Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
What a fatuous article; it sings the praises of the fact subsidising solar and wind has sodded up the grid, and then compounds it by giving a big whoop for the blindingly obvious observation that the lower the duty cycle of your generating plant the higher the unit cost of the electricity. Coming up next, bears s
t in the woods. It completely misses out that the utilities if left to their own devices would probably not buy much of the solar and wind power at all as it's non-despatchable and intermittent; they buy it because the law compels them to, if the solar and wind farms generate it they don't get to say no even if it means overstraining the grid(this has caused grid damage several times in Texas). The law also stipulates the price rather than allow the utilities to go all 'market forces' and pay what the energy is worth at the second it's generated, so that part of the article's horsest too. Beware of articles that have graphs with unlabelled axes.
t in the woods. It completely misses out that the utilities if left to their own devices would probably not buy much of the solar and wind power at all as it's non-despatchable and intermittent; they buy it because the law compels them to, if the solar and wind farms generate it they don't get to say no even if it means overstraining the grid(this has caused grid damage several times in Texas). The law also stipulates the price rather than allow the utilities to go all 'market forces' and pay what the energy is worth at the second it's generated, so that part of the article's horsest too. Beware of articles that have graphs with unlabelled axes.PKLD said:
...The £55 vs £75 cost is what I was surprised about. Another factor with this stuff is the speed of deployment - a large 5MW solar farm can be installed with 3-6months. A power station or nuclear development takes years of planning and years of construction so once that's taken into consideration perhaps that's why some renewables are 'cheaper' when they are producing (obviously not 24/7)
Taking your enquiry at face value, you're not wrong to sit up and wonder at the cost.Firstly, prices of commodities like coal are tumbling Worldwide - so costs should be going down...BUT it's not a free market as we have eco-taxes to put on sources of energy.
Put up the taxes and - hey presto - the cost has magically inflated above the target (cost of renewables).
Too cycnical? Consider the exposure of north european countries to sunlight - like us in chilly GB. See how low on the horizon that burning energy ball is? It won't get any higher for another 5 months...so extracting power from panels is a bit limited for half the year. So we subsidise it up the thingy until it makes sense.
Where are all these panels - gathered nicely next to major conurbations? No, you'll need a bit of cabling to latch them all together.
Onshore windfarms getter cheaper - depends on your calculations, again. Ignore for a moment the 100 tonnes of concrete tipped into each foundation, the carbon footprint of which is pretty impressive, but take a look at actual results from wind energy...the apparent yield of only 25%'ish of installed capacity. So whatever claims are made at planning stage, you'll actually only get 25% of the power out.
In the meantime Mr & Mrs Consumer insist on power at the click of a switch - regardless of wind blowing or sun shining. So somewhere a reliable energy source has to be supplying leccy into the market but at specially negotiated rates that do not reflect cost or demand in many cases. But due to varying demand how do you run your reliable gas or coal plant efficiently? And if it doesn't run efficiently the costs go up and up, until they start to make renewables look economically viable.
All imho. But try googling strike prices for power generation and gas plant costs - it's all out there.
PKLD said:
The government has justified the moves on the grounds that these new technologies can now stand on their own feet without the past levels of subsidies.
A new report on Wednesday from Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that the price of solar and other renewables is falling fast, while fossil fuel costs are going up. New onshore windfarms are now the cheapest way for a power company to produce electricity in Britain, it argued. Costs have dropped to £55 per megawatt-hour, compared with the current costs of about £75 for constructing coal or gas-fired plants, its analysis found.
The £55 vs £75 cost is what I was surprised about.
Well 'can stand on their own feet' doesn't mean they are economically viable, it means they've had enough bucket loads of subsidy and are making UK energy too expensive, by now they are mature and should be viable if they ever will be, so do or die. A new report on Wednesday from Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that the price of solar and other renewables is falling fast, while fossil fuel costs are going up. New onshore windfarms are now the cheapest way for a power company to produce electricity in Britain, it argued. Costs have dropped to £55 per megawatt-hour, compared with the current costs of about £75 for constructing coal or gas-fired plants, its analysis found.
The £55 vs £75 cost is what I was surprised about.
And the wind cost is nonsense, it's just (dishonestly) playing with figures - adding financial penalties to fossil fuels and flinging subsidies at wind, and forgetting the costs of connecting wind AND PROVIDING THE BACKUP GENERATION etc.
In a free market with no political interference no sane person would build turbines for national power supply, it is only by distorting energy costs that they are possible.
It makes no sense having turbines when you need all the standby generation capacity as well, you may as well just have the latter.
In a typical UK winter cold spell, wind turbines will generate nothing (anticyclonic weather typically), and PV will give you 4 or 5 hours of low output.
It's not a question of cost is it, it's a question of living in the real world and not some environmental nut job's vision.
The Don of Croy said:
Taking your enquiry at face value, you're not wrong to sit up and wonder at the cost.
Firstly, prices of commodities like coal are tumbling Worldwide - so costs should be going down...BUT it's not a free market as we have eco-taxes to put on sources of energy.
Put up the taxes and - hey presto - the cost has magically inflated above the target (cost of renewables).
Too cycnical? Consider the exposure of north european countries to sunlight - like us in chilly GB. See how low on the horizon that burning energy ball is? It won't get any higher for another 5 months...so extracting power from panels is a bit limited for half the year. So we subsidise it up the thingy until it makes sense.
Where are all these panels - gathered nicely next to major conurbations? No, you'll need a bit of cabling to latch them all together.
Onshore windfarms getter cheaper - depends on your calculations, again. Ignore for a moment the 100 tonnes of concrete tipped into each foundation, the carbon footprint of which is pretty impressive, but take a look at actual results from wind energy...the apparent yield of only 25%'ish of installed capacity. So whatever claims are made at planning stage, you'll actually only get 25% of the power out.
In the meantime Mr & Mrs Consumer insist on power at the click of a switch - regardless of wind blowing or sun shining. So somewhere a reliable energy source has to be supplying leccy into the market but at specially negotiated rates that do not reflect cost or demand in many cases. But due to varying demand how do you run your reliable gas or coal plant efficiently? And if it doesn't run efficiently the costs go up and up, until they start to make renewables look economically viable.
All imho. But try googling strike prices for power generation and gas plant costs - it's all out there.
Firstly, prices of commodities like coal are tumbling Worldwide - so costs should be going down...BUT it's not a free market as we have eco-taxes to put on sources of energy.
Put up the taxes and - hey presto - the cost has magically inflated above the target (cost of renewables).
Too cycnical? Consider the exposure of north european countries to sunlight - like us in chilly GB. See how low on the horizon that burning energy ball is? It won't get any higher for another 5 months...so extracting power from panels is a bit limited for half the year. So we subsidise it up the thingy until it makes sense.
Where are all these panels - gathered nicely next to major conurbations? No, you'll need a bit of cabling to latch them all together.
Onshore windfarms getter cheaper - depends on your calculations, again. Ignore for a moment the 100 tonnes of concrete tipped into each foundation, the carbon footprint of which is pretty impressive, but take a look at actual results from wind energy...the apparent yield of only 25%'ish of installed capacity. So whatever claims are made at planning stage, you'll actually only get 25% of the power out.
In the meantime Mr & Mrs Consumer insist on power at the click of a switch - regardless of wind blowing or sun shining. So somewhere a reliable energy source has to be supplying leccy into the market but at specially negotiated rates that do not reflect cost or demand in many cases. But due to varying demand how do you run your reliable gas or coal plant efficiently? And if it doesn't run efficiently the costs go up and up, until they start to make renewables look economically viable.
All imho. But try googling strike prices for power generation and gas plant costs - it's all out there.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Well 'can stand on their own feet' doesn't mean they are economically viable, it means they've had enough bucket loads of subsidy and are making UK energy too expensive, by now they are mature and should be viable if they ever will be, so do or die.
And the wind cost is nonsense, it's just (dishonestly) playing with figures - adding financial penalties to fossil fuels and flinging subsidies at wind, and forgetting the costs of connecting wind AND PROVIDING THE BACKUP GENERATION etc.
In a free market with no political interference no sane person would build turbines for national power supply, it is only by distorting energy costs that they are possible.
It makes no sense having turbines when you need all the standby generation capacity as well, you may as well just have the latter.
In a typical UK winter cold spell, wind turbines will generate nothing (anticyclonic weather typically), and PV will give you 4 or 5 hours of low output.
It's not a question of cost is it, it's a question of living in the real world and not some environmental nut job's vision.
The scam of unreliables is summarised in these two posts. Smoke and mirrors accounting at its worst.And the wind cost is nonsense, it's just (dishonestly) playing with figures - adding financial penalties to fossil fuels and flinging subsidies at wind, and forgetting the costs of connecting wind AND PROVIDING THE BACKUP GENERATION etc.
In a free market with no political interference no sane person would build turbines for national power supply, it is only by distorting energy costs that they are possible.
It makes no sense having turbines when you need all the standby generation capacity as well, you may as well just have the latter.
In a typical UK winter cold spell, wind turbines will generate nothing (anticyclonic weather typically), and PV will give you 4 or 5 hours of low output.
It's not a question of cost is it, it's a question of living in the real world and not some environmental nut job's vision.
PKLD said:
The £55 vs £75 cost is what I was surprised about. Another factor with this stuff is the speed of deployment - a large 5MW solar farm can be installed with 3-6months. A power station or nuclear development takes years of planning and years of construction so once that's taken into consideration perhaps that's why some renewables are 'cheaper' when they are producing (obviously not 24/7)
You are absolutely correct to be surprised.The windfarms are being paid £90.00. They wouldn't need that much if it really only cost £55.
The £55.00 figure is produced by using "LCOE",(Levellised Cost of Energy). It is meaningless. Equally, the £75.00 price is questionable. You can check the prices on the NETA website. Today's maximum price, so far, has been £76.77 at 7:30am. The minimum price was £25.56 at 5:30am. So the real figure is somewhere between the two.
Edited by don4l on Friday 9th October 12:23
don4l said:
You are absolutely correct to be surprised.
The windfarms are being paid £90.00. They wouldn't need that much if it really only cost £55.
The £55.00 figure is produced by using "LCOE",(Levellised Cost of Energy). It is meaningless. Equally, the £75.00 price is questionable. You can check the prices on the NETA website. Today's maximum price, so far, has been £76.77 at 7:30am. The minimum price was £25.56 at 5:30am. So the real figure is somewhere between the two.
Try again...The windfarms are being paid £90.00. They wouldn't need that much if it really only cost £55.
The £55.00 figure is produced by using "LCOE",(Levellised Cost of Energy). It is meaningless. Equally, the £75.00 price is questionable. You can check the prices on the NETA website. Today's maximum price, so far, has been £76.77 at 7:30am. The minimum price was £25.56 at 5:30am. So the real figure is somewhere between the two.
Edited by don4l on Friday 9th October 12:23
This link always worth a look..
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
GrumpyV8 said:
don4l said:
You are absolutely correct to be surprised.
The windfarms are being paid £90.00. They wouldn't need that much if it really only cost £55.
The £55.00 figure is produced by using "LCOE",(Levellised Cost of Energy). It is meaningless. Equally, the £75.00 price is questionable. You can check the prices on the NETA website. Today's maximum price, so far, has been £76.77 at 7:30am. The minimum price was £25.56 at 5:30am. So the real figure is somewhere between the two.
Try again...The windfarms are being paid £90.00. They wouldn't need that much if it really only cost £55.
The £55.00 figure is produced by using "LCOE",(Levellised Cost of Energy). It is meaningless. Equally, the £75.00 price is questionable. You can check the prices on the NETA website. Today's maximum price, so far, has been £76.77 at 7:30am. The minimum price was £25.56 at 5:30am. So the real figure is somewhere between the two.
Edited by don4l on Friday 9th October 12:23
This link always worth a look..
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
This stuff is getting amusing now
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-326...
Next up, the oozlum bird is disappearing faster because of climate change.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-326...
Next up, the oozlum bird is disappearing faster because of climate change.
rovermorris999 said:
This stuff is getting amusing now
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-326...
Next up, the oozlum bird is disappearing faster because of climate change.
It is surely quite surprising that butterflies can exist in such cold conditions let alone needing such conditions to grow larger.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-326...
Next up, the oozlum bird is disappearing faster because of climate change.
Clearly, based on the evidence, they are not at the forefront of selective breeding habits that would offer species longevity. They probably fit the profile of about 99.9% of other species that have flourished, for a time, and disappeared before humanity made it out of Africa (or wherever) at some point in very ancient history (according to the understanding of humanity.)
Of more immediate concern, quite frankly, is the question .... who on earth funds this sort of research? (Or is it simply made up in an academic office somewhere?)
A link in a post by steveT350C in the EU thread:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/611100/Winte...
We should prepare for the worst winter in half a century with advanced weather forecasting models predicting 4 months of heavy snowfall.
Apparently if it happens then it's down to El Nino (natural) and the NAO (natural).
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/611100/Winte...
We should prepare for the worst winter in half a century with advanced weather forecasting models predicting 4 months of heavy snowfall.
Apparently if it happens then it's down to El Nino (natural) and the NAO (natural).
turbobloke said:
A link in a post by steveT350C in the EU thread:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/611100/Winte...
We should prepare for the worst winter in half a century with advanced weather forecasting models predicting 4 months of heavy snowfall.
Apparently if it happens then it's down to El Nino (natural) and the NAO (natural).
Yes, like all of the rest of it. Isn't that the whole point?http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/611100/Winte...
We should prepare for the worst winter in half a century with advanced weather forecasting models predicting 4 months of heavy snowfall.
Apparently if it happens then it's down to El Nino (natural) and the NAO (natural).
turbobloke said:
A link in a post by steveT350C in the EU thread:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/611100/Winte...
We should prepare for the worst winter in half a century with advanced weather forecasting models predicting 4 months of heavy snowfall.
Apparently if it happens then it's down to El Nino (natural) and the NAO (natural).
So is Al Gore attending the Paris jamboree then? http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/611100/Winte...
We should prepare for the worst winter in half a century with advanced weather forecasting models predicting 4 months of heavy snowfall.
Apparently if it happens then it's down to El Nino (natural) and the NAO (natural).
That seems like a sure way to guarantee some perverse weather.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Forme...
And in other news in the Express Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been vastly exaggerated in error.
Dr Evans has apparently 6 degrees in applied maths and states that climate modellers have been using the maths all wrong, meaning their claims are exaggerated and that CO2 has no impact on the earths climate. he believes the earth is going into a cooling phase with a mini ice age around 2030.
Naturally Julie Slingo disputes this.
Sorry if it has already been posted
And in other news in the Express Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been vastly exaggerated in error.
Dr Evans has apparently 6 degrees in applied maths and states that climate modellers have been using the maths all wrong, meaning their claims are exaggerated and that CO2 has no impact on the earths climate. he believes the earth is going into a cooling phase with a mini ice age around 2030.
Naturally Julie Slingo disputes this.
Sorry if it has already been posted
Is wind power really cheaper?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...
Express apocalyptic winter forecasts are legendary. So the odds are one year they'll be right - then the lights are probably going out.
http://www.thegwpf.com/blackout-risk-rises-as-uk-e...
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...
Express apocalyptic winter forecasts are legendary. So the odds are one year they'll be right - then the lights are probably going out.
http://www.thegwpf.com/blackout-risk-rises-as-uk-e...
Mr GrimNasty said:
Is wind power really cheaper?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...
Express apocalyptic winter forecasts are legendary. So the odds are one year they'll be right - then the lights are probably going out.
http://www.thegwpf.com/blackout-risk-rises-as-uk-e...
At least we've got fields of solar and windymills to keep the lights on... https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...
Express apocalyptic winter forecasts are legendary. So the odds are one year they'll be right - then the lights are probably going out.
http://www.thegwpf.com/blackout-risk-rises-as-uk-e...
mondeoman said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Is wind power really cheaper?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...
Express apocalyptic winter forecasts are legendary. So the odds are one year they'll be right - then the lights are probably going out.
http://www.thegwpf.com/blackout-risk-rises-as-uk-e...
At least we've got fields of solar and windymills to keep the lights on... https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...
Express apocalyptic winter forecasts are legendary. So the odds are one year they'll be right - then the lights are probably going out.
http://www.thegwpf.com/blackout-risk-rises-as-uk-e...
Einion Yrth said:
turbobloke said:
A link in a post by steveT350C in the EU thread:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/611100/Winte...
We should prepare for the worst winter in half a century with advanced weather forecasting models predicting 4 months of heavy snowfall.
Apparently if it happens then it's down to El Nino (natural) and the NAO (natural).
Yes, like all of the rest of it. Isn't that the whole point?http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/611100/Winte...
We should prepare for the worst winter in half a century with advanced weather forecasting models predicting 4 months of heavy snowfall.
Apparently if it happens then it's down to El Nino (natural) and the NAO (natural).
ks of course.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff