Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Oh - untangeable costs?
Why didn't you say so FFS.
There are a large aspect of those already submit in the CFD application the supply chain plan that is specific to each site - because unsurprisingly, the 'numbers' you randomly ask for vary from the field 5 x 8.3MW in Blyth, a tennis ball from the coastline to the 102 x 7MW's that are 40Km from the coast for East Anglia (as just two random projects I happened to have on the desk in front of me....)
In fact, like O&G - all jobs are different - back then it was number of Subsea tied backs ? Satellite platforms ?,
now HVDC? Cable lengths ? Substations ?
Google the documents and you will see social impacts defined there- I won't guess / make stuff up like others round these ways.
From a 'Commercial' aspect - which was, and still the cut and thrust of the wager you were offered.
The usual NIMBY's here were, and a few still are, in the dark ages of the funding and the prospects of OFFSHORE wind.
Usual moans easy to trot out were taxpayers money waste. That was when I intervened.
I said, shortly the taxpayer will have nothing to do with it.
All scoffed.
That is my bet - Taxpayer will not contribute to the commercial viability of a project build from a consented lease.
I can only assume that the minuscule delving and conjuring away from this fairly simple and transparent test of viability simply demonstrates the scoffing was at best, ill-informed. Because you'd all be snapping my hand off if you felt you were correct.
Actually it is because your words, as most of the sustainable industry, are only pertaining to a very specific topic, where the definition of what is being discussed if it is not held down is worthless.Why didn't you say so FFS.
There are a large aspect of those already submit in the CFD application the supply chain plan that is specific to each site - because unsurprisingly, the 'numbers' you randomly ask for vary from the field 5 x 8.3MW in Blyth, a tennis ball from the coastline to the 102 x 7MW's that are 40Km from the coast for East Anglia (as just two random projects I happened to have on the desk in front of me....)
In fact, like O&G - all jobs are different - back then it was number of Subsea tied backs ? Satellite platforms ?,
now HVDC? Cable lengths ? Substations ?
Google the documents and you will see social impacts defined there- I won't guess / make stuff up like others round these ways.
From a 'Commercial' aspect - which was, and still the cut and thrust of the wager you were offered.
The usual NIMBY's here were, and a few still are, in the dark ages of the funding and the prospects of OFFSHORE wind.
Usual moans easy to trot out were taxpayers money waste. That was when I intervened.
I said, shortly the taxpayer will have nothing to do with it.
All scoffed.
That is my bet - Taxpayer will not contribute to the commercial viability of a project build from a consented lease.
I can only assume that the minuscule delving and conjuring away from this fairly simple and transparent test of viability simply demonstrates the scoffing was at best, ill-informed. Because you'd all be snapping my hand off if you felt you were correct.
Again, above you now bring in the point consented lease, I take it you mean by this that any subsidy that was given to a site prior to the lease can not be seen as a subsidy to the industry? For example if a previously subsidised site was used but the lease was agreed any subsidy provided for the initial projects are not to be counted, so in fact the starting point s not of an open market place.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
robinessex said:
For PNM. Flappy as in self destruct if you run them to fast !!! Name allocated by my mate, who designs the bloody things !!
Bulls
t. To(o) fast and the WTG's feather their blades / apply a brake.
But mainly bulls
t to you friend who designs them.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhXMycNAGpQ
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
"building of a WTG ?"
Don't be so stupid please.
Why can you all find the cutting template of a tin foil hat, the amount of CO2 in a polar bears mouth when it farts and Ice cube but can't yet understand a 'Offshore Wind Project?'
Take - for example :
http://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/pages/east_...
Turbotwit and Dickyfit - Grow up if you want your questions answered - for the fourth time.
So being silly again, and I can be if I want, you fail to say if any subsidy already given is excluded or not. which means your project mush be funded from initial to delivery without any subsidy funding, even East anglia one only got the confirmation when the subsidies cut was defeated.Don't be so stupid please.
Why can you all find the cutting template of a tin foil hat, the amount of CO2 in a polar bears mouth when it farts and Ice cube but can't yet understand a 'Offshore Wind Project?'
Take - for example :
http://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/pages/east_...
Turbotwit and Dickyfit - Grow up if you want your questions answered - for the fourth time.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
What?
You know the sequence of events from Lease, to Consent to CFD' don't you ?
Yes, hence the questions were in this process are you calling a start point.You know the sequence of events from Lease, to Consent to CFD' don't you ?
Because as highlighted what you are talking about is a very small part of the project, with very little risk and after so much money already being given as subsidy very easy to not provide a honest picture.
So finally , do you mean selling power on the open market or selling to an agreed market value which is designed to offset the cost of build?
Edited by Phud on Monday 27th March 15:37
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
No - No I am not.
I am not talking about the WTG.
I am talking about the PROJECT.
Once the Owner has bought the lease, and makes a decision to build the Project.
As alluded - all are different, some have huge onshore Cabling to the Substation / T&D Grid to factor IN TO THE PROJECT PRICE, others like Dogger Bank are luckier. Some have better soil conditions, some have .... well I am sure you can understand the other variables.
The point is an Owner builds a project to make revenue from Energy sold.
To date, some subsidy is required (less an less as time has gone by) to make the overall build cost of the project - as in the total cost to supply power to the grid, which will factor in the all aspect of fabrication, site surveys - onshore / offshore, UXO Clearance, WTG selection, Cabling, O&M Base / Vessels, O&M, the wind performance at that site, Mrs Miggins B&B for the contractors, the Turbine efficiency etc etc
My point for the umpteenth time. This. within five years. will. not. need. subsidy.
If you believe a Lease requires a subsidy, you really are best not taking a bet.
So let be clear the project does not need a direct subsidy. I am not talking about the WTG.
I am talking about the PROJECT.
Once the Owner has bought the lease, and makes a decision to build the Project.
As alluded - all are different, some have huge onshore Cabling to the Substation / T&D Grid to factor IN TO THE PROJECT PRICE, others like Dogger Bank are luckier. Some have better soil conditions, some have .... well I am sure you can understand the other variables.
The point is an Owner builds a project to make revenue from Energy sold.
To date, some subsidy is required (less an less as time has gone by) to make the overall build cost of the project - as in the total cost to supply power to the grid, which will factor in the all aspect of fabrication, site surveys - onshore / offshore, UXO Clearance, WTG selection, Cabling, O&M Base / Vessels, O&M, the wind performance at that site, Mrs Miggins B&B for the contractors, the Turbine efficiency etc etc
My point for the umpteenth time. This. within five years. will. not. need. subsidy.
If you believe a Lease requires a subsidy, you really are best not taking a bet.
However, unless the Government forces the power companies to buy output at above the price for gas power, and the power companies have to maintain stand by power for when it does not get built.
So the project is economic only if the public is forced to pay a higher price for energy. So basically the whole project is dependent on a subsidy from the users of energy, mainly tax payers.
Since energy poverty mainly effects the elderly and sick. The whole scam depends on killing the elderly and sick.
turbobloke said:
DapperDanMan said:
AGW denial
It's hardly your fault that you get this wrong, in several ways, as nobody could be expected to trawl through all the posts in over ten years' worth of climate threads to see what people are actually saying. That's quite apart from the irony involved in use of the term 'denial' which does nothing except reinforce the nature of AGW as faith-based while revealing the groupthink approach of the person using it.After participating in most of the above threads I would say that what people are posting about climte change, and I can't speak for all of the well-informed contributors to these threads, varies. Big surprise.
Nobody is saying that climate change doesn't happen. It's been happening for billions of years, naturally, and will continue to change. The forces changing our climate haven't stopped and won't stop for billins of years to come.
The key question is whether there's a human influence, and if so, how significant is it.
The faith side - and it is a faith - believes truly that there is dangerous permanent manmade global warming afoot. This is in spite of the fact - and it is a fact - that there is no visible causal human signal in global climate data. The human signal arises from computer modelling, and it arises because the modellers assume it's real and programme it in. This is not evidence or data it's the models reproducing the assumptions of the modellers around dangerous manmade global warming. In spite of the desperate hype in support of climate models from the faithful, there is overwhelming evidence based on data showing that these gigo models are wholly inadequate. This evidence has been presented in PH climate threads, including this one, several times.
In the middle are those who accept that in spite of there being no visible causal human signal in any global climate data, there is a human element to warming, but it's been exaggerated by means of overly sensitive climate sensitivity. In other words, nothing worth wasting $trillions on.
My position as posted n times is this: there is an influence but it's not permanent dangerous warming, and in the absence of any visible human signal (etc) what can be said (which is consistent with the data) is that adding a small ~5% human perturbation to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels starting at around 280ppmv back in time pre-industrialisation,there will be an insignificant and transient additional delay in cooling. After all, if there were significant warming taking place caused by humans, it would be visible by now in the data, as opposed to remaining invisible and totally swamped by the noise of natural variation, requiring the hand of man on a keyboard to make it appear in the gigo of computer models.
Hopefully thst clears up the position to a satisfactory degree but I need to apologise in advance to other PHers whose position isn't described sufficiently well by the necessarily brief summary above.
Terminator X said:
Imho the majority on here would be happy to see alternative power sources as long as there wasn't (a) massive tax incentives in place to "encourage" it and (b) it wasn't all blamed on man made global warming which can be argued is pure speculation based upon made up models of the future that may or may not come true in 100's of years time. Let's face it if someone eventually discovers the flux capacitor we will be laughing.
TX.
Exactly this. TX.
If renewables lacked subsidies from the off, that would be OK by me, as they would never have got off the ground and we could have invested in nuclear sooner. If renewables in the form of wind and solar power stopped consuming taxpayers' money in order to enrich wealthy land owners and vested interest investors, and became cheaper in reality rather than via the 'unknown costs costing method' currently in use, with no subsidies whatsoever, that would be OK as less taxpayer money would be wasted.
Best of all, if basic concepts such as causality, EROEI and damning conclusions from the report by Google Corporation's engineers and scientists (using as-yet unavailable technology while trying and failing to make a viability case for renewables) were more widely understood and we cut pointless and costly renewables loose at this point, that would also be OK. The lifetime of their devices isn't too lengthy and it would be worth the decommissioning costs to get rid of them at some future point. Untold hundreds of thousands of birds of prey and bats would also be grateful on a generational basis if they could express an opinion, though we/I can express one anysay.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Turbotwit and Dickyfit - Grow up if you want your questions answered - for the fourth time.
Not asking you a question (I'm pretty sure that I didn't "put my hand up" and say please Sir as you wanted) - just waiting for you to accept your original terms for a bet that you claim I "welched" on. Quite simple really.Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Oh the original ?
From Thursday :
as there will be more to follow.Fancy a Tenner it will be within 10 years?
I'll take the bet happily.A few now becomes ten!
I'll take your bet though but based on your original claim of "a few years" I'll even give you odds of 2/1 if it happens within 5 years of todays date.so after all this - a fking Tenner is all you will gamble ?
YOU offered a bet. From Thursday :
dickymint said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
dickymint said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I am saying that there are hard facts and figures, Industry wide on the reduction in cost and how it is reducing at a rate faster than what was deemed five years ago as aggressive. It will be subsidy free within a few more years.
Your Daily Mail hand wringing may continue regardless.
Quoted (with my bold) for use "in a few years" time but for now have a single Your Daily Mail hand wringing may continue regardless.
as there will be more to follow.I'll take the bet happily.
I'll take your bet though but based on your original claim of "a few years" I'll even give you odds of 2/1 if it happens within 5 years of todays date.
king Tenner is all you will gamble ?YOU changed it from "a few years" to TEN.
YOU then also demanded massive odds on in YOUR favour.
YOU started name calling as in "welcher"
YOU then made this statement......"Dicky, WC - say what you like- but I think, and judging by the 9 personal messages received , most here think :
You're full of bulsst and bluster and your arses have fallen out, and carefully stepping backwards"
It was YOU that "stepped backwards".
And to top it off you're now willy waving at my "f
king tenner"
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
No - No I am not.
I am not talking about the WTG.
I am talking about the PROJECT.
Once the Owner has bought the lease, and makes a decision to build the Project.
As alluded - all are different, some have huge onshore Cabling to the Substation / T&D Grid to factor IN TO THE PROJECT PRICE, others like Dogger Bank are luckier. Some have better soil conditions, some have .... well I am sure you can understand the other variables.
The point is an Owner builds a project to make revenue from Energy sold.
To date, some subsidy is required (less an less as time has gone by) to make the overall build cost of the project - as in the total cost to supply power to the grid, which will factor in the all aspect of fabrication, site surveys - onshore / offshore, UXO Clearance, WTG selection, Cabling, O&M Base / Vessels, O&M, the wind performance at that site, Mrs Miggins B&B for the contractors, the Turbine efficiency etc etc
My point for the umpteenth time. This. within five years. will. not. need. subsidy.
If you believe a Lease requires a subsidy, you really are best not taking a bet.
Paddy, if you think that selling at a fixed market price which is guaranteed to make the building of wind farms a seemingly viable business you had best not shout about projects not requiring subsidy because that is what it is. I am not talking about the WTG.
I am talking about the PROJECT.
Once the Owner has bought the lease, and makes a decision to build the Project.
As alluded - all are different, some have huge onshore Cabling to the Substation / T&D Grid to factor IN TO THE PROJECT PRICE, others like Dogger Bank are luckier. Some have better soil conditions, some have .... well I am sure you can understand the other variables.
The point is an Owner builds a project to make revenue from Energy sold.
To date, some subsidy is required (less an less as time has gone by) to make the overall build cost of the project - as in the total cost to supply power to the grid, which will factor in the all aspect of fabrication, site surveys - onshore / offshore, UXO Clearance, WTG selection, Cabling, O&M Base / Vessels, O&M, the wind performance at that site, Mrs Miggins B&B for the contractors, the Turbine efficiency etc etc
My point for the umpteenth time. This. within five years. will. not. need. subsidy.
If you believe a Lease requires a subsidy, you really are best not taking a bet.
Because the project is subsidised by the agreed price of units, you have no intention of open market trading.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Turbotwit and Dickyfit - Grow up if you want your questions answered - for the fourth time.
Grow up, then twit and fit? Hypocrisy has reached a tipping point with you P'n'M.Meanwhile what you're offering is any excuse not to answer questions, which would in fact be answering mine for the first time though you appear to admit that they've been asked four times (?) which manual was this excuse from? Just give the costs per turbine as listed, how easy for in insider could it be?
As to the rest: "Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong" (Rousseau) then again Jean-Jacques wasn't an insider and had never heard of peak renewables.
Did I mentioned windmill Constraints Payments earlier 
This is what it cost (double for us lowly bill payers) for four days this time last year.......
http://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/331-wind-farm-const...
And don't forget the double wammy ......
"It is important to remember that electricity consumers also pay for the replacement electricity which has to be provided by conventional – usually fossil-fuelled – generators on the other side of the grid bottleneck. In other words, when wind is constrained off on one side of the bottleneck, conventional generators must be constrained on on the other side. Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT) generators usually provide the rebalancing energy. Thus, if we assume that gas was the replacement fuel for the onshore wind constrained off over the Easter holiday, we can estimate that the additional costs are a further £2.3 million, bringing the total additional cost of the wind farm constraints to £6 million over the four days."
But don't worry it'll all ...cough cough..blow over
This is what it cost (double for us lowly bill payers) for four days this time last year.......http://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/331-wind-farm-const...
And don't forget the double wammy ......
"It is important to remember that electricity consumers also pay for the replacement electricity which has to be provided by conventional – usually fossil-fuelled – generators on the other side of the grid bottleneck. In other words, when wind is constrained off on one side of the bottleneck, conventional generators must be constrained on on the other side. Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT) generators usually provide the rebalancing energy. Thus, if we assume that gas was the replacement fuel for the onshore wind constrained off over the Easter holiday, we can estimate that the additional costs are a further £2.3 million, bringing the total additional cost of the wind farm constraints to £6 million over the four days."
But don't worry it'll all ...cough cough..blow over
One can't help but feel somewhat bamboozled as a simple and obviously ignorant member of the public when reading the text of the Contract for difference terms and conditions.
ROCs were almost understandable to the layman in terms of numbers.
CfD is an entirely different game which I don;t believe the laymen is expected to understand nor are they to be encouraged to take in interest - other than to compare one published price to another and perhaps make an assumption, right or wrong, based on what we have been fed through the compliant media.
So we have the "strike price" as the only "measure" of supposed effectiveness offered to the plebs.
Everyone, possibly rightly, was suggesting that the stike price for Hinckley Point nuclear generated electricity at somewhere between £92.50 and £95.00 comparative measurement units was far too much to pay.
I note that OffshoreWIND.biz has this comment about the strike price for East Anglia ONE.
"Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC), a UK government-owned company created to deliver key elements of the Electricity Market Reform Programme, confirmed that Contract for Difference (CfD) milestones for East Anglia ONE have been fulfilled.
With the CfD milestones achieved and confirmed by the Low Carbon Contracts Company, the project will be delivered at a price of £119/MWh, a cost reduction of 20% compared to other offshore wind farms that have been built in the UK, ScottishPower Renewables said."
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/04/27/east-anglia...
The strike price being confirmed by official numbers from the Government.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Maybe Paddy could explain why a variable and difficult to predict resource at 119 is good value when a far more consistent resource (based on the expected performance of the construction) at 95 is not.
ROCs were almost understandable to the layman in terms of numbers.
CfD is an entirely different game which I don;t believe the laymen is expected to understand nor are they to be encouraged to take in interest - other than to compare one published price to another and perhaps make an assumption, right or wrong, based on what we have been fed through the compliant media.
So we have the "strike price" as the only "measure" of supposed effectiveness offered to the plebs.
Everyone, possibly rightly, was suggesting that the stike price for Hinckley Point nuclear generated electricity at somewhere between £92.50 and £95.00 comparative measurement units was far too much to pay.
I note that OffshoreWIND.biz has this comment about the strike price for East Anglia ONE.
"Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC), a UK government-owned company created to deliver key elements of the Electricity Market Reform Programme, confirmed that Contract for Difference (CfD) milestones for East Anglia ONE have been fulfilled.
With the CfD milestones achieved and confirmed by the Low Carbon Contracts Company, the project will be delivered at a price of £119/MWh, a cost reduction of 20% compared to other offshore wind farms that have been built in the UK, ScottishPower Renewables said."
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/04/27/east-anglia...
The strike price being confirmed by official numbers from the Government.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Maybe Paddy could explain why a variable and difficult to predict resource at 119 is good value when a far more consistent resource (based on the expected performance of the construction) at 95 is not.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
No - No I am not.
I am not talking about the WTG.
I am talking about the PROJECT.
Once the Owner has bought the lease, and makes a decision to build the Project.
As alluded - all are different, some have huge onshore Cabling to the Substation / T&D Grid to factor IN TO THE PROJECT PRICE, others like Dogger Bank are luckier. Some have better soil conditions, some have .... well I am sure you can understand the other variables.
The point is an Owner builds a project to make revenue from Energy sold.
To date, some subsidy is required (less an less as time has gone by) to make the overall build cost of the project - as in the total cost to supply power to the grid, which will factor in the all aspect of fabrication, site surveys - onshore / offshore, UXO Clearance, WTG selection, Cabling, O&M Base / Vessels, O&M, the wind performance at that site, Mrs Miggins B&B for the contractors, the Turbine efficiency etc etc
My point for the umpteenth time. This. within five years. will. not. need. subsidy.
If you believe a Lease requires a subsidy, you really are best not taking a bet.
Depends on the type of renewable project really. A number of CHP and advanced gasification projects I have seen make far more from the RHI or ROCs than from the sale of the leccy / injection of the biomethane. I am not talking about the WTG.
I am talking about the PROJECT.
Once the Owner has bought the lease, and makes a decision to build the Project.
As alluded - all are different, some have huge onshore Cabling to the Substation / T&D Grid to factor IN TO THE PROJECT PRICE, others like Dogger Bank are luckier. Some have better soil conditions, some have .... well I am sure you can understand the other variables.
The point is an Owner builds a project to make revenue from Energy sold.
To date, some subsidy is required (less an less as time has gone by) to make the overall build cost of the project - as in the total cost to supply power to the grid, which will factor in the all aspect of fabrication, site surveys - onshore / offshore, UXO Clearance, WTG selection, Cabling, O&M Base / Vessels, O&M, the wind performance at that site, Mrs Miggins B&B for the contractors, the Turbine efficiency etc etc
My point for the umpteenth time. This. within five years. will. not. need. subsidy.
If you believe a Lease requires a subsidy, you really are best not taking a bet.
Hats off to the the investment funds who have made a very good industry from the subsidy farming.
In respect to wind, as P&M mentions ( and I mentioned a few pages ago) many investment funds are still making it work because some layers in the supply chain are taking much lower margins (WTG suppliers, EPC and &M contractors) as they realise that lower margin is better than no margin.
LongQ said:
One can't help but feel somewhat bamboozled as a simple and obviously ignorant member of the public when reading the text of the Contract for difference terms and conditions.
ROCs were almost understandable to the layman in terms of numbers.
CfD is an entirely different game which I don;t believe the laymen is expected to understand nor are they to be encouraged to take in interest - other than to compare one published price to another and perhaps make an assumption, right or wrong, based on what we have been fed through the compliant media.
So we have the "strike price" as the only "measure" of supposed effectiveness offered to the plebs.
Everyone, possibly rightly, was suggesting that the stike price for Hinckley Point nuclear generated electricity at somewhere between £92.50 and £95.00 comparative measurement units was far too much to pay.
I note that OffshoreWIND.biz has this comment about the strike price for East Anglia ONE.
"Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC), a UK government-owned company created to deliver key elements of the Electricity Market Reform Programme, confirmed that Contract for Difference (CfD) milestones for East Anglia ONE have been fulfilled.
With the CfD milestones achieved and confirmed by the Low Carbon Contracts Company, the project will be delivered at a price of £119/MWh, a cost reduction of 20% compared to other offshore wind farms that have been built in the UK, ScottishPower Renewables said."
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/04/27/east-anglia...
The strike price being confirmed by official numbers from the Government.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Maybe Paddy could explain why a variable and difficult to predict resource at 119 is good value when a far more consistent resource (based on the expected performance of the construction) at 95 is not.
It's not quite apples and applies unfortunately. I think the Hinkley CfD is 35 years, whereas offshore are 15 years. So you can't read across from CfD levels to technology costs. Either extend the annuity period on the wind to 35 years (and it becomes much cheaper comparatively) or reduce the nuc period to 15 years for a more reasonable comparison.ROCs were almost understandable to the layman in terms of numbers.
CfD is an entirely different game which I don;t believe the laymen is expected to understand nor are they to be encouraged to take in interest - other than to compare one published price to another and perhaps make an assumption, right or wrong, based on what we have been fed through the compliant media.
So we have the "strike price" as the only "measure" of supposed effectiveness offered to the plebs.
Everyone, possibly rightly, was suggesting that the stike price for Hinckley Point nuclear generated electricity at somewhere between £92.50 and £95.00 comparative measurement units was far too much to pay.
I note that OffshoreWIND.biz has this comment about the strike price for East Anglia ONE.
"Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC), a UK government-owned company created to deliver key elements of the Electricity Market Reform Programme, confirmed that Contract for Difference (CfD) milestones for East Anglia ONE have been fulfilled.
With the CfD milestones achieved and confirmed by the Low Carbon Contracts Company, the project will be delivered at a price of £119/MWh, a cost reduction of 20% compared to other offshore wind farms that have been built in the UK, ScottishPower Renewables said."
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/04/27/east-anglia...
The strike price being confirmed by official numbers from the Government.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Maybe Paddy could explain why a variable and difficult to predict resource at 119 is good value when a far more consistent resource (based on the expected performance of the construction) at 95 is not.
Reading this thread with interest... it struck me the only generation plant that have been built without some form of direct subsidy, or limited indirect subsidy (assuming the NTS is a sunk cost) is CCGT. Everything else has had massive direct subsidy - including renewables and, lest we forget, state-built coal and nucs. And no more CCGT will be built without substantial Capacity Payments.
I'm less optimistic than PnM about subsidy free offshore - I too see all the cost reductions, but I just see investors perceiving low gas prices as too high risk to invest on the back of - at least within 5 years. It does then beg the question, given history and current investment climate whether anything can be built without subsidy - direct or indirect?
A view on US costs for nuclear vs wind
http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbe...
http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbe...
extracts from article said:
It would cost over $29 Trillion to generate America’s baseload electric power with a 50 / 50 mix of wind and solar farms, on parcels of land totaling the area of Indiana. Or:
-
-
We could do it for less than $3 Trillion with AP-1000 Light Water Reactors, on parcels totaling a few square miles.
-
-
We could do it for less than $3 Trillion with AP-1000 Light Water Reactors, on parcels totaling a few square miles.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Did I say EA! (East Anglia phase one) was fantastic value for money TODAY ? Not sure I did, but stated it as a 'fact' - the last project to get the rubber stamp for build under a subsidy regime.
It won two years ago IIRC beating all other 'Strike Prices' in the UK that Auction.
Feelings are that this coming Auction (April) will see the progress I have been perpetually alluding to and the direction this is going and hence the bet I am up for.
What was a great price then for Iberdrola (a mere 24 months ago) is now seen expensive by You, and the industry.
Then, 8MW WTG's were on drawing boards - didn't exist. Now they are installing - yet upgrading to 8.3MW's already.
This growth gives my line of work a real headache and huge financial investment complications, but I digress
Anyways - EA1 £119/MWh
Triton Knoll is seen as the current doozie of a Project up for the next CFD Auction.
Its physical characteristics (Water depths, Technologies in WTG size and hence number of installations and cables required etc consent envelopes, distance to shore for transmission and O&M, and lastly local infrastructure - to the immediate forefront of my thoughts I would imagine there are twice as many reasons in reality)
Yet -RWE (Stakraft by tendrils) are less 'Organised' than Dong.
The Latter also does not need to finance (hence including the cost model) and has project pipeline and continuity of project teams / assets. And Form.
Expect to see Hornsea's next phase be in the fight.
Numbers floating around are expecting low eighties. Lets be prudent and say £85/MWh
Progress in two years as a percent from EA1 to my guess.....
See my point ?
The problem is also the limitations of the Pot of money up for the Auction ironically - or the top up and rule book.
EA1, 714MW total capacity again IIRC.
It was designed and optimised at the consented 1,200MW. The array layouts, the Substation / HVDC configuration the job lot. the optimised and most efficient model for the site.
Because of the CFD Auction (and limitations therein) meant that there was no way that 1,200MW could be 'supported' - so the site was compromised.
And all sites vying for the CFD pot will always be (you have read the rules / constraints).
So - If the site can be designed to the Optimised / Efficient £/MWh number, combined with the pro rata progress from the Strike price of EA1 to what is suspected for 2017...... mix the two together, through some more progress in technologies and reliabilities ( I have seen designs for 10MW and 12MW turbines that are intended for FID projects in 2020) you can see where it is going and why I wanted to put £100 down.
Free of the constraints - further price drops will be realised. Fact.
For those querying what the difference in these MW turbines are..... I would guess the biggest WTG you see Onshore is a 2.3 / 2.5MW turbine.
Other than the 'fell of the back of a lorry' Redcar / Teesside site built in 2013, that size hasn't been installed offshore for over 5 years.
Typical (minimum?) size of a WTG offshore installed today would be as per Rampion, off the coast of Brighton as we speak.
Hundred odd 3.45MW WTG's each bigger than the London Eye (135m Diam)
All projects under Tender for construction are 7, 8 or 10MW. 200m Diam.
Now just to add to the mix and all the stupid comments here including 'doesn't blow where I live' and 'Flappy Windmills' - any guesses where the biggest number of loss of production claims to the Site owners come from ?
(and therefore another node to focus on in the quest to fortify the Offshore Wind energy case)
Opinions / aholes. Just mine. But Bravo for at least getting on board and reading about the current system of CFD (albeit, this is obviously the UK's 'mechanism'. Holland, Germany and Denmark have different. Don't talk to me about France - I've too many bets out on there already)
Blah ,Blah Blahhhhh!!! It won two years ago IIRC beating all other 'Strike Prices' in the UK that Auction.
Feelings are that this coming Auction (April) will see the progress I have been perpetually alluding to and the direction this is going and hence the bet I am up for.
What was a great price then for Iberdrola (a mere 24 months ago) is now seen expensive by You, and the industry.
Then, 8MW WTG's were on drawing boards - didn't exist. Now they are installing - yet upgrading to 8.3MW's already.
This growth gives my line of work a real headache and huge financial investment complications, but I digress
Anyways - EA1 £119/MWh
Triton Knoll is seen as the current doozie of a Project up for the next CFD Auction.
Its physical characteristics (Water depths, Technologies in WTG size and hence number of installations and cables required etc consent envelopes, distance to shore for transmission and O&M, and lastly local infrastructure - to the immediate forefront of my thoughts I would imagine there are twice as many reasons in reality)
Yet -RWE (Stakraft by tendrils) are less 'Organised' than Dong.
The Latter also does not need to finance (hence including the cost model) and has project pipeline and continuity of project teams / assets. And Form.
Expect to see Hornsea's next phase be in the fight.
Numbers floating around are expecting low eighties. Lets be prudent and say £85/MWh
Progress in two years as a percent from EA1 to my guess.....
See my point ?
The problem is also the limitations of the Pot of money up for the Auction ironically - or the top up and rule book.
EA1, 714MW total capacity again IIRC.
It was designed and optimised at the consented 1,200MW. The array layouts, the Substation / HVDC configuration the job lot. the optimised and most efficient model for the site.
Because of the CFD Auction (and limitations therein) meant that there was no way that 1,200MW could be 'supported' - so the site was compromised.
And all sites vying for the CFD pot will always be (you have read the rules / constraints).
So - If the site can be designed to the Optimised / Efficient £/MWh number, combined with the pro rata progress from the Strike price of EA1 to what is suspected for 2017...... mix the two together, through some more progress in technologies and reliabilities ( I have seen designs for 10MW and 12MW turbines that are intended for FID projects in 2020) you can see where it is going and why I wanted to put £100 down.
Free of the constraints - further price drops will be realised. Fact.
For those querying what the difference in these MW turbines are..... I would guess the biggest WTG you see Onshore is a 2.3 / 2.5MW turbine.
Other than the 'fell of the back of a lorry' Redcar / Teesside site built in 2013, that size hasn't been installed offshore for over 5 years.
Typical (minimum?) size of a WTG offshore installed today would be as per Rampion, off the coast of Brighton as we speak.
Hundred odd 3.45MW WTG's each bigger than the London Eye (135m Diam)
All projects under Tender for construction are 7, 8 or 10MW. 200m Diam.
Now just to add to the mix and all the stupid comments here including 'doesn't blow where I live' and 'Flappy Windmills' - any guesses where the biggest number of loss of production claims to the Site owners come from ?
(and therefore another node to focus on in the quest to fortify the Offshore Wind energy case)
Opinions / a
holes. Just mine. But Bravo for at least getting on board and reading about the current system of CFD (albeit, this is obviously the UK's 'mechanism'. Holland, Germany and Denmark have different. Don't talk to me about France - I've too many bets out on there already)Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Monday 27th March 23:26
Seven Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970 That Were Just Dead Wrong
"Global warming is pseudoscience" (and politics)
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
"Global warming is pseudoscience" (and politics)
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff