Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
As already pointed out, subsidies are one of the problems with renewables (wind, solar) but not the only problem. Renewables simply cannot work in terms of providing a developed western economy with an adequate and reliable power supply. If a renewables industry insider has worked calculations showing how EROEI has suddenly become adequate or knows how the industry has managed to achieve robotic technology applications in the field with self-erecting turbines (even that wasn't enough in the Google Corporation study) they could always post details rather than rhetoric.

Also ae we not still waiting for the "industry insiders" on PH to flick open their work files and provide the following - a cost per UK turbine (to-date) would do.

Main issue:

- total lifecycle cost in full

Which is broken down to reveal at least the following:

- maintenance and repair cost

- decommissioning cost

- human health cost from e.g. infrasound onshore and wts

- social cost e.g. of property price falls also for onshore

- rare earth extraction and processing clean-up cost

- environmental cost, the large-scale deaths of birds of prey and bats will do for a start

- stand-by conventional power cost

- baseload cycling cost

- grid reduced reliability cost

Tick tock, non-insiders wouldn't have access to the most up-to-date numbers but insiders should have these readily available in support of their soundbite claims.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
wc98 said:
go run that by a bookmaker with the context of your original statement and he will wet himself laughing.
So, I'll put you in the "No I've bottled it camp. No bet. You're right' - even at the softer odds, your bottom lip quivered still too much ?

One down. Two to go.


Roll up gobstes, roll up......
spell out the terms of the bet clearly then we can argue some details .i don't mind the odd genuine bet now and again,i have a 1k bet regarding arctic sea ice with a well known proponent of cagw and the arctic sea ice death spiral. i have no idea if i will win as it is a genuine bet . the metric it is based on was chosen by the other party to give him an edge in the odds but it is a black and white issue regarding sea ice extent out to 2022.

the problem with your bet is the jiggery pokery that goes on with determining the true cost.that in itself is a red flag when people tell me it is viable with no subsidies.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Building without subsidy - i.e. commercially viable. The whingebags were whinning about wasting Taxpayers money.

There was also some great catchphrases about never reaching sustainability. This test of the nerves was to say that whilst the Taxpayer has helped get an industry and energy source up and running, it will not be required before long as Offshore Wind will be commercially sustainable to corporations / investors / energy suppliers et al.

The easiest and simplest way to have a Yes / No test is for the first project to be build without subsidy. My statement that the half informed mocked.
Start including the TCO, (and ultimately unlike the Fossil Fuel industry, the Decom too) and the subterfuge can creep back in.
ahhh, now i see . that is bks.i imagine it is not too difficult to get funding for wind farms if the government has given a guaranteed price for the energy they produce that is far above that for traditional generation methods . for it to be subsidy free it needs to be built with no subsidies and operated without them .

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
wc98 said:
every single minute a wind turbine is standing still it requires back up. in a completely free market where people had the choice to choose their energy source for the year ahead , how many would choose wind power as their sole supply ? not many i imagine.
A quick question - if you buy your energy from Dong, or say Iberdrola.
They have a few sites up the West coast of the UK, some in the baltic, some in the German Bight ,some onshore in the mountains, and a few more in the North Sea.
When the wind stops blowing. Does it stop blowing everywhere ?
I'm not sure you are not that stupid, but thats how your statement reads.


Or, do you think for a minute, that those who know more than you, have planned a varied portfolio to account for this ?
Your logic is flawed, the whole of Europe is heading to reduce carbon emissions, we will only be able to use German wind if they have excess,we also have a problem of limited capacity from Europe 3GW,
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
At present out of a potential 8gw wind is producing 3gw , the more capacity you have the more of a loss to the system you have, wind will never keep the lights on.

johnfm

13,668 posts

249 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Phud said:
Paddy are you going to have TCO or just building without subsidy?

Also does your bet induce the cost of the base and its carbon footprint or just the windmill as a physical structure?
Building without subsidy - i.e. commercially viable. The whingebags were whinning about wasting Taxpayers money.

There was also some great catchphrases about never reaching sustainability. This test of the nerves was to say that whilst the Taxpayer has helped get an industry and energy source up and running, it will not be required before long as Offshore Wind will be commercially sustainable to corporations / investors / energy suppliers et al.

The easiest and simplest way to have a Yes / No test is for the first project to be build without subsidy. My statement that the half informed mocked.
Start including the TCO, (and ultimately unlike the Fossil Fuel industry, the Decom too) and the subterfuge can creep back in.
Is it? I would have thought the test would be no installations being built with subsidy.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Albeit, if you don't understand the subject, perhaps you're best not play with your pocket money.
you seem to be very angry. you are the subject expert ,explain the terms . if i started bandying about terms, abbreviations etc from my industry i could soon fill an entire page with bullst and acronyms you would have no knowledge of,it might not make me right in the discussion though.

the public, ie me, only want to know what the overall cost of wind energy vs traditional generation methods is.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
i had a look back at the thread. you talk about how much money a 5 mw turbine generates per week. i don't think that means what you think it means when it is guaranteed by the uk government that energy generated by that method will receive £150-140 per mwh depending upon when the deal was struck .

Phud

1,262 posts

142 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all

Building without subsidy - i.e. commercially viable. The whingebags were whinning about wasting Taxpayers money.

There was also some great catchphrases about never reaching sustainability. This test of the nerves was to say that whilst the Taxpayer has helped get an industry and energy source up and running, it will not be required before long as Offshore Wind will be commercially sustainable to corporations / investors / energy suppliers et al.

The easiest and simplest way to have a Yes / No test is for the first project to be build without subsidy. My statement that the half informed mocked.
Start including the TCO, (and ultimately unlike the Fossil Fuel industry, the Decom too) and the subterfuge can creep back in.
[/quote]

Ok Paddy, so when you say building what connection costs and what parameters?

I am asking as the devil as you know needs to come out, because I can claim that a wind turbine does not need subsidy, however other costs are offset so it looks as if no subsidy is provided, such as we have with 2nd gen turbines being installed when the cost of removal and decom of 1st gen is paid for by other grants, also the cost of connection and such.

So cost of electrical production and being able to sell that without any support on an open market?

No subsidy anywhere in the production process?

Because I will admit to being one of the people with the view, this industry needs to become self sustaining and no subsidies anywhere, but they have had too much money already to ever mean that an apple to apple comparison can take place, there really is too much political BS, which different groups want taking out so it can be said; look we are now self sustaining, for me the simple fact is; wind turbines cannot be guaranteed 24/7/365. This means that in the cost must be alternative backup systems, but this small point is never mentioned.


robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Seems as if Durbster has a friend here. Same dogmatic ignoring what he doesn't want to know about!!! From the link YOU previously provided PNM


Offshore wind generation costs are still roughly DOUBLE those of onshore's, but encouraging data from projects due to come online in the next few years SUGGEST the trend of rising installed costs MAY have halted. The median price of offshore wind had been drifting UPWARDS for some years. Installed costs and wind speeds vary widely, so it is DIFFICULT to pick a single figure to quantify generation costs. Offshore wind generation costs are SIGNIFICANTLY more EXPENSIVE, but a downward trend is again DISCERNIBLE.

Answer that


dickymint

24,097 posts

257 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
wc98 said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
No. fk that.

I politely pointed out yesterday the belief on this thread on certain factual matters was wrong.

Usual mouthpieces LOL'd - and Yes I did say the industry will become subsidy free. It will.

More braying from the benches, so I countered that I'll take an evens bet on Ten years time. A safe as houses bet from my side and fair.

More LOL'ing so fk it, I'll run as close to it as possible and say a project in five years. I only added the caveat that FID would be achieved as the postulating deny-ers on this thread will be expecting blades spinning. I think my bet is fairly stiff, so I want 5:1 on.
All the gobby' ones have gone silent.



So, I'll give you three; TurboB, Dicky, WC all the benefit of the doubt that you were just shooting your mouths off and bring the odds back to you if you are scared.

£100 each, 3:1

Take it or Foxtrot and his mate Oscar on this, and admit that your' credible sources' aren't and you data is out of date..
go run that by a bookmaker with the context of your original statement and he will wet himself laughing.
I did .....and he did just that rofl

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
P'n'M posts "shooting mouths off" and deep irony runs deeper.

As to out of date, timelines were acknowledged (vested interests...kindly rtfp) and updates have been requested. Where are they?

My question relating to a basic list of current aka up-to-date costs remains unanswered by PH renewables industry insider experts, so I will reserve judgement on where the shooting off emanates from. Beware of ricochets, fellow PHers.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
As we already have fields full of backup generators for when the wind don't blow, is the cost of these include in wind power. I bet not !!! Fiddled to make windy things look good !!

pgtips

181 posts

215 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
robinessex said:
As we already have fields full of backup generators for when the wind don't blow, is the cost of these include in wind power. I bet not !!! Fiddled to make windy things look good !!
Help me understand...we had backup generation before we had wind turbines? What was the backup generation doing then?

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
robinessex said:
As we already have fields full of backup generators for when the wind don't blow, is the cost of these include in wind power. I bet not !!! Fiddled to make windy things look good !!
Moron. You know why they were there?
Yes, because wind generators are intermittent. Now answer the bloody question. Is the cost of those and the electricity they generate allocated to the cost of windy things. And calling people a moron will result in you being reported to Admin.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
pgtips said:
robinessex said:
As we already have fields full of backup generators for when the wind don't blow, is the cost of these include in wind power. I bet not !!! Fiddled to make windy things look good !!
Help me understand...we had backup generation before we had wind turbines? What was the backup generation doing then?
UK energy bill subsidies driving boom in polluting diesel farms

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/0...

National Grid to offer a new set of subsidies to diesel generator operators under a scheme designed as insurance against the lights going out
An employee checks the pricing on televisions whilst the football World Cup is shown at a Currys store in London
Mini-power plants provide National Grid back-up power to ensure lights don’t go out when there is a surge in national power consumption, such as during the football World Cup, Wimbledon finals or Strictly Come Dancing.
Subsidies levied on household energy bills have helped drive a boom in polluting “diesel farms” across the UK to meet periods of peak electricity demand, the Guardian has found.
Almost a quarter of Britain’s back-up power under one programme for the National Grid is being provided by tiny fossil fuel power stations – some of which have been built on farmland by entrepreneurs.
The mini-power stations are brought into play by grid managers when there is a rapid surge in demand for power, for example when large numbers are watching major sporting events such as the World Cup or Wimbledon finals or during major TV events such as the final of Strictly Come Dancing.
In the coming weeks the grid is to offer through auction a new set of subsidies to diesel farms under a scheme designed as insurance against the lights going out.

NEITHER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE, THE GRID NOR MANY OF THE COMPANIES INVOLVED ARE KEEN TO PROVIDE MUCH INFORMATION ABOUT THIS SHADOWY NEW INDUSTRY.

Note the last sentance.

pgtips

181 posts

215 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
robinessex said:
UK energy bill subsidies driving boom in polluting diesel farms

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/0...

National Grid to offer a new set of subsidies to diesel generator operators under a scheme designed as insurance against the lights going out
An employee checks the pricing on televisions whilst the football World Cup is shown at a Currys store in London
Mini-power plants provide National Grid back-up power to ensure lights don’t go out when there is a surge in national power consumption, such as during the football World Cup, Wimbledon finals or Strictly Come Dancing.
Subsidies levied on household energy bills have helped drive a boom in polluting “diesel farms” across the UK to meet periods of peak electricity demand, the Guardian has found.
Almost a quarter of Britain’s back-up power under one programme for the National Grid is being provided by tiny fossil fuel power stations – some of which have been built on farmland by entrepreneurs.
The mini-power stations are brought into play by grid managers when there is a rapid surge in demand for power, for example when large numbers are watching major sporting events such as the World Cup or Wimbledon finals or during major TV events such as the final of Strictly Come Dancing.
In the coming weeks the grid is to offer through auction a new set of subsidies to diesel farms under a scheme designed as insurance against the lights going out.

NEITHER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE, THE GRID NOR MANY OF THE COMPANIES INVOLVED ARE KEEN TO PROVIDE MUCH INFORMATION ABOUT THIS SHADOWY NEW INDUSTRY.

Note the last sentance.
But that makes no mention of wind intermittency, right? That is all variability on the demand-side and TV pick-up... not the supply side. Agreed wind (and solar) causes balancing issues - but let's not confuse all back-up requirements with wind. We need back up for all sorts of reasons - demand variability, biggest infeed loss (ie if a large plant trips), system inertia, etc.

FWIW the diesel stories are headline grabbing from Daily Mail and Guardian but lack any real substance. Not much being built anyway (mid-sized combustion plant directive plus removal of embedded benefits plus investor nervousness) means very little diesel plant actually built, despite the award of the capacity contracts).

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
It's still gambling by promoting an electricity generating source that is completely out of human hands wether it supplies electricity or not ! At the monent, wind is supplying 7%. Lets say in future years, that capability rises to 30%. Then the wind don't blow one day, or longer. We're stuffed.

johnfm

13,668 posts

249 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
johnfm said:
Is it? I would have thought the test would be no installations being built with subsidy.
That would assume all sites, grid costs, WTG units are equal.
They are not, are they ?
Different projects, Owners have different timelines.


Still no takers though.
I must have misunderstood your earlier post. I though you said that in a few years ther's be no subsidy as the projects would be profitable without.

I have noticed that investors are making the projects work without subsidy in many cases now (by screwing the O&M and turbine suppliers down to sensible prices). The investment funds still make their 15% IRR, but Statkraft et al have to make do with lower fees.

dickymint

24,097 posts

257 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
I did .....and he did just that rofl
You didn't Dick.

Or if you did, perhaps the penny didn't drop : He was laughing at you.
Make your mind up - did I or didn't I rofl

Oh I forgot you keep changing your mind as in - a few years to ten, then an evens bet to an odds on bet, then you change the goal posts to an entirely different scenario!! So have another rofl until the full onslaught in a "couple of years".

johnfm

13,668 posts

249 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
pgtips said:
But that makes no mention of wind intermittency, right? That is all variability on the demand-side and TV pick-up... not the supply side. Agreed wind (and solar) causes balancing issues - but let's not confuse all back-up requirements with wind. We need back up for all sorts of reasons - demand variability, biggest infeed loss (ie if a large plant trips), system inertia, etc.

FWIW the diesel stories are headline grabbing from Daily Mail and Guardian but lack any real substance. Not much being built anyway (mid-sized combustion plant directive plus removal of embedded benefits plus investor nervousness) means very little diesel plant actually built, despite the award of the capacity contracts).
Isn't diesel backup being replaced by gas fired because diesel generator cannot meet the emissions regs?

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED