it doesn't matter that we are spending billions on electricity generation systems that offer nothing when the greatest demand is on the grid? Bizarre.
I've accepted your reference re: 10% of typical bill is for windmills and solar, but you haven't responded to the issue of funding being diverted from the development of generation and transmission systems that would be bring real, tangible benefits, particularly when the windmills fail on a dark, still, cold winter's night.
Conventional generation systems should operate a maximum output to achieve maximum efficiency. At max output, how much do you think is left in reserve to support the failing output of a windmill? Or do we run the conventional generation system at below max efficiency to provide some reserve in case the output from a windmill should fail?
My comment wasn't flippant. It doesn't matter because there is adequate reserve generation to meet the conditions you describe. I haven't directly answered your 'fund diversion' question because there isn't an answer. Where is the funding coming from, the bill payer. You can't and indeed Ofgem won't allow these funds to be used in this way. Development spend comes from private enterprise to address a need. No one can argue that there isnt demand for power and related tech,so what can be developed is being developed and what is proven to be deliverable is being progressed. HVDC for example is making big leaps in transmission lines, smart metering - all with proven tech and benefit. Indeed much of the grid improvements are being funded by the reinforcement costs that developers have to pay to connect. In contrast look at the fiasco that RWE and the Government are having over new nuclear - is that the fault of the renewables industry too?I've accepted your reference re: 10% of typical bill is for windmills and solar, but you haven't responded to the issue of funding being diverted from the development of generation and transmission systems that would be bring real, tangible benefits, particularly when the windmills fail on a dark, still, cold winter's night.
Conventional generation systems should operate a maximum output to achieve maximum efficiency. At max output, how much do you think is left in reserve to support the failing output of a windmill? Or do we run the conventional generation system at below max efficiency to provide some reserve in case the output from a windmill should fail?
As to your last point, you would'nt want a grid and generation make up that was running at max capacity - if you did a cold winter would indeed 'see us fooked' - as would the incident that this thread was about, or the Heysham reactor going offline, or the Hartlepool one...
Also, the grid is interconnected, the wind doesn't just disappear. If your minded to, have a look at this link to see how the fluctuations happen. Keep an eye on the frequency, if the balance of load and demand is being controlled well, it'll stay very near 50hz.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
edited for typo
Fizpop said:
V8 Fettler said:
You claim that it doesn't matter that we are spending billions on electricity generation systems that offer nothing when the greatest demand is on the grid? Bizarre.
I've accepted your reference re: 10% of typical bill is for windmills and solar, but you haven't responded to the issue of funding being diverted from the development of generation and transmission systems that would be bring real, tangible benefits, particularly when the windmills fail on a dark, still, cold winter's night.
Conventional generation systems should operate a maximum output to achieve maximum efficiency. At max output, how much do you think is left in reserve to support the failing output of a windmill? Or do we run the conventional generation system at below max efficiency to provide some reserve in case the output from a windmill should fail?
My comment wasn't flippant. It doesn't matter because there is adequate reserve generation to meet the conditions you describe. I haven't directly answered your 'fund diversion' question because there isn't an answer. Where is the funding coming from, the bill payer. You can't and indeed Ofgem won't allow these funds to be used in this way. Development spend comes from private enterprise to address a need. No one can argue that there isnt demand for power and related tech,so what can be developed is being developed and what is proven to be deliverable is being progressed. HVDC for example is making big leaps in transmission lines, smart metering - all with proven tech and benefit. Indeed much of the grid improvements are being funded by the reinforcement costs that developers have to pay to connect. In contrast look at the fiasco that RWE and the Government are having over new nuclear - is that the fault of the renewables industry too?I've accepted your reference re: 10% of typical bill is for windmills and solar, but you haven't responded to the issue of funding being diverted from the development of generation and transmission systems that would be bring real, tangible benefits, particularly when the windmills fail on a dark, still, cold winter's night.
Conventional generation systems should operate a maximum output to achieve maximum efficiency. At max output, how much do you think is left in reserve to support the failing output of a windmill? Or do we run the conventional generation system at below max efficiency to provide some reserve in case the output from a windmill should fail?
As to your last point, you would'nt want a grid and generation make up that was running at max capacity - if you did a cold winter would indeed 'see us fooked' - as would the incident that this thread was about, or the Heysham reactor going offline, or the Hartlepool one...
Also, the grid is interconnected, the wind doesn't just disappear. If your minded to, have a look at this link to see how the fluctuations happen. Keep an eye on the frequency, if the balance of load and demand is being controlled well, it'll stay very near 50hz.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
edited for typo
Unfortunately, Ofgem are as competent as the politicos involved with managing electricity generation. If Ofgem "won't allow" the development of reliable power generation systems then sack Ofgem.
You're confusing maximum capacity of the grid with maximum efficiency and maximum output of generating systems. A basic error.
I have some knowledge of electrical generation and transmission in the UK, thanks.
turbobloke said:
V8 Fettler said:
...claim that it doesn't matter that we are spending billions on electricity generation systems that offer nothing when the greatest demand is on the grid? Bizarre...
Indeed. Windymill costs now running at >£1.3trillion and counting.Pointless and unnecessary white elephants costing a fortune DO matter.
Fizpop said:
pgtips said:
Assuming an all-in cost per MWh today of £100 /MWh (for ease of comparison).... just over half is the wholesale price and approx. 70% of the wholesale price is driven by costs of wholesale gas. The price of carbon (EUAs and the additional tax - Carbon Price Support) equates to approx. 20% of the wholesale price with system opex the remaining 5%. Most commentators project this component to rise in real terms (largely on increasing gas costs from today).
Non energy costs (metering, transmission, distribution, balancing) comprise approx. 30%. These charges are set to rise also as costs of system balancing increase (more wind and a change in market design) and incraasing connection costs rise.
Environmental charges (ROC, LEC, FiT, CfDs, obligations) comprise approx. 10% of retail cost. Will rise but overall impact is small within context of consumers exposure to gas prices.
Supplier costs (risk management, profit, cost to serve) the remaining 10%.
Therefore overall environmental costs are approx. 20% and could be as high as 30% by 2030
In defence of our energy policy with respect to renewables and decarbonisation, the comments about costs of this technology or other are pretty meaningless. If gas is 100 p/th (as it has been before...) low carbon technologies look good value to the consumer... if gas reverts back to 20 p/th (as it has been before) low carbon looks pretty expensive. Government is trying to balance these risks but is compromised by five-year election cycles, massive uncertainty in future commodity prices, uncertainty on future technology costs, etc, etc, The Levy Control Framework (a limit on consumer costs of new low carbon technology) is an innovative policy instrument that is driving effective cost discovery in new renewable plant.
However, more worrying for me is the policy with respect to security of supply.... here I do think they have got it wrong. The lights may well start flickering on a cold November morning this year. Our energy security for this winter may depend on a warm winter... hardly a recipe for success. As for the design of the upcoming capacity auction....!!
I agree with much of what you say, barring the 'non-energy costs'. The charges you highlight, in respect of wind at least are not passed on to the bill payer. Connections are paid for in full by the developer at the distribution level, as are capital costs at transmission and TNUoS is socialised amongst connecting generators for upstream reinforcement. They also pay a Balancing Charge to cover off the additional resource to manage the intermitancy. Remember Ofgem licences protect the bill payer from charges not directly attributed to the functioning of the grid, of which connection wind is not.Non energy costs (metering, transmission, distribution, balancing) comprise approx. 30%. These charges are set to rise also as costs of system balancing increase (more wind and a change in market design) and incraasing connection costs rise.
Environmental charges (ROC, LEC, FiT, CfDs, obligations) comprise approx. 10% of retail cost. Will rise but overall impact is small within context of consumers exposure to gas prices.
Supplier costs (risk management, profit, cost to serve) the remaining 10%.
Therefore overall environmental costs are approx. 20% and could be as high as 30% by 2030
In defence of our energy policy with respect to renewables and decarbonisation, the comments about costs of this technology or other are pretty meaningless. If gas is 100 p/th (as it has been before...) low carbon technologies look good value to the consumer... if gas reverts back to 20 p/th (as it has been before) low carbon looks pretty expensive. Government is trying to balance these risks but is compromised by five-year election cycles, massive uncertainty in future commodity prices, uncertainty on future technology costs, etc, etc, The Levy Control Framework (a limit on consumer costs of new low carbon technology) is an innovative policy instrument that is driving effective cost discovery in new renewable plant.
However, more worrying for me is the policy with respect to security of supply.... here I do think they have got it wrong. The lights may well start flickering on a cold November morning this year. Our energy security for this winter may depend on a warm winter... hardly a recipe for success. As for the design of the upcoming capacity auction....!!
The actual trend with the phasing out of the ROC and the move to CfD is that the cost of renewable generation has to get cheaper, as the effects of that change, although uncertain at this stage looks to be a reduction of 10 to 15% at best.
Fizpop said:
V8 Fettler said:
Or do we run the conventional generation system at below max efficiency to provide some reserve in case the output from a windmill should fail?
As to your last point, you would'nt want a grid and generation make up that was running at max capacity - if you did a cold winter would indeed 'see us fooked' there is a distinct difference in what v8 fettler asked and what you answered ,ie, the difference between running at max efficiency and max capacity.highlighted just to be sure there is no confusion on your part.
wc98 said:
there is a distinct difference in what v8 fettler asked and what you answered ,ie, the difference between running at max efficiency and max capacity.highlighted just to be sure there is no confusion on your part.
I see no confusion.
V8 Fettler said:
Source with supporting data please for ">adequate reserve generation<".
Unfortunately, Ofgem are as competent as the politicos involved with managing electricity generation. If Ofgem "won't allow" the development of reliable power generation systems then sack Ofgem.
You're confusing maximum capacity of the grid with maximum efficiency and maximum output of generating systems. A basic error.
I have some knowledge of electrical generation and transmission in the UK, thanks.
Google can assist you if you'd like to verify my statements.Unfortunately, Ofgem are as competent as the politicos involved with managing electricity generation. If Ofgem "won't allow" the development of reliable power generation systems then sack Ofgem.
You're confusing maximum capacity of the grid with maximum efficiency and maximum output of generating systems. A basic error.
I have some knowledge of electrical generation and transmission in the UK, thanks.
I don't think I've misinterpreted what you said but happy to be schooled if you want to put me right.
I'm not here to convince you that wind power is a good thing, I'm sure you've already distilled your own views on the matter and you're very welcome to them.
Fizpop said:
V8 Fettler said:
Source with supporting data please for ">adequate reserve generation<".
Unfortunately, Ofgem are as competent as the politicos involved with managing electricity generation. If Ofgem "won't allow" the development of reliable power generation systems then sack Ofgem.
You're confusing maximum capacity of the grid with maximum efficiency and maximum output of generating systems. A basic error.
I have some knowledge of electrical generation and transmission in the UK, thanks.
Google can assist you if you'd like to verify my statements.Unfortunately, Ofgem are as competent as the politicos involved with managing electricity generation. If Ofgem "won't allow" the development of reliable power generation systems then sack Ofgem.
You're confusing maximum capacity of the grid with maximum efficiency and maximum output of generating systems. A basic error.
I have some knowledge of electrical generation and transmission in the UK, thanks.
I don't think I've misinterpreted what you said but happy to be schooled if you want to put me right.
I'm not here to convince you that wind power is a good thing, I'm sure you've already distilled your own views on the matter and you're very welcome to them.
Simplistically, in the ideal world, demand for electricity would remain absolutely constant over time, therefore supply could remain absolutely constant over time, therefore all systems and sub-systems comprising generation and transmission could be designed to operate at maximum efficiency and maximum output at all times for maximum cost effectiveness.
Where there are variables eg demand, inefficiencies arise. The greater the variables on the demand side then the greater the inefficiencies on the supply side, leading to increased costs (peak lopping is expensive) and - in certain situations - catastrophic failure on the supply side. Extend this to include uncontrollable variables on the supply side (wind/sun) and the costs increase further as does the risk of catastrophic failure.
I wouldn't be concerned about the introduction of wind power if the risks and costs were acceptable, but clearly the risks and costs are unacceptable to anyone with even a vague understanding of the principles of electricity generation and transmission on a large scale.
Fizpop said:
Google can assist you if you'd like to verify my statements.
I don't think I've misinterpreted what you said but happy to be schooled if you want to put me right.
I'm not here to convince you that wind power is a good thing, I'm sure you've already distilled your own views on the matter and you're very welcome to them.
Wind power is a fashionable response to a strategic blunder by the government in the 80s when it chose to break up the CEGB purely because the government was beholden to a dogma of privatisation. The folly of that blunder will bite us hard in the next few years.I don't think I've misinterpreted what you said but happy to be schooled if you want to put me right.
I'm not here to convince you that wind power is a good thing, I'm sure you've already distilled your own views on the matter and you're very welcome to them.
just as an example of how messed up this all is, look at the Viking wind farm project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Wind_Farm
they started by trying to get a 150 turbine scheme going (Shetland Islands).
now, if you ignore all the arguments over planning etc that have been going on for the last 5+ years, the bits that stand out are these:
1) at the current plan of 103 turbines (370Mw) will cost some £566M
2) the link to the grid is looking like costing another £300M (of which the operators only have to pay up to 10% of this)
so, on just these two figures, your looking at a £866M outlay.
so, just how much electricity are they actually going to generate just to pay back that about before interest/operating costs/etc?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Wind_Farm
they started by trying to get a 150 turbine scheme going (Shetland Islands).
now, if you ignore all the arguments over planning etc that have been going on for the last 5+ years, the bits that stand out are these:
1) at the current plan of 103 turbines (370Mw) will cost some £566M
2) the link to the grid is looking like costing another £300M (of which the operators only have to pay up to 10% of this)
so, on just these two figures, your looking at a £866M outlay.
so, just how much electricity are they actually going to generate just to pay back that about before interest/operating costs/etc?
phumy said:
PRTVR said:
phumy said:
PRTVR said:
phumy said:
PRTVR said:
phumy said:
PRTVR said:
phumy said:
Even if there was no such things as windmills and wind turbines had never ever been thought of and never invented there would still be spinning reserve as there was in the 70`s and 80`s when i first joined the electricity supply industry. Spinning reserve is nothing new, it has always been there so you have always been paying through the nose for it. Its the insurance for a safe and good supply when a big incident occurs and a large power plant trips and you might lose around 2000MW in one hit, then the spinning reserve is called to load up immediately to fill in the loss.
No argument with what you say,but spinning reserve for wind and solar has to be 100%, we do not have spinning reserve at that level for any other types of generation,Every windmill that is added to the grid requires backup that's a fact you can't get away from.
To answer yours, it would be extremely difficult to run a stable grid using wind power alone, note the word stable, due to the wind not being constant. So if you had a grid of only wind power, you wouldnt have a back up would you?
Now, you answer mine, where is it stated about this 100% back up for wind power
The National Grid will have strong links and ties with the meterological office to watch the weather as they do their daily operating running of the grid, as the effect of the weather has an effect upon the grid demand. They will be able to see weather fronts coming in, warm weather and winds approching all the different wind farms around the country and they will have some idea on which ones will reduce power and which one will increase, its a balancing game, a game of risk. How often have you know the wind over the whole of the counrty to drop or stop (in your instance) imediately at exactly the same time? The weather just doesnt happen like that and thats why they wont need 100% back up (spinning reserve).
Anyway i have a power plant to run, im spending far too long on here trying to edumacate you lot, any other questions i will answer later.
Some of us on here have watching wind generation for a number of years, I remember a few years ago, when a high pressure sat over the UK for a few days in the winter, temperatures were at -15, no wind nothing, actually I think they were consuming power to prevent problems with the gearboxes, its on experiences like this that lead me to concluded that it needs 100% back up.
Scuffers said:
just as an example of how messed up this all is, look at the Viking wind farm project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Wind_Farm
they started by trying to get a 150 turbine scheme going (Shetland Islands).
now, if you ignore all the arguments over planning etc that have been going on for the last 5+ years, the bits that stand out are these:
1) at the current plan of 103 turbines (370Mw) will cost some £566M
2) the link to the grid is looking like costing another £300M (of which the operators only have to pay up to 10% of this)
so, on just these two figures, your looking at a £866M outlay.
so, just how much electricity are they actually going to generate just to pay back that about before interest/operating costs/etc?
Is that inclusive of the transmission cable to the mainland? I suspect not, in which case it makes even less sense.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Wind_Farm
they started by trying to get a 150 turbine scheme going (Shetland Islands).
now, if you ignore all the arguments over planning etc that have been going on for the last 5+ years, the bits that stand out are these:
1) at the current plan of 103 turbines (370Mw) will cost some £566M
2) the link to the grid is looking like costing another £300M (of which the operators only have to pay up to 10% of this)
so, on just these two figures, your looking at a £866M outlay.
so, just how much electricity are they actually going to generate just to pay back that about before interest/operating costs/etc?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff