The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

V8 Fettler said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Of what ?

You highlighted the bit that said subsidy free.

What cost?

The true cost of wind power e.g what is the cost of the back-up generating capacity? Where are the detailed calculations to identify the individual cost elements associated with wind power?

That is not what the question was.
Nor your inference.

Not displaying understanding.

The hidden cost of back-up generating capacity = hidden subsidy

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Thanks for proving my point.

There will be no subsidy. None. Wind farms will be built Without. So that means sans subsidy.

So it’s like building a Windfarm.

The owner will sell their energy to the Grid


And the best thing - you’re gonna love this - it’s without subsidy.

You're ignoring the hidden cost of constructing, operating and maintaining the back-up generating capacity associated with the wind farm, Who pays for that?

No wind farm = no requirement for the back-up generating capacity associated with the wind farm.

[V8 Fettler]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

The cost of the ones that exist ?


I think it’s best I start to ignore you tbh

Are you asking a question about the cost of the wind farms that exist?

If only it was so easy to ignore the true cost of wind power.

[Toltec]

I think I get what PNM is getting at, if the wind output is not subsidised and they only get what the market will pay then they have to be cheaper than the gas generation.

The other side of this is that when there is no or insufficient wind the gas generators will have to be paid whatever is necessary to make it worth running a plant that is idle when wind can underbid them. There will be some control of this cost as there will be competition between different gas power production companies.

[rolando]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

The cost of the ones that exist ?


I think it’s best I start to ignore you tbh

If your beloved windmills worked all the time, there would be no need for any back-up generators, including the ones that exist and the ones that will be needed in the future until such time as you come up with your solution to intermittency.

This means that for every MW of installed windmill capacity there has to be an equal installed capacity of dispatchable electricity generation.

Now answer V8's question.

[LongQ]

Paddy,

If they are not taxes and electricity is becoming so inexpensive that taxes/subsidies are no longer necessary, why has investment been falling as you observed in a recent post and why are electricity bills from the retailers increasing due to what they, the retailers, call green levies?

Why does Germany have some of the most expensive electricity in the world when it has all that cheap onshore electricity production?

[MYOB]

Must also remember that there are other difficulties developers face. It's not all about subsidies and costs. There are also other matters that need to be considered such as decommissioning, and probably the biggest factor of all is the planning system.

[MYOB]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Decommissioning Wind is eminently simpler, cleaner and cheaper than O&G (that are ignoring the requirement by en large) or Power stations on land.

Yes I agree for onshore wind. Offshore wind may be more problematic unless foundations will be allowed to remain in situ.

But planning is certainly most problematic, most certainly for onshore wind.

Edited by MYOB on Saturday 20th January 18:42

[Ali G]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

But now everyone is still saying that is a problem, Claiming intermittency yet not know the amount that will be installed, where, or how the different fields will 'carry each other' as weather fronts pass through.

Presumably solving intermittency through geographic distribution of wind-farms of sufficient size should be demonstrable and not just wishful thinking.

[MYOB]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Offshore is fine / easy.

Every site gets a Met Mast installed prior to build after, they are all pulled out easy enough - same thing.

The advance in Vibro-Hammers and sizes make them ideal for pulling the piles - similarly some great ideas on using water / hydraulics to pop them out like a cork.
Suction Bucket Jackets, easier still.

It also will provide revenue for the 'lesser' ageing fleet / vessels that once installed them all - but not capable of installing the 'next generation' of WTG's.

AKA - Piece of Piss and without the environment / hydrocarbon complications plaguing O&G Decom.

I don't normally disagree with you but this is too simplistic a view. Those piles cannot be pulled out, they are too deep.

Most will remain in place but cut below sea bed level.

[Gary C]

Toltec said:

I think I get what PNM is getting at, if the wind output is not subsidised and they only get what the market will pay then they have to be cheaper than the gas generation.

The other side of this is that when there is no or insufficient wind the gas generators will have to be paid whatever is necessary to make it worth running a plant that is idle when wind can underbid them. There will be some control of this cost as there will be competition between different gas power production companies.

But of course we will be paying for two lots of generators with associated companies and staff and shareholder and maintenance etc so inevitably it will be more expensive.

But NASA have now published an article saying it's necessary !

[Ali G]

Not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

[Ali G]

Gary C said:

But of course we will be paying for two lots of generators with associated companies and staff and shareholder and maintenance etc so inevitably it will be more expensive.

But NASA have now published an article saying it's necessary !

It would be entirely possible to unify gas and wind under common ownership and management to reduce costs.

But that would then present opportunities to maximize shareholder return through manipulation of supply.

Then again, currently wind requires the crutch of gas to be in any way viable in the UK.

Oh the tangled webs that politicians weave whilst attempting to dodge the laws of unintended consequences - if they were even aware of such laws.

[Ali G]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

NOW a Wind Co.

No different

Err - Intermittent, variable and non-dispachable?

No different?

[Ali G]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Ali G said:

Err - Intermittent, variable and non-dispachable?

No different?

For a minute you appeared to be trying to act as an adult

You appear to revert to dishonest quoting instead

Good Job

And there I was thinking that offshore wind-farms were the solution.

[Ali G]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

“Thinking” is always a good start

Onwards and upwards.

You may be onto something there - when coupled with education, knowledge and ability!

[MYOB]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Some are cut 5m below the surface, I agree.
Some are Vibro'd out.
The 'Hydraulic' removal that Kurt Thomsen has patented IIRC is ingeniously simple and cheap.
Cap the Pile. Pump the pile with water and hydraulics slowly pull it out. Its friction and mass to overcome, thats all - if a hammer can knock it in..... it can be pulled out.

Interesting. All will be revealed in a few years when decommissioning of some of the major offshore sites begin in earnest!

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Some are cut 5m below the surface, I agree.
Some are Vibro'd out.
The 'Hydraulic' removal that Kurt Thomsen has patented IIRC is ingeniously simple and cheap.
Cap the Pile. Pump the pile with water and hydraulics slowly pull it out. Its friction and mass to overcome, thats all - if a hammer can knock it in..... it can be pulled out.

personally i would prefer them to be left in the sea bed as once established they will become habitat to various species and create areas where commercial fishing won't take place.

[Ali G]

Here resteth the political folly that marine reefs may be built upon and other species may thrive.

Has a ring to it - perhaps that not intended.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

The problem you have is like the others above - thinking of the current.

Just to be sure about this - I assume you are not making a pun on the word "current" and that you are talking about the "present" as in present times?

True, thought with some projection into the future. However I rather like to work with what is known or shows some relatively consistent performance progress over time.

In general this sort of evidence tend to be be more convincing than sudden miraculous changes in, say, costs for future business that is yet to be delivered by products that are not tested. Or even developed. And yes, the same accusation could be made about Nuclear which is why at some point, as EDF pointed out a few days ago, if developers and politicians (especially politicians) could settle on a design that could be, mostly, repeated with enhancements based on experience gained the costs could be reduced.

Fundamentally the point you are making when you point to the way that offshore bids for future supply contracts seem to be driven by the repetition of accumulated knowledge and skills.

As for the "intermittency" of fuel supply and costs - yep, true. Gas supplies could be problematic but at least there is the possibility that supplies can be controlled and planned for.

Which is why we used to be able to see coal stock at power stations building over the summer low demand periods and diminishing during winter high demand periods. Well planned storage from local sources.

Even with huge over provision, which surely would de-stabilise investment returns in fully unsubsidised wind developments (no payment for curtailment when it is required BECAUSE OF huge over provision) all of the realistic and "renewables" supporting studies I have seen so far are unable to claim a 100% ability to deliver against demand 24/7/365.

Miss that delivery for a few days a year in what is basically intended to be a fully electrified energy system (according to proposed political policies currently offered to th consumers who pay for the service) and you run the risk of some hugely expensive problems - basically the country stops running at all.

To those who say "It's all working well and we are not seeing any problems today because we are using a "balanced system" one has to pose the question "How balanced will the system be once the remaining dispatchable (fossil fuel mainly) generator have been eliminated?

Coal has almost gone now. People are implying that policy will eliminate gas as well with a target of 2030 according to some statements or demands. Nobody is going to invest in new plant against that background (unless they end up with a deal that seems them handsomely compensated if they don't make the expected return on the investment) so even gas generation would simply disappear by expected obsolescence of plant with or without formerly enacted policy to that effect.

Once one has committed to that path and based some of the decision on the hopes that technology will appear that makes the dreams happen - like CCS for example that would apparently mean that the CO2 emission requirements would be satisfied to gas could be used to cover the intermittency voids even if it would be ludicrously inefficient in terms of capital investment to do so.

But so far no CCS based large scale concept has appeared to suggest that the idea might be viable despite decades of work. It seems that plans and policy are being formed on the basis of miracle happening. No plan B.

If plan B turns out to be needed it will likely be very rushed (usually not a good idea) and very expensive. I suspect there are some commercial operators who are fully expecting this outcome and may well be positioning to take advantage of it.

The cynic in me wonders whether they could resist helping to create such problems if they decided it was in their interest to do so.