The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
The last '12 months data' will naturally not have included the sites under construction and now deployed and generating - so as above and on the other thread : perspective is required.
"
In the second quarter of 2017, offshore wind generation in the United Kingdom increased by 22 percent or 0.7TWh to 4TWh in comparison to the same period in 2016.
At the end of 2017 Q2, the UK’s renewable electricity capacity totalled 38GW, an increase of 13% (4.4GW), with offshore wind representing 15% of all renewable capacity.
In 2017 Q2, offshore wind capacity increased by 216MW, with a further 138MW installed at Dudgeon where 238MW of the final 402MW is currently installed, and the first 78MW out of 573MW installed at Race Bank.
Offshore wind’s load factor increased by 3.5 percentage, from 29.2 percent in 2016 Q2 to 32.8 percent in 2017.
When compared to the first quarter of the year, offshore wind’s load factor was 10.9 percent lower, with wind speeds 0.6 knots higher at 8.3 knots."
Source?"
In the second quarter of 2017, offshore wind generation in the United Kingdom increased by 22 percent or 0.7TWh to 4TWh in comparison to the same period in 2016.
At the end of 2017 Q2, the UK’s renewable electricity capacity totalled 38GW, an increase of 13% (4.4GW), with offshore wind representing 15% of all renewable capacity.
In 2017 Q2, offshore wind capacity increased by 216MW, with a further 138MW installed at Dudgeon where 238MW of the final 402MW is currently installed, and the first 78MW out of 573MW installed at Race Bank.
Offshore wind’s load factor increased by 3.5 percentage, from 29.2 percent in 2016 Q2 to 32.8 percent in 2017.
When compared to the first quarter of the year, offshore wind’s load factor was 10.9 percent lower, with wind speeds 0.6 knots higher at 8.3 knots."
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
The last '12 months data' will naturally not have included the sites under construction and now deployed and generating - so as above and on the other thread : perspective is required.
"
In the second quarter of 2017, offshore wind generation in the United Kingdom increased by 22 percent or 0.7TWh to 4TWh in comparison to the same period in 2016.
At the end of 2017 Q2, the UK’s renewable electricity capacity totalled 38GW, an increase of 13% (4.4GW), with offshore wind representing 15% of all renewable capacity.
In 2017 Q2, offshore wind capacity increased by 216MW, with a further 138MW installed at Dudgeon where 238MW of the final 402MW is currently installed, and the first 78MW out of 573MW installed at Race Bank.
Offshore wind’s load factor increased by 3.5 percentage, from 29.2 percent in 2016 Q2 to 32.8 percent in 2017.
When compared to the first quarter of the year, offshore wind’s load factor was 10.9 percent lower, with wind speeds 0.6 knots higher at 8.3 knots."
That's offshore. What about onshore?"
In the second quarter of 2017, offshore wind generation in the United Kingdom increased by 22 percent or 0.7TWh to 4TWh in comparison to the same period in 2016.
At the end of 2017 Q2, the UK’s renewable electricity capacity totalled 38GW, an increase of 13% (4.4GW), with offshore wind representing 15% of all renewable capacity.
In 2017 Q2, offshore wind capacity increased by 216MW, with a further 138MW installed at Dudgeon where 238MW of the final 402MW is currently installed, and the first 78MW out of 573MW installed at Race Bank.
Offshore wind’s load factor increased by 3.5 percentage, from 29.2 percent in 2016 Q2 to 32.8 percent in 2017.
When compared to the first quarter of the year, offshore wind’s load factor was 10.9 percent lower, with wind speeds 0.6 knots higher at 8.3 knots."
LongQ said:
OK.
How would you run that in, say, London?
Ah the classic London-centric point of view.How would you run that in, say, London?
By having community led developments you raise the potential for hi-impact developments providing some benefit back into local communities, instead of just being justified by "the greater (London-centric) good".
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
The deployment and scale of Offshore Wind makes future Onshore a moot point (notwithstanding the CFD exception under current mechanisms)
Volume will be seen only offshore going forward.
Putting it another way, onshore not expanding simply because it doesn't pay now the subsidies have gone.Volume will be seen only offshore going forward.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
rolando said:
Source?
Because I assume you doubt me ? Original source: Data published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Google the text.... and it brings you to one of the articles in the morning mails:
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/09/29/uk-offshore...
but generated from general discussions and Scotland ministers flag waving...
https://www.energyvoice.com/otherenergy/151708/sco...
katz said:
The future of power generation in the UK is Community owned energy. With small scale localised energy grids, communities can use the income stream to provide their own social needs, with less reliance on LA funding. For instance, A Solar Farm funded by social investment can be set up as a social enterprise, so that residents benefit from lower prices, and from potential employment opportunities, thus allowing them to build marketable skill sets, and if necessary require those opportunities be given to their most vulnerable residents, so as to promote independence . If this was set up properly, with the right kind of storage, excess energy could be sold back to the grid, thus creating additional income stream that the community could use to provide social care where needed. All without state funding.
Our village is getting a bung after a dozen windmills were stuck up on the hills behind it.I suspect subsidy - community bung > 1
Now we have to contend with a village committee deciding what to do with £20k, which'll probably end up being more dog s
t bins and a few speed bumps.Evanivitch said:
LongQ said:
OK.
How would you run that in, say, London?
Ah the classic London-centric point of view.How would you run that in, say, London?
By having community led developments you raise the potential for hi-impact developments providing some benefit back into local communities, instead of just being justified by "the greater (London-centric) good".
Edited by LongQ on Monday 2nd October 19:32
1) Community led grids. Great where you have CHP etc in a cold country and can use waste heat at efficiency. Crap when Nottingham council cock up and rip you off. Good luck in this country. My 1st job in power generation - the National Nuuclear Corp built Sheffield CHP Waste incinerator that was supposed to have provided waste heat to warm council homes and electric to help the steel mills. Went wrong pretty quick (built with wrong kind of steel / burnt wrong king of waste). Otherwise, in Simpsonesque mocking voice, re community power, "Ha-ha".
2) Big nukes. Work OK now we've spent 60 years building 25+ prototype Magnox and AGRs and fettling them. Just about "run-in" I think most systems engineers would say. Had a good 30 years earnings out of them so they can't be all bad and have even worked on the next generation. Effluent system for the laundry rooms on a "C" station, somewhere near Gary C I think. So that is definitely being worked on. Might get 10 - 15 years out of those still on the bars? During which time China will build another 200 of them. Starting feasibility studies on SZW C so the Frenchies are definitely thinking beyond Hinkley C and putting their governments money where ours puts its foot in ins mouth.
3) SMRs, we have them already (10 - 20 ish), just not all our "technology", plus they tend to move about a bit, often under water. If we could tie them down and use the SMR / PWR3 for heat and turbine steam generation and electricity generation rather than motive power there would be a bit more to go on. SMRs in the mix, why not strap a few down at a dockyard, after we've built the carriers and they have floated, Camels, Babcocks Rosthyth, Devonport etc all could be good for floating SMRs, Ruskies are making floating ones (OK a wag at work quipped that even North Korea are making short term, air based SMRs now).
4) Coal works, bit dirty but sexy industrial engineering, with turbinz. Live near a 4 burner coal plant and sad to see the cooling towers now devoid of steam, but at least the new three gas turbines next door are running full tt. The water vapour cloud coming off there at 1450MW looks like Vesuvius on a bad day. Carrington residents must love the shadows.
2) Big nukes. Work OK now we've spent 60 years building 25+ prototype Magnox and AGRs and fettling them. Just about "run-in" I think most systems engineers would say. Had a good 30 years earnings out of them so they can't be all bad and have even worked on the next generation. Effluent system for the laundry rooms on a "C" station, somewhere near Gary C I think. So that is definitely being worked on. Might get 10 - 15 years out of those still on the bars? During which time China will build another 200 of them. Starting feasibility studies on SZW C so the Frenchies are definitely thinking beyond Hinkley C and putting their governments money where ours puts its foot in ins mouth.
3) SMRs, we have them already (10 - 20 ish), just not all our "technology", plus they tend to move about a bit, often under water. If we could tie them down and use the SMR / PWR3 for heat and turbine steam generation and electricity generation rather than motive power there would be a bit more to go on. SMRs in the mix, why not strap a few down at a dockyard, after we've built the carriers and they have floated, Camels, Babcocks Rosthyth, Devonport etc all could be good for floating SMRs, Ruskies are making floating ones (OK a wag at work quipped that even North Korea are making short term, air based SMRs now).
4) Coal works, bit dirty but sexy industrial engineering, with turbinz. Live near a 4 burner coal plant and sad to see the cooling towers now devoid of steam, but at least the new three gas turbines next door are running full t
t. The water vapour cloud coming off there at 1450MW looks like Vesuvius on a bad day. Carrington residents must love the shadows.Drax moving to gas.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017...
SMR(s) next instead of shipping shed loads of wood in from N America? It would make sense.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017...
SMR(s) next instead of shipping shed loads of wood in from N America? It would make sense.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
rolando said:
Drax moving to gas.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017...
SMR(s) next instead of shipping shed loads of wood in from N America? It would make sense.
Drax are installing Batteries FYIhttps://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017...
SMR(s) next instead of shipping shed loads of wood in from N America? It would make sense.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
To validate a point - many of them to be honest - I’ve just flown in to Teesside airport, and passing over the EDF 27 x Siemens Turbines a mile off the coastline at Redcar
Following the river inshore to the airport and within a mile inshore, one can see a few wind farms to the North.
The Offshore Turbines are all spinning away, generating power.
The inshore one a few miles away, aren’t.
Offshore wind without a doubt creates more reliable wind.
The problem with offshore is there's nowhere nearby to mount the fans to keep the turbines going when the wind gets unreliable.Following the river inshore to the airport and within a mile inshore, one can see a few wind farms to the North.
The Offshore Turbines are all spinning away, generating power.
The inshore one a few miles away, aren’t.
Offshore wind without a doubt creates more reliable wind.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Said with the typical distain.
Why is
"
Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/8e4e46b4-9883-11e7-a652-cde3f882dd7b?mhq5j=e6
Electricity storage, which can absorb any surplus when there is a generation glut and then release it when required, is expected to play an increasing role in the UK energy system, both at a domestic and grid level.
However, the economics of large gas plants were called into question this week by the results of the government’s latest energy subsidy auction. There was a steep fall in the costs of generating electricity from offshore wind, making it cheaper than power from the controversial Hinkley Point nuclear plant and the forecast cost of power from new large gas plants.
Drax said its plans would provide the sort of “flexible generation and grid support services Britain’s electricity system will need” as coal and ageing nuclear plants are decommissioned.
"
A bad thing when we are talking about the "future" of Power Generation in GB ?
Perhaps start a thread called "Change is bad" ?
any comment on this paddy ?Why is
"
Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/8e4e46b4-9883-11e7-a652-cde3f882dd7b?mhq5j=e6
Electricity storage, which can absorb any surplus when there is a generation glut and then release it when required, is expected to play an increasing role in the UK energy system, both at a domestic and grid level.
However, the economics of large gas plants were called into question this week by the results of the government’s latest energy subsidy auction. There was a steep fall in the costs of generating electricity from offshore wind, making it cheaper than power from the controversial Hinkley Point nuclear plant and the forecast cost of power from new large gas plants.
Drax said its plans would provide the sort of “flexible generation and grid support services Britain’s electricity system will need” as coal and ageing nuclear plants are decommissioned.
"
A bad thing when we are talking about the "future" of Power Generation in GB ?
Perhaps start a thread called "Change is bad" ?
As I noted last week, the GWPF has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about a highly misleading advert about offshore wind power, placed by a group of wind farm interests and left wing green outfits.
The posters, placed at some London Underground stations, specifically states:
The price paid for electricity from offshore wind farms has fallen by 50% over the last five years.
I have now had a chance to put together the actual figures, which tell a completely different story.
In the last full financial year, 2016/17, offshore wind produced 16.4 TWh.
Nearly all of this, 16.2 TWh, was subsidised via the Renewables Obligation mechanism, under which all licensed electricity suppliers in the United Kingdom must either source a certain proportion of electricity from renewable sources, or pay for Renewable Obligation Certificates, ROCs, currently priced at £45.58.
Offshore wind farms receive a greater allowance of ROCs than, for instance, onshore wind. This is intended to reflect the higher costs of the former. Most offshore operations now receive 2 ROCs per MWh.
In total during 2016/17, offshore wind farms were awarded 30,753,577 ROCs, worth at current prices £1401 million. This equates to £86/MWh.
On top of this subsidy, of course, the wind farms also get paid for the electricity they produce, for which the current market price is £46.40/MWh.
In total then, offshore wind farms are paid £132.40/MWh, nearly triple the market price. All of this is funded by electricity bill payers.
The RO was closed to all new generating capacity on 31 March 2017, and replaced by Contracts for Difference (CfDs). These guarantee a price for all electricity sold, index linked for 15 years. Contracts are awarded via auction, and the government tops up the market price received by the operator to the guarantee. (If the market price is higher, the producer refunds the government). CfDs are only open to low carbon generation.
Again, these prices are all funded through electricity bills.
There is currently a total of 4058 MW of offshore capacity contracted through CfDs, all either under or awaiting construction, and due to commission between now and 2021. (This includes a small amount commissioned since April 2017). The full list is below.
Various strike prices have been agreed, but weighted by capacity, the average is £142.85/MWh at 2017 prices.
In other words, the price paid to these new projects coming on stream between this year and 2021 is actually increasing from £132.40/MWh to £142.85/MWh.
MW Current Strike Price Weighted Price
Beatrice 588 150.97 21.88
Burbo 258 161.71 10.28
Dudgeon 402 161.71 16.02
EA 714 129.38 22.76
Hornsea 1200 150.97 44.64
Neart 448 123.47 13.63
Walney 448 123.47 13.63
TOTAL 4058 142.85
https://lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds
It may be that prices for new projects coming on stream after 2021 will be cheaper, but bill payers will still be paying the cost of these earlier contracts for many years to come.
There is one other factor which must also be taken into account – the cost of intermittency.
In 2015, the Committee on Climate Change estimated in their Fifth Carbon Budget that this likely amounted to about £10/MWh:
image
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/power-sector...
So the cost to bill payers for the new offshore capacity being added between now and 2021 will actually be £152.85/MWh.
By 2021, offshore wind is set to be generating about 30 TWh a year, but the cost to bill payers will be enormous, around £3.1bn, equating to £115 per household.
These are the facts that the offshore wind industry and Greenpeace want to stay hidden
SOURCE
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-tr...
Share this:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017...
wc98 said:
-
-
There is one other factor which must also be taken into account – the cost of intermittency.
In 2015, the Committee on Climate Change estimated in their Fifth Carbon Budget that this likely amounted to about £10/MWh:
-
-
The back of my envelope suggested nearly 3x your figure, but the workings were rather rough.-
There is one other factor which must also be taken into account – the cost of intermittency.
In 2015, the Committee on Climate Change estimated in their Fifth Carbon Budget that this likely amounted to about £10/MWh:
-
-
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
WC98 - I am not entirely sure what your post is asking me to answer to be honest.
I am also unsure why you are disputing the posters of the 50% etc at Westminster, yet completely omit what they are referring to, the prices and what is current. (as opposed to 2 years out of date)
Can you clarify what you are saying and asking please as that appears to be a series of cut n pastes.
it was a cut and paste from a blog post by paul homewood .i just wondered if you disagree with any of it ? not having a dig, just a genuine enquiry . the blog "not a lot of people know that" is a good read and fairly good at explaining to the layman the ins and outs of the green energy industry when it comes to reality vs the promotional guff (all industries are like this, so not something the green energy industry is alone in) and he provides hard numbers that are there to be challenged, or not as is usually the case.I am also unsure why you are disputing the posters of the 50% etc at Westminster, yet completely omit what they are referring to, the prices and what is current. (as opposed to 2 years out of date)
Can you clarify what you are saying and asking please as that appears to be a series of cut n pastes.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff