Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[don4l]

pgtips said:

You're funny - really funny. Where did I say renewables were a good thing? Not an advocate of any technology, matey. Just thought I'd lob in a few facts and see how the forum reacted. Renewables costs have fallen substantially in last 18 moths... fact. Don't make em good, don't make em bad - just a fact. Pretty predictably with you inparticular - immediatel personal references. You used the phrase "playing the man not the ball2 several pages ago" - stick with the ball.

I always get a bit suspicious when somebody uses the word "fact".

How much are we currently paying for wind power, and how much were we paying 18 months ago?


How much are we currently paying for solar power, and how much were we paying 18 months ago?

[pgtips]

don4l said:

I always get a bit suspicious when somebody uses the word "fact".

How much are we currently paying for wind power, and how much were we paying 18 months ago?


How much are we currently paying for solar power, and how much were we paying 18 months ago?

Lots of different questions there... In GB the CfD for Pot 1 renewable technologies (that is solar and onshore wind primarily) cleared at a strike price of circa £80/MWh in Feb 2015. That means the developer is awarded a contract for 15 years and is guaranteed to receive an income of 80 £/MWh through the combination of the wholesale price and the 'top-up' payment from the Levy Control Framework pot. Currently there are no more Pot 1 auctions planned - there may be future auctions for Pot 2 technologies (mainly offshore).

So to get the evidence base on the change in costs, there are two real sources. First we can look at the fall in renewable auctions costs around the globe. So recently auctions in Mexico have cleared at 33 $/MWh, whereas last year it was 46 $/MWh - there are lots of other good examples. Over the last 6 months the clearing price in the auctions have steadily fallen to this level - hence the trend in falling costs mainly due to lower capex of panels and turbines. Note I'm not suggesting GB can get to prices this low any time soon due to higher development costs here and (in the case of solar) lower natural resource. But even when you factor in the lower resource (esp for solar), the levelised costs fall substantially below the 80 £/MWh we were 18 months ago.

So the second point, is the growing trend towards corporate PPAs or large corporates entering into long term offtake contracts with RES-E generators - ie subsidy free renewable plant. These contracts are still being priced above today's wholesale prices, but corporates are willing to enter into these contracts because: a) they want energy cost stability over the next 15 years and this means derisking against the volatile natural gas price (gas drivers our power prices) and b) the cost of entering into these contracts is much lower than it was due to the narrowing gap between renewable costs (ie below the 80 £/MWh) and the potential rise in the wholesale price. There are some public domain datapoints on these contract types. Some good info on data-centres in Ireland signing these contracts.

Whether one sees new renewables as good or bad from an economic perspective depends on expectations around future natural gas prices and the riskiness of this. If gas prices are high, power prices are high and renewables (and indeed nuclear) could look like good value to the consumer, whereas if gas prices are low they are relatively expensive.

To your original question - how much do renewables cost us consumers? Unfortunately in GB we are not benefitting from the recent fall in costs of new renewables. Plant pre-2016 are under 20 year subsidy arrangements under the RO, and the CfD plant are under 15 year fixed price contracts (Hinkley under a similar arrangement albeit over a much longer time frame). The only benefit consumers will see in the medium term is a slight disconnect from commodity prices (gas and carbon) to power prices, as the levels of low carbon generation rises and the carbon intensity of the system falls.

The reason I raised the original point about the significant fall in costs is the future for the power system is looking quite different as a result. (And for the sake of clarity in this forum - I am not a renewable advocate, lobbyist or even developer!) The fall in costs, coupled with the innovation we are currently seeing in the provision of balancing services to manage intermittency (whether batteries, thermal plant adapting their running regimes or through smart grids) is changing the system quite dramatically. The challenge for Government is to make sure we have enough energy (from gas, renewables and nucs), enough flexibility (mainly from storage, embedded peakers and increasingly DSR) and enough capacity at times of system stress (we have seen a few hours already in September). Aligning the economic incentives for these competing sources, with the demands around sustainability and cost ain't easy! And this is in industry that is increasingly politicised with multiple interest groups.

[wc98]

Ali G said:

http://gridwatch.co.uk/

Currently:

Nuclear 28.5% - and reliable
Wind 17.2% - completely unreliable
Gas 38.9% - dependant upon supply
Others bal fig to 100%

The means for the UK to provide energy security depends upon 'dependant upon supply' (Gas) to fll the void when 'completely unreliable' wind fails to deliver.

The current insecurity of UK energy is borne of political ideology.

Go figure..

never mind , we have this to look forward to when we next have a proper winter.

"This comes on the heels of a damning report that says that the power instability of wind farms dropping out caused the grid to collapse. The report, by the AEMO, said:"

Event

The predicted weather front moved through SA on the afternoon of Wednesday 28 September 2016, including high winds, thunderstorms, lightning strikes, hail, and heavy rainfall.

The weather resulted in multiple transmission system faults. In the short time between 16:16 and 16:18, system faults included the loss of three major 275 kV transmission lines north of Adelaide. Generation initially rode through the faults, but at 16:18, following an extensive number of faults in a short period, 315 MW of wind generation disconnected (one group at 16:18:09, a second group at 16:18:15), also affecting the region north of Adelaide.

The uncontrolled reduction in generation resulted in increased flow on the main Victorian interconnector (Heywood) to make up the deficit. This resulted in the Heywood Interconnector overloading. To avoid damage to the interconnector, the automatic-protection mechanism activated, tripping the interconnector. In this event, this resulted in the remaining customer load and electricity generation in SA being lost (referred to as a Black System). This automatic-protection operated in less than half a second at 16:18. The event resulted in the SA regional electricity market being suspended.
http://www.aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/-/media/BE174B...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/05/australian-...

[wc98]

turbobloke said:

They must be codding.



The item to which I refer is the codpiece.

Apparently cod can't use changes in facial expression to attract a mate, so they use a variety of rumblings from their swim bladder.

In doing so, some have developed a scouse accent (suitably bladdered) that other fish may find incodgruous.

This makes them vulnerable to climate change.

easy life for male cod , they just have to sit and wait on the ladies. the females approach massed groups of males on or around the full moon and select their mate. none of this paying for meals/drinks malarkey .

[don4l]

pgtips said:

don4l said:

I always get a bit suspicious when somebody uses the word "fact".

How much are we currently paying for wind power, and how much were we paying 18 months ago?


How much are we currently paying for solar power, and how much were we paying 18 months ago?

Lots of different questions there... In GB the CfD for Pot 1 renewable technologies (that is solar and onshore wind primarily) cleared at a strike price of circa £80/MWh in Feb 2015. That means the developer is awarded a contract for 15 years and is guaranteed to receive an income of 80 £/MWh through the combination of the wholesale price and the 'top-up' payment from the Levy Control Framework pot. Currently there are no more Pot 1 auctions planned - there may be future auctions for Pot 2 technologies (mainly offshore).

So to get the evidence base on the change in costs, there are two real sources. First we can look at the fall in renewable auctions costs around the globe. So recently auctions in Mexico have cleared at 33 $/MWh, whereas last year it was 46 $/MWh - there are lots of other good examples. Over the last 6 months the clearing price in the auctions have steadily fallen to this level - hence the trend in falling costs mainly due to lower capex of panels and turbines. Note I'm not suggesting GB can get to prices this low any time soon due to higher development costs here and (in the case of solar) lower natural resource. But even when you factor in the lower resource (esp for solar), the levelised costs fall substantially below the 80 £/MWh we were 18 months ago.

So the second point, is the growing trend towards corporate PPAs or large corporates entering into long term offtake contracts with RES-E generators - ie subsidy free renewable plant. These contracts are still being priced above today's wholesale prices, but corporates are willing to enter into these contracts because: a) they want energy cost stability over the next 15 years and this means derisking against the volatile natural gas price (gas drivers our power prices) and b) the cost of entering into these contracts is much lower than it was due to the narrowing gap between renewable costs (ie below the 80 £/MWh) and the potential rise in the wholesale price. There are some public domain datapoints on these contract types. Some good info on data-centres in Ireland signing these contracts.

Whether one sees new renewables as good or bad from an economic perspective depends on expectations around future natural gas prices and the riskiness of this. If gas prices are high, power prices are high and renewables (and indeed nuclear) could look like good value to the consumer, whereas if gas prices are low they are relatively expensive.

To your original question - how much do renewables cost us consumers? Unfortunately in GB we are not benefitting from the recent fall in costs of new renewables. Plant pre-2016 are under 20 year subsidy arrangements under the RO, and the CfD plant are under 15 year fixed price contracts (Hinkley under a similar arrangement albeit over a much longer time frame). The only benefit consumers will see in the medium term is a slight disconnect from commodity prices (gas and carbon) to power prices, as the levels of low carbon generation rises and the carbon intensity of the system falls.

The reason I raised the original point about the significant fall in costs is the future for the power system is looking quite different as a result. (And for the sake of clarity in this forum - I am not a renewable advocate, lobbyist or even developer!) The fall in costs, coupled with the innovation we are currently seeing in the provision of balancing services to manage intermittency (whether batteries, thermal plant adapting their running regimes or through smart grids) is changing the system quite dramatically. The challenge for Government is to make sure we have enough energy (from gas, renewables and nucs), enough flexibility (mainly from storage, embedded peakers and increasingly DSR) and enough capacity at times of system stress (we have seen a few hours already in September). Aligning the economic incentives for these competing sources, with the demands around sustainability and cost ain't easy! And this is in industry that is increasingly politicised with multiple interest groups.

Bloody Hell!

That was a very long winded way of admitting that you were wrong.

The costs haven't come down at all.

You say that we are paying £80.00 per GW hour for renewable energy.

Would you care to tell our readers how much a GW hour costs when using imported gas? £26.00 appears to be the answer. Imagine how cheap electricity will be once we get fracking.

[paulrockliffe]

don4l said:

pgtips said:

don4l said:

I always get a bit suspicious when somebody uses the word "fact".

How much are we currently paying for wind power, and how much were we paying 18 months ago?


How much are we currently paying for solar power, and how much were we paying 18 months ago?

Lots of different questions there... In GB the CfD for Pot 1 renewable technologies (that is solar and onshore wind primarily) cleared at a strike price of circa £80/MWh in Feb 2015. That means the developer is awarded a contract for 15 years and is guaranteed to receive an income of 80 £/MWh through the combination of the wholesale price and the 'top-up' payment from the Levy Control Framework pot. Currently there are no more Pot 1 auctions planned - there may be future auctions for Pot 2 technologies (mainly offshore).

So to get the evidence base on the change in costs, there are two real sources. First we can look at the fall in renewable auctions costs around the globe. So recently auctions in Mexico have cleared at 33 $/MWh, whereas last year it was 46 $/MWh - there are lots of other good examples. Over the last 6 months the clearing price in the auctions have steadily fallen to this level - hence the trend in falling costs mainly due to lower capex of panels and turbines. Note I'm not suggesting GB can get to prices this low any time soon due to higher development costs here and (in the case of solar) lower natural resource. But even when you factor in the lower resource (esp for solar), the levelised costs fall substantially below the 80 £/MWh we were 18 months ago.

So the second point, is the growing trend towards corporate PPAs or large corporates entering into long term offtake contracts with RES-E generators - ie subsidy free renewable plant. These contracts are still being priced above today's wholesale prices, but corporates are willing to enter into these contracts because: a) they want energy cost stability over the next 15 years and this means derisking against the volatile natural gas price (gas drivers our power prices) and b) the cost of entering into these contracts is much lower than it was due to the narrowing gap between renewable costs (ie below the 80 £/MWh) and the potential rise in the wholesale price. There are some public domain datapoints on these contract types. Some good info on data-centres in Ireland signing these contracts.

Whether one sees new renewables as good or bad from an economic perspective depends on expectations around future natural gas prices and the riskiness of this. If gas prices are high, power prices are high and renewables (and indeed nuclear) could look like good value to the consumer, whereas if gas prices are low they are relatively expensive.

To your original question - how much do renewables cost us consumers? Unfortunately in GB we are not benefitting from the recent fall in costs of new renewables. Plant pre-2016 are under 20 year subsidy arrangements under the RO, and the CfD plant are under 15 year fixed price contracts (Hinkley under a similar arrangement albeit over a much longer time frame). The only benefit consumers will see in the medium term is a slight disconnect from commodity prices (gas and carbon) to power prices, as the levels of low carbon generation rises and the carbon intensity of the system falls.

The reason I raised the original point about the significant fall in costs is the future for the power system is looking quite different as a result. (And for the sake of clarity in this forum - I am not a renewable advocate, lobbyist or even developer!) The fall in costs, coupled with the innovation we are currently seeing in the provision of balancing services to manage intermittency (whether batteries, thermal plant adapting their running regimes or through smart grids) is changing the system quite dramatically. The challenge for Government is to make sure we have enough energy (from gas, renewables and nucs), enough flexibility (mainly from storage, embedded peakers and increasingly DSR) and enough capacity at times of system stress (we have seen a few hours already in September). Aligning the economic incentives for these competing sources, with the demands around sustainability and cost ain't easy! And this is in industry that is increasingly politicised with multiple interest groups.

Bloody Hell!

That was a very long winded way of admitting that you were wrong.

The costs haven't come down at all.

You say that we are paying £80.00 per GW hour for renewable energy.

Would you care to tell our readers how much a GW hour costs when using imported gas? £26.00 appears to be the answer. Imagine how cheap electricity will be once we get fracking.

Yes yes, but it's not that much more expensive if we put our turbines in Mexico, so lets do that.

[Northbloke]

Have we got to the bottom of the South Australia blackout yet?

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/10/sa-blackout-three...

Apparently SA is infamous for pushing strongly for Wind Power.

Would the blackout have happened just because of the storm without the high Wind Power percentage, extra transmission lines etc?

[pgtips]

don4l said:

Bloody Hell!

That was a very long winded way of admitting that you were wrong.

The costs haven't come down at all.

You say that we are paying £80.00 per GW hour for renewable energy.

Would you care to tell our readers how much a GW hour costs when using imported gas? £26.00 appears to be the answer. Imagine how cheap electricity will be once we get fracking.

Honestly.. where to start with that one! The units are £/MWh for starters. A MWh is a unit of energy - normally used to represent the price of power, or (as I am referring to) the levelised cost of generating from a particular source of power. The levelised costs of new renewables have fallen dramatically - re the data from renewable auctions around the world. I've made the point several times now - but for clarity I am talking about the costs of installing new renewables as-of today. The costs of funding all renewables to the British consumer have not fallen due to the subsidy regimes we have in place, and have had since the early 2000s. They are largely on some form of indexed subsidy regime put in place when levelised costs were much higher than they are today.

So again - cost of building new renewable has fallen. Overall cost to British consumer has not fallen.

On the gas question... generation cost for winter 2017 is more like £40/MWh. This is comprised £30/MWh of gas (assuming average efficiency CCGT), approx. £8/MWh carbon costs (the combined UK tax and European element) plus around £2/MWh opex. If gas prices double then CCGT costs rise to £70/Mwh - and this would be around about the power price. Hence my point about why many large corporates would sign long term renewable PPAs to mitigate against gas price volatility.

(But if your point is we should build more gas plant... I agree! And quickly before the lights do start flickering)

[Ali G]

So the financial cost of purchasing 'cr*p' has gone down - which then leads to the question of how to value 'cr*p'? , perhaps only the most qualified cr*p-valuers are equiped to do so.

And the Emperor has no clothes on.

[mondeoman]

Ali G said:

So the financial cost of purchasing 'cr*p' has gone down - which then leads to the question of how to value 'cr*p'? , perhaps only the most qualified cr*p-valuers are equiped to do so.

And the Emperor has no clothes on.

No, it's the cost of building cr*p now that's gone down, but the generated cr*p still costs sh~t loads from the cr*p we built before.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Apparently the South Oz regional electricity market was suspended - why not just call it a black out!

Re. were windmills to blame?

Latest technical reports indicate they were THE major factor in the total failure - and they can't reboot the grid with windmills regardless, they had to use fossil fuel.

[hidetheelephants]

The insane woodchip scheme at Drax gets £105; I forget how long for, but it's at least a decade.

[powerstroke]

Why do they call them renewables ?????

[durbster]

Northbloke said:

Have we got to the bottom of the South Australia blackout yet?

There's a Reddit AMA from a former power station worker here that explains things pretty well:
https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/556z19...

In summary, the cause was nothing to do with the source as it was an infrastructure failure. If your pylons have been knocked out, it doesn't make any difference whether your power comes from coal, wind or magic beans.

However, SA's renewables can't handle with the massive demand of switching the grid back on, so they need the coal stations to bring the state back online.

[Mr GrimNasty]

durbster said:

Northbloke said:

Have we got to the bottom of the South Australia blackout yet?

There's a Reddit AMA from a former power station worker here that explains things pretty well:
https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/556z19...

In summary, the cause was nothing to do with the source as it was an infrastructure failure. If your pylons have been knocked out, it doesn't make any difference whether your power comes from coal, wind or magic beans.

However, SA's renewables can't handle with the massive demand of switching the grid back on, so they need the coal stations to bring the state back online.

With normal distributed fossil fuel (or nuclear, hydro whatever) the grid is more resilient to infrastructure failures.

There is a myth that with wind turbines being spread out - they will not all affected by the same weather - it came home to roost, as it does in Europe in winter anticyclonic weather when mills produce nothing continent wide.

In this case a bunch of farms all reached excessive wind speeds at the same time and had to shut down. If you 'replaced' 3 main wind farms with a normal power station - the blackout would not have happened.

Even the Australian gov. is now warning against excessive reliance on wind and they are currently restricting wind to keep the grid stable at the moment.

The only reason SA survives on wind as well as it does is the inter-connector, clearly if surrounding sates also had as much wind reliance, nothing (or too much) would come down the inter-connector, so again, country wide, wind is not viable.

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/10/sa-blackout-three...

[durbster]

Mr GrimNasty said:

In this case a bunch of farms all reached excessive wind speeds at the same time and had to shut down. If you 'replaced' 3 main wind farms with a normal power station - the blackout would not have happened.

No, that's not what happened.

According to friends I have over there, the wind farms were producing ~1000MW at the time of the blackout.

The storm brought down more than 20 pylons:
https://i.imgur.com/6b9CPHj.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/zWARIu9.jpg

How would your "normal" power station have continued to provide power without power lines?

Edit: Wow those photos were large. Have linked them instead.

Edited by durbster on Thursday 6th October 11:06

[Oakey]

Apparently methane emissions might be higher than originally thought;

"Taking into account methane also produced by natural sources, emissions are said to be "60 to 100% greater than current estimates"."

http://news.sky.com/story/methane-emissions-levels...

[London424]

Oakey said:

Apparently methane emissions might be higher than originally thought;

"Taking into account methane also produced by natural sources, emissions are said to be "60 to 100% greater than current estimates"."

http://news.sky.com/story/methane-emissions-levels...

But the models work properly, right?

[dickymint]

durbster said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

In this case a bunch of farms all reached excessive wind speeds at the same time and had to shut down. If you 'replaced' 3 main wind farms with a normal power station - the blackout would not have happened.

No, that's not what happened.

According to friends I have over there, the wind farms were producing ~1000MW at the time of the blackout.

The storm brought down more than 20 pylons:
https://i.imgur.com/6b9CPHj.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/zWARIu9.jpg

How would your "normal" power station have continued to provide power without power lines?

Edit: Wow those photos were large. Have linked them instead.

Edited by durbster on Thursday 6th October 11:06

Are you sure? Let's just hang on and see how this pans out.....

http://www.thegwpf.com/green-disaster-south-austra...

[turbobloke]

"One of the main lines of evidence used by the Obama administration to justify its global warming regulations doesn’t exist in the real world, according to a new report by climate researchers."

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/22/the-fingerprint-...

Also...has Lovelock recanted before? If so he's done it again. If not, he's done it now...due to growing up, he claims at almost 100 years of age.

"Fracking is great, the green movement is a religion, his dire predictions about climate change were nonsense – and robots don’t mind the heat, so what does it matter? At 97, the creator of Gaia theory is as mischievous and subversive as ever."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/3...