The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
PRTVR said:
You cannot just look at the wind farms in isolation, for wind farms to work we need 100% back up stood by ready to go when the wind drops, at present all the wind turbines are producing 1.6gw,
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.
The same is true of any 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.
When pricing a new nuclear plant you don't consider the cost of replacement generation for when it's offline for refuelling, and when building a new gas plant you don't consider the cost of replacing the power if it fails. No unit has 100% availability and the grid will always need to have "spare" or "excess" generation capacity. Granted, wind needs more backup than most, but the principle remains the same.
It is hard for you to argue that wind has not decreased prices for consumers and bill payers - in a world where the cost of fossil fuels has gone up by factors of 4 and 5, then any generation which does not rely on fossil fuels is a benefit.
Condi said:
PRTVR said:
You cannot just look at the wind farms in isolation, for wind farms to work we need 100% back up stood by ready to go when the wind drops, at present all the wind turbines are producing 1.6gw,
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.
The same is true of any 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.
When pricing a new nuclear plant you don't consider the cost of replacement generation for when it's offline for refuelling, and when building a new gas plant you don't consider the cost of replacing the power if it fails. No unit has 100% availability and the grid will always need to have "spare" or "excess" generation capacity. Granted, wind needs more backup than most, but the principle remains the same.
It is hard for you to argue that wind has not decreased prices for consumers and bill payers - in a world where the cost of fossil fuels has gone up by factors of 4 and 5, then any generation which does not rely on fossil fuels is a benefit.
Wind has not decrease the cost for consumers, the backup costs along with their fuel costs have to be paid for, there is also the cost of wind turbines excess production costs to stop producing, the only reason for wind turbines is a reduction in CO2 output, its not about reducing costs to consumers.
I think the grid has had an issue this evening, currently running nearly £2000 MWh
https://grid.iamkate.com/
Trips @ South Humber bank and Coryton according to Enappsys
https://twitter.com/enappsys/status/16331456968522...
https://grid.iamkate.com/
Trips @ South Humber bank and Coryton according to Enappsys
https://twitter.com/enappsys/status/16331456968522...
Condi said:
The same is true of any generation.
When pricing a new nuclear plant you don't consider the cost of replacement generation for when it's offline for refuelling, and when building a new gas plant you don't consider the cost of replacing the power if it fails. No unit has 100% availability and the grid will always need to have "spare" or "excess" generation capacity. Granted, wind needs more backup than most, but the principle remains the same.
It is hard for you to argue that wind has not decreased prices for consumers and bill payers - in a world where the cost of fossil fuels has gone up by factors of 4 and 5, then any generation which does not rely on fossil fuels is a benefit.
Can you justify that without the 'Ukraine/Russia' effect?When pricing a new nuclear plant you don't consider the cost of replacement generation for when it's offline for refuelling, and when building a new gas plant you don't consider the cost of replacing the power if it fails. No unit has 100% availability and the grid will always need to have "spare" or "excess" generation capacity. Granted, wind needs more backup than most, but the principle remains the same.
It is hard for you to argue that wind has not decreased prices for consumers and bill payers - in a world where the cost of fossil fuels has gone up by factors of 4 and 5, then any generation which does not rely on fossil fuels is a benefit.
dickymint said:
Can you justify that without the 'Ukraine/Russia' effect?
Of course, a wind farm, once built, has a £0 cost of generation, and so will dispatch whenever the wind blows. For every GW of wind generation we need 1 GW less of gas generation, and it's always the most expensive gas generation which falls off first. The wholesale cost of power is undoubtedly cheaper as a result of the renewable generation of which wind is a part, albeit the volatility has gone up between days when there is lots of wind and no wind. Against that, you need to consider the subsidies, but these are decreasing over time - the early ROC contracts are now finished, and the newer wind farms are on much cheaper CfDs which even without the "Russia/Ukraine effect" will pay back into the pot much more often then the earlier and more expensive CfDs. Even then, the lifespan of the windfarm is longer than the CfD and so in 15/20 years they will be generating without subsidy, and onshore wind is already being built without subsidy at all. Gas and coal will not generate at £10/MWh, but wind, subsidised or not, will.
Talking about economics while handily dismissing a major move of the market (the "Russia/Ukraine effect") is a bit odd though, it's very much like you're tilting the argument in your favour? Bit like saying "tell me about the F1 race if Red Bull were not involved" - well Red Bull are involved and are the dominant force at the moment, you can't just "ignore" them and get a proper understanding of what is going on.
Mikey G said:
I think the grid has had an issue this evening, currently running nearly £2000 MWh
https://grid.iamkate.com/
Trips @ South Humber bank and Coryton according to Enappsys
https://twitter.com/enappsys/status/16331456968522...
Very weird day today, with misleading and contradictory pictures presented about the market by National Grid - very much a case of saying one thing and doing another. They put notices out that it was very tight, bought on 2 "emergency coal units", which officially should be the last resort, but then left 2 big gas units spare and didn't attempt to buy any power back from France despite us exporting to them all day. Even after 2 unit trips, there was an awful lot of stuff in reserve given it was apparently tight enough for them to be using half the "emergency" coal fleet. https://grid.iamkate.com/
Trips @ South Humber bank and Coryton according to Enappsys
https://twitter.com/enappsys/status/16331456968522...
Someone slightly more cynical than I would say that National Grid have just worked out the cost of removing the coal from Drax and West Burton if it is not burnt by the end of the month, and are suddenly bending their own rules to burn as much as possible before the stations shut down. However, for the market (given as these are supposed to be the last resort, and it is a strong signal that things are really tight if they're used), it's a bit like moving the goalposts at 80 mins....
Condi said:
Very weird day today, with misleading and contradictory pictures presented about the market by National Grid - very much a case of saying one thing and doing another. They put notices out that it was very tight, bought on 2 "emergency coal units", which officially should be the last resort, but then left 2 big gas units spare and didn't attempt to buy any power back from France despite us exporting to them all day. Even after 2 unit trips, there was an awful lot of stuff in reserve given it was apparently tight enough for them to be using half the "emergency" coal fleet.
Someone slightly more cynical than I would say that National Grid have just worked out the cost of removing the coal from Drax and West Burton if it is not burnt by the end of the month, and are suddenly bending their own rules to burn as much as possible before the stations shut down. However, for the market (given as these are supposed to be the last resort, and it is a strong signal that things are really tight if they're used), it's a bit like moving the goalposts at 80 mins....
Ah, so NG is where Michael Masi ended up!Someone slightly more cynical than I would say that National Grid have just worked out the cost of removing the coal from Drax and West Burton if it is not burnt by the end of the month, and are suddenly bending their own rules to burn as much as possible before the stations shut down. However, for the market (given as these are supposed to be the last resort, and it is a strong signal that things are really tight if they're used), it's a bit like moving the goalposts at 80 mins....
Condi said:
The same is true of any generation.
When pricing a new nuclear plant you don't consider the cost of replacement generation for when it's offline for refuelling, and when building a new gas plant you don't consider the cost of replacing the power if it fails. No unit has 100% availability and the grid will always need to have "spare" or "excess" generation capacity. Granted, wind needs more backup than most, but the principle remains the same.
The principle isn't quite the same when the outcome is grossly different.When pricing a new nuclear plant you don't consider the cost of replacement generation for when it's offline for refuelling, and when building a new gas plant you don't consider the cost of replacing the power if it fails. No unit has 100% availability and the grid will always need to have "spare" or "excess" generation capacity. Granted, wind needs more backup than most, but the principle remains the same.
JagLover said:
cant read itmikal83 said:
JagLover said:
cant read itJagLover said:
Is it a good article? I don't think so. Its an article by a newspaper increasingly on the wrong side of hyperbole. There are some valid points, but the comments from Bosch might be because they don't have much expertise or product line in heat pumps.... if you got a comment from Mitsubishi then they might have a different opinion. The argument that the UK is making a mess of Net Zero isn't true, we are doing considerably better than some countries, and given its all a step into the unknown we are managing quite well - your lights stayed on all winter despite your dire warnings! The comments about HS2 are also complete nonsense, we desperately need to upgrade our railways given the last new mainline was built 150 years ago, and yet train travel hit record highs pre-pandemic.
SpeckledJim said:
mikal83 said:
JagLover said:
cant read itmikal83 said:
SpeckledJim said:
mikal83 said:
JagLover said:
cant read itGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff