The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
tamore said:
Evanivitch said:
tamore said:
more about distribution of risk. biggun goes down, it's down and circa 2GW offline. dunno the proposed capacity of SMRs, but for argument's sake its 20 to make the same capacity… 2 go down, barely a blip.
Modular Reactors aren't that small, I think they're circa 400MW on the Rolls Royce units, Hinckley's EPR is 1600MW per reactor.speedking31 said:
ut if there's a flaw in the technology, or a problem with a common component (as with the French fleet) then you are in the same boat with all units closed simultaneously. There is perhaps an argument about quicker repairs to smaller units.
planned maintenance would be lower impact tootamore said:
speedking31 said:
ut if there's a flaw in the technology, or a problem with a common component (as with the French fleet) then you are in the same boat with all units closed simultaneously. There is perhaps an argument about quicker repairs to smaller units.
planned maintenance would be lower impact tooA fleet of maybe 10 SMR's would be good though.
The Russians have been sniffing around the North Sea for power connections.
Can we protect them ?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russian-spy-s...
Can we protect them ?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russian-spy-s...
PRTVR said:
The Russians have been sniffing around the North Sea for power connections.
Can we protect them ?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russian-spy-s...
I wouldn't pay too much regard to this kind of story from the Daily Express. Makes for good clickbait.Can we protect them ?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russian-spy-s...
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
The Russians have been sniffing around the North Sea for power connections.
Can we protect them ?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russian-spy-s...
I wouldn't pay too much regard to this kind of story from the Daily Express. Makes for good clickbait.Can we protect them ?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russian-spy-s...
How about reuters ?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/belgium-inves...
Condi said:
PRTVR said:
The Russians know where they are, so why do you think they are sailing over them ?
I don't know, why do you think they are? Personally I think its two fold, as above and a warning of what might happen.
PRTVR said:
The article I linked above said the ship was mapping out energy infrastructure .
Personally I think its two fold, as above and a warning of what might happen.
What "might" is the operative word.Personally I think its two fold, as above and a warning of what might happen.
However run the scenario through:
1: Is the intent to just overtly attack interconnectors? - If yes then you have just attacked two NATO countries one of which processes nuclear weapons. Unless your intent is to progress to full nuclear exchanges you are going to get the worst of any tit for tat action as NATO massively outnumbers Russian forces both on a manpower/equipment basis and massively so on an economic basis.
2: Is the intent to do it covertly? Well attacking interconnectors is hardly an out there scenario that nobody has thought of. Is there a chance that said interconnectors are protected in ways that aren't publicised like patrolled by UUVs or covered in remote sensors. How do you know that forensics you haven't heard of won't easily pin the blame on you like when the Met got their hands on a Geiger counter substantially more sensitive than available in Russia and tracked your man around London after he poisoned Litvinyenko If this happens see above:
3: Even if you leave no evidence, how many countries would attack a North Sea interconnector? It would be very obvious that Russia had done it, but it's deniable. Just like it's deniable when Russian oil refineries and pipelines start exploding or nuclear subs suddenly sping a leak when on a deep dive. Again NATO is vastly more capable than Russia taking it on covertly is also going result in you getting the worst of it.
The economic impact of interconnector failure would be limited in both impact and duration. The UK economy is diverse and resilient. The Russian economy is heavily geared to resource extraction this offers plenty of targets that will have immediate and sustained impacts on their economy.
Talksteer said:
PRTVR said:
The article I linked above said the ship was mapping out energy infrastructure .
Personally I think its two fold, as above and a warning of what might happen.
What "might" is the operative word.Personally I think its two fold, as above and a warning of what might happen.
However run the scenario through:
1: Is the intent to just overtly attack interconnectors? - If yes then you have just attacked two NATO countries one of which processes nuclear weapons. Unless your intent is to progress to full nuclear exchanges you are going to get the worst of any tit for tat action as NATO massively outnumbers Russian forces both on a manpower/equipment basis and massively so on an economic basis.
2: Is the intent to do it covertly? Well attacking interconnectors is hardly an out there scenario that nobody has thought of. Is there a chance that said interconnectors are protected in ways that aren't publicised like patrolled by UUVs or covered in remote sensors. How do you know that forensics you haven't heard of won't easily pin the blame on you like when the Met got their hands on a Geiger counter substantially more sensitive than available in Russia and tracked your man around London after he poisoned Litvinyenko If this happens see above:
3: Even if you leave no evidence, how many countries would attack a North Sea interconnector? It would be very obvious that Russia had done it, but it's deniable. Just like it's deniable when Russian oil refineries and pipelines start exploding or nuclear subs suddenly sping a leak when on a deep dive. Again NATO is vastly more capable than Russia taking it on covertly is also going result in you getting the worst of it.
The economic impact of interconnector failure would be limited in both impact and duration. The UK economy is diverse and resilient. The Russian economy is heavily geared to resource extraction this offers plenty of targets that will have immediate and sustained impacts on their economy.
The UK has taken delivery of a second vessel to protect subsea assets the government is treating the threat as a possibility.
We are dependent on cables and pipelines to keep the lights on, we have no gas storage, we are not as resilient as some think we are.
Q4 2022 report from Drax Electric Insights
https://reports.electricinsights.co.uk/wp-content/...
Highlights include renewables generation exceeding demand for 25 hours in late December. We still had fossil fuel generation on the grid for system balancing purposes but a positive step towards having fossil fuel free days in 2025.
https://reports.electricinsights.co.uk/wp-content/...
Highlights include renewables generation exceeding demand for 25 hours in late December. We still had fossil fuel generation on the grid for system balancing purposes but a positive step towards having fossil fuel free days in 2025.
Hill92 said:
Q4 2022 report from Drax Electric Insights
https://reports.electricinsights.co.uk/wp-content/...
Highlights include renewables generation exceeding demand for 25 hours in late December. We still had fossil fuel generation on the grid for system balancing purposes but a positive step towards having fossil fuel free days in 2025.
"Renewables" including, funny enough, biomass! https://reports.electricinsights.co.uk/wp-content/...
Highlights include renewables generation exceeding demand for 25 hours in late December. We still had fossil fuel generation on the grid for system balancing purposes but a positive step towards having fossil fuel free days in 2025.
"National Grid is inching closer to its 2025 goal of running the entire power system with zero fossil fuels at times when there is enough renewables output. Four things are needed to make this goal a reality:
More low carbon sources of flexible generation, such as biomass"
Drax are already doing quite a lot of PR to try and get their very nice contracts extended, although the swing of public opinion and scientific thinking seems to be against shipping 60,000t of wood chip across the Atlantic every day or so.
"From 2002 to 2022, the offshore wind industry in the UK has received about £20 billion in subsidy, charged on consumer bills and mostly under the Renewables Obligation. If offshore wind is not yet showing real cost reductions it is unlikely ever to do so. The Chancellor should stand up for consumers and taxpayers and say that enough is enough.”
https://www.netzerowatch.com/the-shameless-blackma...
Shameless propaganda from the anti-wind lobby should be ignored by the Chancellor. 
Thing is, there is some merit in discussing the point, but Net Zero Watch have combined it with other points which are nonsense. The earliest wind farms were build with CfDs of £200+/MWh, now it's possible and proven to build offshore wind at less than half that, and the more wind we have overall the cheaper our electrcitiy price, even with the link to gas generation, so the argument that wind hasn't come down in cost is complete bulls
t and easy to disprove.
I agree there is a discussion as to whether some operators have bid too cheap, down at £45/MWh, but that has nothing to do with the subsidies they've had over the last 20 years. For the last 18m or thereabouts wind farms have been paying into the pot, not taking out, as the market price has been above the CfD levels.
As with all propaganda, it's message is lost and any reasonable discussion is lost because they twist the facts, or use unrelated facts, to increase people's emotional response.
Thing is, there is some merit in discussing the point, but Net Zero Watch have combined it with other points which are nonsense. The earliest wind farms were build with CfDs of £200+/MWh, now it's possible and proven to build offshore wind at less than half that, and the more wind we have overall the cheaper our electrcitiy price, even with the link to gas generation, so the argument that wind hasn't come down in cost is complete bulls
t and easy to disprove. I agree there is a discussion as to whether some operators have bid too cheap, down at £45/MWh, but that has nothing to do with the subsidies they've had over the last 20 years. For the last 18m or thereabouts wind farms have been paying into the pot, not taking out, as the market price has been above the CfD levels.
As with all propaganda, it's message is lost and any reasonable discussion is lost because they twist the facts, or use unrelated facts, to increase people's emotional response.
Just to pick up apart some of the dishonesty:
[i]"On the contrary, we refer once again to analysis that we and others have published over the years, demonstrating from audited financial statements that wind CAPEX and OPEX have not fallen significantly, and that the CfD bids were never realistic.
We predicted that these companies would eventually return to government demanding even more support. We were widely criticised at the time for this work, with one prominent energy reporter stating that it was bizarre to believe that the wind companies were “banking on threatening to go bust” in order to blackmail government into further subsidy. However, this is precisely the situation that is now emerging."[/i]
This is referring to analysis Gordon Hughes did in 2017 on the AR2 CfDs (Hornsea 2, Moray East and Triton Knoll).
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/09/Of...
He claimed that the AR2 CfD contracts would be "very unlikely to be taken up [and] these sites will probably not be built."
All three are fully constructed and operational today. Subsequent AR3 projects are now in construction as well.
He was wrong the and he's still wrong now.
NZW leave out the key fact that Orsted are simply asking for the same type of accelerated capita allowances that the Oil & Gas industry have long enjoyed. But of. But that doesn't suit the O&G interests that fund NZW/GWPf/REF.
The main issue isn't really capex costs (which are being pushed up more by requirements for UK content/jobs than global material inflation; a requirement that does not apply to offshore oil & gas). It's the impact of rises in interest rates on the financing costs.
Interest rates that skyrocketed because of Liz Truss' mini-budget. And who backed her? Steve Baker and the same NZW funders. They should have listened to their fellow NZW member, Lord Lawson, who warned in August that Trussonomics would lead to spiralling interest rates.
[i]"On the contrary, we refer once again to analysis that we and others have published over the years, demonstrating from audited financial statements that wind CAPEX and OPEX have not fallen significantly, and that the CfD bids were never realistic.
We predicted that these companies would eventually return to government demanding even more support. We were widely criticised at the time for this work, with one prominent energy reporter stating that it was bizarre to believe that the wind companies were “banking on threatening to go bust” in order to blackmail government into further subsidy. However, this is precisely the situation that is now emerging."[/i]
This is referring to analysis Gordon Hughes did in 2017 on the AR2 CfDs (Hornsea 2, Moray East and Triton Knoll).
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/09/Of...
He claimed that the AR2 CfD contracts would be "very unlikely to be taken up [and] these sites will probably not be built."
All three are fully constructed and operational today. Subsequent AR3 projects are now in construction as well.
He was wrong the and he's still wrong now.
NZW leave out the key fact that Orsted are simply asking for the same type of accelerated capita allowances that the Oil & Gas industry have long enjoyed. But of. But that doesn't suit the O&G interests that fund NZW/GWPf/REF.
The main issue isn't really capex costs (which are being pushed up more by requirements for UK content/jobs than global material inflation; a requirement that does not apply to offshore oil & gas). It's the impact of rises in interest rates on the financing costs.
Interest rates that skyrocketed because of Liz Truss' mini-budget. And who backed her? Steve Baker and the same NZW funders. They should have listened to their fellow NZW member, Lord Lawson, who warned in August that Trussonomics would lead to spiralling interest rates.
Condi said:
Shameless propaganda from the anti-wind lobby should be ignored by the Chancellor.
Thing is, there is some merit in discussing the point, but Net Zero Watch have combined it with other points which are nonsense. The earliest wind farms were build with CfDs of £200+/MWh, now it's possible and proven to build offshore wind at less than half that, and the more wind we have overall the cheaper our electrcitiy price, even with the link to gas generation, so the argument that wind hasn't come down in cost is complete bullst and easy to disprove.
I agree there is a discussion as to whether some operators have bid too cheap, down at £45/MWh, but that has nothing to do with the subsidies they've had over the last 20 years. For the last 18m or thereabouts wind farms have been paying into the pot, not taking out, as the market price has been above the CfD levels.
As with all propaganda, it's message is lost and any reasonable discussion is lost because they twist the facts, or use unrelated facts, to increase people's emotional response.
Yes I tend to agree about the source, propaganda etc. but somewhere in between lies 'the truth' I would have preferred to have linked to the articles in The Times but it's pay-walled so I've not read them yet. But the thrust of the matter is why should the taxpayer stump up more money? It really is 'blackmail'. ,Thing is, there is some merit in discussing the point, but Net Zero Watch have combined it with other points which are nonsense. The earliest wind farms were build with CfDs of £200+/MWh, now it's possible and proven to build offshore wind at less than half that, and the more wind we have overall the cheaper our electrcitiy price, even with the link to gas generation, so the argument that wind hasn't come down in cost is complete bulls
t and easy to disprove. I agree there is a discussion as to whether some operators have bid too cheap, down at £45/MWh, but that has nothing to do with the subsidies they've had over the last 20 years. For the last 18m or thereabouts wind farms have been paying into the pot, not taking out, as the market price has been above the CfD levels.
As with all propaganda, it's message is lost and any reasonable discussion is lost because they twist the facts, or use unrelated facts, to increase people's emotional response.
dickymint said:
Yes I tend to agree about the source, propaganda etc. but somewhere in between lies 'the truth' I would have preferred to have linked to the articles in The Times but it's pay-walled so I've not read them yet. But the thrust of the matter is why should the taxpayer stump up more money? It really is 'blackmail'. ,
The taxpayer isn't paying - bill payers are (subtle, but significant difference in terms of where the money comes from). Is it blackmail? Umm, I don't know enough about the contracts to say what break clauses are in it, or what requirements are placed on the bidder as to going through with building the wind farm. If they secured a contract at £45, and it's now going to cost them £60 to build/run it, then if the contract allows them to get out of it that's exactly what they will be doing. In which case there are 2 solutions - either the original contract is amended to £60 (or whatever) or the company pulls out. If the contract is binding, then obviously the UK government can/will/should press them to complete as per the agreement. Clearly costs have increased over the last 2 years as a result of inflation, although the contracts are inflation linked.
However, non of this has anything to do with the subsidies over the last 20 years. If we look at the last 18m then wind farms have been net contributors, actually helping to reduce bills via the CfDs, including the benefit they have of reducing wholesale costs by being low cost generation.
Condi said:
dickymint said:
Yes I tend to agree about the source, propaganda etc. but somewhere in between lies 'the truth' I would have preferred to have linked to the articles in The Times but it's pay-walled so I've not read them yet. But the thrust of the matter is why should the taxpayer stump up more money? It really is 'blackmail'. ,
The taxpayer isn't paying - bill payers are (subtle, but significant difference in terms of where the money comes from). Is it blackmail? Umm, I don't know enough about the contracts to say what break clauses are in it, or what requirements are placed on the bidder as to going through with building the wind farm. If they secured a contract at £45, and it's now going to cost them £60 to build/run it, then if the contract allows them to get out of it that's exactly what they will be doing. In which case there are 2 solutions - either the original contract is amended to £60 (or whatever) or the company pulls out. If the contract is binding, then obviously the UK government can/will/should press them to complete as per the agreement. Clearly costs have increased over the last 2 years as a result of inflation, although the contracts are inflation linked.
However, non of this has anything to do with the subsidies over the last 20 years. If we look at the last 18m then wind farms have been net contributors, actually helping to reduce bills via the CfDs, including the benefit they have of reducing wholesale costs by being low cost generation.
along with the cost of batteries to smooth out the frequency all have to be paid for.
The true cost is a lot more than the headline figures.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff