The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/09/Of...
Quote
"Spin put on the government’s recently announced strike prices to three large offshore wind farms has misled many into thinking that the costs of offshore wind are falling.
However, no actual capital cost figures have been provided for the three windfarms (Hornsea, Moray East, or Triton Knoll), and the strike prices are a poor guide to underlying costs.
In fact, empirical CAPEX data collated for the first time in a new statistical study published today by GWPF shows that the capital costs for offshore wind remain high. Moreover, as the wind industry moves into deeper water, costs are actually rising offsetting any reduction in costs due to technical progress.
The study’s authors conclude that wind farm companies are probably willing to offer economically non-viable CfD prices because they regard the CfD contract as low cost, no penalty “option” for future development. At the same time, they are securing a market position and inhibiting competition, with actual wind farm construction conditional on obtaining more generous terms in the future.
Should the market price rise above the contracted price, because of rising fossil fuel costs or a further rise in the UK’s carbon tax, companies would simply cancel the CfD contract and go with the higher price. However, if there is no significant probability of that elevated market price, these sites are very unlikely to be built.
Professor Gordon Hughes, the paper’s lead author, said:
“Contrary to gullible media exaggerations, capital costs for offshore wind have not fallen, and the sites are not economic at the recently announced prices. The developers are just gambling on the small chance of very high fossil fuel prices in the near future, or more likely on a high carbon price.”
Professor Hughes added:
“The low CfD prices offered in the auction are just a normal albeit very risky business speculation. They certainly are not the dawn of a new age for offshore wind.”" /quote
Any comments Paddy?
Quote
"Spin put on the government’s recently announced strike prices to three large offshore wind farms has misled many into thinking that the costs of offshore wind are falling.
However, no actual capital cost figures have been provided for the three windfarms (Hornsea, Moray East, or Triton Knoll), and the strike prices are a poor guide to underlying costs.
In fact, empirical CAPEX data collated for the first time in a new statistical study published today by GWPF shows that the capital costs for offshore wind remain high. Moreover, as the wind industry moves into deeper water, costs are actually rising offsetting any reduction in costs due to technical progress.
The study’s authors conclude that wind farm companies are probably willing to offer economically non-viable CfD prices because they regard the CfD contract as low cost, no penalty “option” for future development. At the same time, they are securing a market position and inhibiting competition, with actual wind farm construction conditional on obtaining more generous terms in the future.
Should the market price rise above the contracted price, because of rising fossil fuel costs or a further rise in the UK’s carbon tax, companies would simply cancel the CfD contract and go with the higher price. However, if there is no significant probability of that elevated market price, these sites are very unlikely to be built.
Professor Gordon Hughes, the paper’s lead author, said:
“Contrary to gullible media exaggerations, capital costs for offshore wind have not fallen, and the sites are not economic at the recently announced prices. The developers are just gambling on the small chance of very high fossil fuel prices in the near future, or more likely on a high carbon price.”
Professor Hughes added:
“The low CfD prices offered in the auction are just a normal albeit very risky business speculation. They certainly are not the dawn of a new age for offshore wind.”" /quote
Any comments Paddy?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
That image is from a plethora of balanced view websites :
https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZis6wFHy...
It's from pinterest. Are you saying that it's fake?https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZis6wFHy...
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
XM5ER said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
That image is from a plethora of balanced view websites :
https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZis6wFHy...
It's from pinterest. Are you saying that it's fake?https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZis6wFHy...
The picture exists - as do the WTG's in the picture.
The message you intentionally try to make with it is irrelevant to the discussions
rolando said:
Good Energy:
"In March 2017, we also announced that we were stopping all further generation development activities. This was due to the continued lack of support from the Government for UK onshore wind and large scale solar."
Source
All goes to show that costs of solar and wind can’t be plummeting sufficiently to allow the unreliables to stand on their own feet.
Aww, shame."In March 2017, we also announced that we were stopping all further generation development activities. This was due to the continued lack of support from the Government for UK onshore wind and large scale solar."
Source
All goes to show that costs of solar and wind can’t be plummeting sufficiently to allow the unreliables to stand on their own feet.
Their other boondogle went the way of the dodo too.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/172634/coup...
What amazes me is that no one ever challenges the notion that subsidies somehow foment innovation.
LongQ said:
XM5ER said:
rolando said:
Good Energy:
"In March 2017, we also announced that we were stopping all further generation development activities. This was due to the continued lack of support from the Government for UK onshore wind and large scale solar."
Source
All goes to show that costs of solar and wind can’t be plummeting sufficiently to allow the unreliables to stand on their own feet.
Aww, shame."In March 2017, we also announced that we were stopping all further generation development activities. This was due to the continued lack of support from the Government for UK onshore wind and large scale solar."
Source
All goes to show that costs of solar and wind can’t be plummeting sufficiently to allow the unreliables to stand on their own feet.
Their other boondogle went the way of the dodo too.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/172634/coup...
What amazes me is that no one ever challenges the notion that subsidies somehow foment innovation.
Subsidies produce a lot of innovation.
Consider the wood fueled stoves in Northern Ireland that came to light about a year ago. The subsidy for burning the stoves in certain circumstances (iirc it was really intended for heating agricultural buildings or something like that) was greater than the cost of the fuel. Thus it paid the owners to install the units and run them 21/7/365 for no purpose whatsoever.
If that's not creative development of the use of green fuel sources what is?
As a scandal (estimated wealth transfer is between about £600M and £1B apparently, UK taxpayer to NI landowners) it almost brought down the DUP and Arlene Foster.
Now, a few short months later she seems to hold sway over events related to Brexit which in turn, one way or another will have some sort of influence on the Future of Power Generation in GB - though perhaps one might prefer to think of that as the UK given NI's involvement.
In that case the subsidy concept seems to be a very clear example of the Law of Unintended Consequences and how political decision making can result in unfortunate waste and loss of opportunity on a grand scale. Yet the politicians seem to survive these days in ways that would have been unlikely in the not too distant past. That allows them to continue to get things wrong again and again whilst doubtless believing they are infallible.
LongQ said:
News today about the shape pf the global power industry.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42267688
GE to cut a large number of jobs worldwide.
More to do with the tremendous ego massaging fhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42267688
GE to cut a large number of jobs worldwide.
k up that was the Alstom acquisition. Immelt was a terrible CEO.Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Of course I appreciate there are 'additional' thoughts that accompany the process - but the usual brayers are all doom and gloom about the 'unreliables' and were jumping with glee at the low contribution to the grid.
Despite that - we The Consumers - did not see any problems.
I'd be more concerned about the Gas Explosion et al on the face of it..... (eggs / baskets):
The shutdown of the North Sea’s most important oil and gas pipeline system has been compounded by an explosion at a major gas processing facility in Austria, creating a perfect storm of disruption to gas supply across Europe.
But we are ok with that and the cost impact ?
I'd be OK with it if the sodding hippies and NIMBY's (ironic for you in the wind industry I know) would get out of the way and let us get on with fracking the enormous amount of gas we have sitting under our feet in this country.Despite that - we The Consumers - did not see any problems.
I'd be more concerned about the Gas Explosion et al on the face of it..... (eggs / baskets):
The shutdown of the North Sea’s most important oil and gas pipeline system has been compounded by an explosion at a major gas processing facility in Austria, creating a perfect storm of disruption to gas supply across Europe.
But we are ok with that and the cost impact ?
There's a good podcast this morning from James Dellingpole.
https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/fkt6y-46f89...
He has Professor Ian Plimer - geologist on it this week. He does talk about the AGW debate but in terms of the renewable discussion he does describe his experience of the total clusterfk that is NSW powergen debacle. The most expensive electricity in the world, caused by wind.
https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/fkt6y-46f89...
He has Professor Ian Plimer - geologist on it this week. He does talk about the AGW debate but in terms of the renewable discussion he does describe his experience of the total clusterf
k that is NSW powergen debacle. The most expensive electricity in the world, caused by wind.eharding said:
XM5ER said:
Professor Ian Plimer - geologist on it this week.
Wikipedia said:
Plimer was appointed director of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments in 2012.[25]
According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[26] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs.[22] He has also warned that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.
Despite his protestations, Plimer is hardly an unbiased commentator.According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[26] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs.[22] He has also warned that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Which has Nothing to do with this thread.
Do you always measure yourself against others? Or strive to do whats right yourself ?
Do what's right by whom? Those living in energy poverty deciding to heat or eat? Or those trading CO2 futures deciding which Michelin star restaurant to eat in this lunchtime? All based on an unproven hypothesis that gives idiot politicians a feeling of saving the world.Do you always measure yourself against others? Or strive to do whats right yourself ?
MYOB said:
XM5ER said:
Do what's right by whom? Those living in energy poverty deciding to heat or eat? Or those trading CO2 futures deciding which Michelin star restaurant to eat in this lunchtime? All based on an unproven hypothesis that gives idiot politicians a feeling of saving the world.
I think the point is that the UK (and the EU amongst many others) have decided to demonstrate leadership and decide to do something that will bring some benefits to us. We can't force others to follow but we can lead the way and hope others eventually see fit to do the same.
Don't be too cynical.
Government tried previously to deal with energy and climate change under one Department. It didn't work. There are too many conflicts and the issues were separated again under the previous Machinery of Government when DECC was abolished.
Just like there are two threads here. One for generation and the other for climate change.
Why would I not be cynical, history proves time and time again that governments act in their own interests, whether by design or by accident.
XM5ER said:
I once titled my Degree thesis the same, how ironic that very little has improved since I wrote it 25 years ago.
Anyway, I proposed to bring the wind generation discussion out of the Climate Change thread for the purposes of opening up to the wider PH audience (I know a lot of people don't venture in there anymore since it is so polarized). I also want to open it up beyond the renewable discussion as so much has gone wrong since I wrote my thesis all that time ago.
To state my position, we should be building CCGT plant (combined cycle gas turbines) and fracking for all we are worth. At the same time we should be piling research into modular small fission nuclear power plant and putting long term research into fusion (hot or cold). I do not believe that wind power has more than a minor contribution to be made due to it's intermittency (is that a word?) and therefore the need to have back up plant that costs a shed load of cash to be just sitting there idling. As for solar? Give me a break, it barely warms my skin for more than a few days a year, it sure ain't gonna charge my Tesla.
Lets try to keep the discussion factual and non insulting. Speaking as a fkknuckle, I don't worry about name calling on the internetz but I know a few special snowflakes take unkindly to being accused of onanism, plus it doesn't add much to the debate.
Paddy! LongQ etc. You're up.
fAnyway, I proposed to bring the wind generation discussion out of the Climate Change thread for the purposes of opening up to the wider PH audience (I know a lot of people don't venture in there anymore since it is so polarized). I also want to open it up beyond the renewable discussion as so much has gone wrong since I wrote my thesis all that time ago.
To state my position, we should be building CCGT plant (combined cycle gas turbines) and fracking for all we are worth. At the same time we should be piling research into modular small fission nuclear power plant and putting long term research into fusion (hot or cold). I do not believe that wind power has more than a minor contribution to be made due to it's intermittency (is that a word?) and therefore the need to have back up plant that costs a shed load of cash to be just sitting there idling. As for solar? Give me a break, it barely warms my skin for more than a few days a year, it sure ain't gonna charge my Tesla.
Lets try to keep the discussion factual and non insulting. Speaking as a f
kknuckle, I don't worry about name calling on the internetz but I know a few special snowflakes take unkindly to being accused of onanism, plus it doesn't add much to the debate.Paddy! LongQ etc. You're up.
king LOLZEnjoy your blackouts guys. With any luck, the vaccine will have killed off enough people by 2030 that we can survive on sunshine a unicorn power generation by then.
Bye.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff