Windfarms

[Harsh]

so basically what we're all saying is....

there's no coordinated and efficient answer to our energy supply issues?

[s2art]

Harsh said:

so basically what we're all saying is....

there's no coordinated and efficient answer to our energy supply issues?

Well, there is potentially; nuclear power.

[Scuffers]

LongQ said:

OJ said:

I always wonder this. Seeing as we get a load of energy bought in from France, ...

The infrastructure costs of cabling and distribution in general are likely to be greater than the cost of the generation units. Rarely discussed.

Unless thing have changed a lot recently we don't get a lot of power from France. AFAIK there is only one relatively low capacity link and it's not reliable. That is why we have a potential problem with large production from windfarms. The rest of Europe, notably the Danes, have alternatives they can at least potentially call on to share excess output or power shortfall. The Danes, for example, can connect to German, Sweden or Norway and buy top up electricity if required or pay to have their own excess output taken away to avoid trashing their grid and wind generators. We don't have that ability at the moment as far as I am aware.

However it would be true to say that France owns a large part of our electricity generating and distribution capacity. As does Germany.

yes and no...

something like 30% of generated power is lost in transmission (heating up the lines etc), the further away you put the power plant, the greater the losses.

the UK imports some 5-6% of the total from France these days, it would be more, but the link is not big enough, and some 80%+ of France is Nuclear.

The whole renewable argument is great till you actually work out the real costs in both £ and CO of building and maintaining them, if it was not for the stupidly high levels of subsidy, nobody in their right minds would build them, the whole industry at the moment is one big con-trick.

If you want the green alternative, you either have to go with HUGE water projects that costs £££ and have massive impact on the environment, or nuclear (unless you propose we go back to the stone age?)

All this talk of Electric cars etc, think about where the power is going to come from? Hydrogen needs power to produce etc etc.

Only real issue with nuclear is security, the actual amount of waste you get is miniscule (relatively speaking), the real stumbling blocks are political (people are stupid and believe the scaremongering green lobby), and financial, as in the government would rather spend the money bailing out banks than investing in the countries infrastructure.

[Jimbo.]

...why they don't use wave power I don't know, far more garanteed energy.

Near-ish land at least you'll disrupt erosion and sediment transport, so you'll lose beaches in some areas, enhance coastal erosion in others and have (potentially "excessive") deposition in the rest. Wave and tidal = bad, m'kay...

[pgtips]

Costs of wind power is all relative. All the talk of no one developing renewables without the subsidy misses the point. Wind power receives a subsidy (a ROC), a tax exemption to the climate change levy (CCL) and the wholesale price of power. The latter is highly correlated to the oil price (through indexation to long term gas contracts). At oil prices of $150 /bbl +, the wholesale power price will be sufficiently high to deliver a reasonable IRR without subsidy and the costs of wind would be on a par ('grid parity') with conventional generation.

I'm not suggesting the subsidy is likely to go away - on the contrary the recent consultation from the Government suggests it will be reinforced - but the combo of high oil prices and the strengthened RO shoudl deliver good returns to some investors.

Wave power is still very embryonic but a small project just been commissioned in Portugal (2.5 MW). Wave (and tidal) significantly more costly than wind generation at the moment. Long term though there are godo prospects for it in GB. Key difference from wind is that whilst both are intermittent, wave and tidal are predicable - therefore do not put the same operational constraints on the grid and conventional plant as the unpredictable wind plant.

Always an interesting discussion though

[elster]

pgtips said:

Costs of wind power is all relative. All the talk of no one developing renewables without the subsidy misses the point. Wind power receives a subsidy (a ROC), a tax exemption to the climate change levy (CCL) and the wholesale price of power. The latter is highly correlated to the oil price (through indexation to long term gas contracts). At oil prices of $150 /bbl +, the wholesale power price will be sufficiently high to deliver a reasonable IRR without subsidy and the costs of wind would be on a par ('grid parity') with conventional generation.

I'm not suggesting the subsidy is likely to go away - on the contrary the recent consultation from the Government suggests it will be reinforced - but the combo of high oil prices and the strengthened RO shoudl deliver good returns to some investors.

Wave power is still very embryonic but a small project just been commissioned in Portugal (2.5 MW). Wave (and tidal) significantly more costly than wind generation at the moment. Long term though there are godo prospects for it in GB. Key difference from wind is that whilst both are intermittent, wave and tidal are predicable - therefore do not put the same operational constraints on the grid and conventional plant as the unpredictable wind plant.

Always an interesting discussion though

It is more expensive than Coal to produce a unit of electricity by wind. Approx values that have been mentioned is about 30p compare to 80p. Surely if they got rid of the subsidies it would be even more expensive. So the oposite would happen.

[pgtips]

Depends what you mean by costs of generating. The variable costs (coal plus carbon permits) is approx £40 /MWh currently, whereas gas is around £55 /MWh. The new entrant cost (or Long Run Marginal Cost) for coal is closer to £70 /MWh - that assumes you can get a plant permitted without having carbon capture and storage. Wind costs are approx correct (depends on turbine costs). The point being that if oil price rises which pushes up gas (and indirectly coal), and / or the carbon price rises then the wholesale price of power (which is mainly set by gas generating plant) would also increase. It won't take much of a shift upwards in either coal, gas or carbon pricing for wind (assume £80 /MWh) to be on a par with coal and gas generation costs: in other words the wind plant could earn a reasonable rate of return just on the power price alone - the subsidy delivers super economic profit. As it happens at the moment a lot of the subsidy value is earnt not be generators by equipment manufacturers - they price in the subsidy into the infrastructure costs. Ceteris Paribus one effect of removing the subidy would be to lower the infrastructure costs

[turbobloke]

pgtips said:

Depends what you mean by costs of generating. The variable costs (coal plus carbon permits) is approx £40 /MWh currently, whereas gas is around £55 /MWh. The new entrant cost (or Long Run Marginal Cost) for coal is closer to £70 /MWh - that assumes you can get a plant permitted without having carbon capture and storage. Wind costs are approx correct (depends on turbine costs)

The last figures I saw for the taxpayer subsidy to windymills, through Renewables Obligastion Certificates and Climate Change Levy exemption, was £45/MWh.

Some info on our current (October-November 2008) situation, which is dire and for which wind power has no answer:

The forward price of electricity for November hit highs of £133 per megawatt hour, up more than £10 since Friday, when the same contract was trading at about £122.75. The price of power has risen sharply since National Grid published figures last week predicting an unusually thin margin between electricity supply and demand. For the week starting November 10, National Grid gave warning that the margin of spare capacity could be as slim as 0.8 gigawatts - the equivalent of one mid-sized coal-fired power station or the electricity consumed by a city the size of Nottingham. “The market is very close to its safety limit,” Andrew Horstead, of the energy consultancy Utilyx, said. In an average week in March, the margin of spare capacity is more than 12 times higher - about 10GW - rising to more than 16GW in July or August

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/ind...

[pgtips]

turbobloke said:

pgtips said:

Depends what you mean by costs of generating. The variable costs (coal plus carbon permits) is approx £40 /MWh currently, whereas gas is around £55 /MWh. The new entrant cost (or Long Run Marginal Cost) for coal is closer to £70 /MWh - that assumes you can get a plant permitted without having carbon capture and storage. Wind costs are approx correct (depends on turbine costs)

The last figures I saw for the taxpayer subsidy to windymills, through Renewables Obligastion Certificates and Climate Change Levy exemption, was £45/MWh.

Some info on our current (October-November 2008) situation, which is dire and for which wind power has no answer:

The forward price of electricity for November hit highs of £133 per megawatt hour, up more than £10 since Friday, when the same contract was trading at about £122.75. The price of power has risen sharply since National Grid published figures last week predicting an unusually thin margin between electricity supply and demand. For the week starting November 10, National Grid gave warning that the margin of spare capacity could be as slim as 0.8 gigawatts - the equivalent of one mid-sized coal-fired power station or the electricity consumed by a city the size of Nottingham. “The market is very close to its safety limit,” Andrew Horstead, of the energy consultancy Utilyx, said. In an average week in March, the margin of spare capacity is more than 12 times higher - about 10GW - rising to more than 16GW in July or August

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/ind...

You need to be a bit careful in how you apply the numbers here - otherwise the costs look massively inflated. The ROC price is currently £51 /MWh: this is received by the renewable generator (depends on how they contract for the power but let's assume they get the 'spot' price). So if we have approximately 20 TWh of renewable generation the total paid to generators is 20 TWh * £51/MWh. The cost of this is paid by consumers in their power bills. However, the effective £/MWh paid by you and me is diluted by 20/340 (where 340 is total national demand). So we are effectively paying approx £3/MWh for the RO, not the £45 /MWh (or £51) quoted.

The April 2009 forward price for power today is around £60 /MWh - suspect the number you quote was a short term spot price and very few people woudl contract substantial volumes at that.

[turbobloke]

I'm careful enough, perhaps you just don't like what gets said.

So you see no energy crunch ahead - purely due to the saving grace of windfarms?

[pgtips]

turbobloke said:

I'm careful enough, perhaps you just don't like what gets said.

So you see no energy crunch ahead - purely due to the saving grace of windfarms?

Apologies - thought you were implying that we were all paying £45 /MWh in subsidy! Just keen to make sure everyone has the facts on how the RO works. Persoanlly I think wind plant have a role in the generation mix (as does conventional plant including coal and gas). i do see problems with significantly increasing nuclear generation and wind generation - the inflexibility of nucs and intermittency of wind would cause significant price volatility.

Re - energy crunch. A much used but often infrequently defined term! This could take many forms - lack of capcity per se (although we now have around 8 GW of CCGT under construction and falling demand now) so risk of this diminished. Or energy crunch could be lack of diversity and over reliance on gas. Or could just be high oil prices. Or could be a crisis based on new European legilsation. Wind plant will have a role in providing some diversity and reducing exposure to carbon and oil prices, but certainly not the whole answer (and I don't think anyone in the industry woudl claim they are).

[kambites]

I think they're rather pretty looking things. There used to be a humongous turbine near where I was brought up and I always thought it made the hillside look better.

From an energy generation perspective I think they have their place, but they can't be a complete solution because, oddly enough, they are reliant on there being wind. They aren't cheap, but then neither is anything else except fossil fuels.

ETA: It's worth noting that they are getting much more efficient, both in power generation terms and in manufacturing cost terms. They are still, in many ways, an experimental technology.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 11th November 08:34

[Wacky Racer]

moleamol said:

Wacky Racer said:

We have one of the largest ones in England (Scout Moor) nearby....I wasn't keen at first, but you do get used to them, and they are no worse than electricity pylons.....like the atom bomb they are not going to go away.............

Is that likely to be the one I can see from the higher points in Wigan? We previously thought it was one in Yorkshire.

I doubt you would be able to see it from Wigan, but if you look in the direction of Bury/Rochdale, yes it could well be......

[turbobloke]

pgtips said:

turbobloke said:

I'm careful enough, perhaps you just don't like what gets said.

So you see no energy crunch ahead - purely due to the saving grace of windfarms?

Apologies - thought you were implying that we were all paying £45 /MWh in subsidy! Just keen to make sure everyone has the facts on how the RO works.

Me too!

A parliamentary written answer revealed that the cost of the Renewables Obligation - those government certificates issued to wind farm operators that make wind power economical to run in the first place through taxpayer subsidies which we're discussing - will be £25 billion between 2002 and 2027.

That's what we're all paying and it amounts to more than £1000 per household. Or has somebody misled parliament?

[Howitzer]

To me the biggest advantage of wind power is local supplies for factories, industrial units etc to lower the demand on the grid. These companies should be giving tax breaks. It may not be close to supplying the load they need 100% of the time but if it reduces the consumption of fuel from our power stations then it has to be a good thing.

Short cable runs
Less distruction of land
Direct savings

In Holland they have gas engines at a tomato plant. The exhaust gases are pumped into the greenhouses boosting the CO2 and the heat from the engine is used to heat the greenhouses. The electricity is then sold to the grid.

A power station big enough to meet demands is essential, whether it be nuclear or fossil fueled, if you can turn off the generators though for long periods of time then you'll save huge amounts of natural resources.

These resources can then be put into my car :-D

Dave!

[garycat]

I've no idea why they are building more wind farms, it's already windy enough where I live.

[pgtips]

turbobloke said:

pgtips said:

turbobloke said:

I'm careful enough, perhaps you just don't like what gets said.

So you see no energy crunch ahead - purely due to the saving grace of windfarms?

Apologies - thought you were implying that we were all paying £45 /MWh in subsidy! Just keen to make sure everyone has the facts on how the RO works.

Me too!

A parliamentary written answer revealed that the cost of the Renewables Obligation - those government certificates issued to wind farm operators that make wind power economical to run in the first place through taxpayer subsidies which we're discussing - will be £25 billion between 2002 and 2027.

That's what we're all paying and it amounts to more than £1000 per household. Or has somebody misled parliament?

£25bn over 26 years spread over a cumulative total of 10,000 TWh (assuming demand stays approx the same as today) equals £3 /MWh. In your £1000 per household I think you have forgotten that commercial and industrial customers also pay the RO. Agreed that if only domestics paid the RO it would amount to approx £1000 over a 26 year period, but you need to include industrial and commercial use as well. Hence better to look at it on a £/MWh basis and the headline is dramatically less than £1000 / household.

[turbobloke]

pgtips said:

turbobloke said:

pgtips said:

turbobloke said:

I'm careful enough, perhaps you just don't like what gets said.

So you see no energy crunch ahead - purely due to the saving grace of windfarms?

Apologies - thought you were implying that we were all paying £45 /MWh in subsidy! Just keen to make sure everyone has the facts on how the RO works.

Me too!

A parliamentary written answer revealed that the cost of the Renewables Obligation - those government certificates issued to wind farm operators that make wind power economical to run in the first place through taxpayer subsidies which we're discussing - will be £25 billion between 2002 and 2027.

That's what we're all paying and it amounts to more than £1000 per household. Or has somebody misled parliament?

£25bn over 26 years spread over a cumulative total of 10,000 TWh (assuming demand stays approx the same as today) equals £3 /MWh. In your £1000 per household I think you have forgotten that commercial and industrial customers also pay the RO. Agreed that if only domestics paid the RO it would amount to approx £1000 over a 26 year period, but you need to include industrial and commercial use as well. Hence better to look at it on a £/MWh basis and the headline is dramatically less than £1000 / household.

You've forgotten that commercial and industrial consumers pass on cost increases, which I do mention in my previous posts with these figures. Household costs will increase as stated.

[pgtips]

turbobloke said:

pgtips said:

turbobloke said:

pgtips said:

turbobloke said:

I'm careful enough, perhaps you just don't like what gets said.

So you see no energy crunch ahead - purely due to the saving grace of windfarms?

Apologies - thought you were implying that we were all paying £45 /MWh in subsidy! Just keen to make sure everyone has the facts on how the RO works.

Me too!

A parliamentary written answer revealed that the cost of the Renewables Obligation - those government certificates issued to wind farm operators that make wind power economical to run in the first place through taxpayer subsidies which we're discussing - will be £25 billion between 2002 and 2027.

That's what we're all paying and it amounts to more than £1000 per household. Or has somebody misled parliament?

£25bn over 26 years spread over a cumulative total of 10,000 TWh (assuming demand stays approx the same as today) equals £3 /MWh. In your £1000 per household I think you have forgotten that commercial and industrial customers also pay the RO. Agreed that if only domestics paid the RO it would amount to approx £1000 over a 26 year period, but you need to include industrial and commercial use as well. Hence better to look at it on a £/MWh basis and the headline is dramatically less than £1000 / household.

You've forgotten that commercial and industrial consumers pass on cost increases. What idealistuic world do you inhabit?

Uh? Right - so following your logic we live in a closed, single system society with no imports / exports and the UK domestic household bears the full cost.... right! Even were that true, the metric of per household is inappropriate - better to illustrate per head of ppulation surely as the population bears the cost, not the household.

Not in anyway disagreeing with you that the RO is costly (and more costly than the equivalent schemes in Germany where they have direct tariffs), but putting the costs into perspective £25bn is around 2% of the total power costs over next 26 years. Personally from a cost perspective I'd be more worried about the latest oil price forecasts from the International Energy Agency....

[turbobloke]

pgtips said:

turbobloke said:

pgtips said:

turbobloke said:

pgtips said:

turbobloke said:

I'm careful enough, perhaps you just don't like what gets said.

So you see no energy crunch ahead - purely due to the saving grace of windfarms?

Apologies - thought you were implying that we were all paying £45 /MWh in subsidy! Just keen to make sure everyone has the facts on how the RO works.

Me too!

A parliamentary written answer revealed that the cost of the Renewables Obligation - those government certificates issued to wind farm operators that make wind power economical to run in the first place through taxpayer subsidies which we're discussing - will be £25 billion between 2002 and 2027.

That's what we're all paying and it amounts to more than £1000 per household. Or has somebody misled parliament?

£25bn over 26 years spread over a cumulative total of 10,000 TWh (assuming demand stays approx the same as today) equals £3 /MWh. In your £1000 per household I think you have forgotten that commercial and industrial customers also pay the RO. Agreed that if only domestics paid the RO it would amount to approx £1000 over a 26 year period, but you need to include industrial and commercial use as well. Hence better to look at it on a £/MWh basis and the headline is dramatically less than £1000 / household.

You've forgotten that commercial and industrial consumers pass on cost increases. What idealistuic world do you inhabit?

Uh? Right - so following your logic we live in a closed, single system

Uh? And how complex does your system have to be to realise that as fuel and energy costs increased recently, the price of goods and services to households increased too? You are living in a dreamworld full of windymills where others swallow your information pollution.

You joined PH, have started one or two threads in the entire time on here (any car related?) and have only replied to this one, plus one on electric cars, and a couple of smokescreen domestics. No cars listed. Perhaps we should ask which internet rapid response group you belong to, or which vested interest organisation you have links with. Either way you make no sense but keep it up, at least you might learn something from others' replies.

Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 11th November 09:32