The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
"The chemistry used in the batteries utilized in the company’s plug-in electric vehicles is nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), while the chemistry used in its energy storage products is nickel manganese cobalt (NMC). The difference in choice is due to the different requirements of the two applications (greater energy density and power density for the vehicles, for example)."
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/02/tesla-batteri...
Its planned that old car batteries will be re purposed for power wall applications, this is from several companies in addition to tesla ( Renault etc). But the reality is car batteries are just not failing fast enough, lasting longer than expected so the supply for these is just not there.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/02/tesla-batteri...
Its planned that old car batteries will be re purposed for power wall applications, this is from several companies in addition to tesla ( Renault etc). But the reality is car batteries are just not failing fast enough, lasting longer than expected so the supply for these is just not there.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
So tell us about batteries Paddy.
Like yourself, I can't. Unlike yourself, I am choosing not to guess or make assumptions.
That means we either try to discuss them from whatever level of knowledge we may have gleaned and wait for people to find more information to add to the discussion or for an expert to arrive and inform us .... or we stop taking about them. Which would seem to make the entire thread a bit pointless.
For now let's try something else.
What will be the bid price for offshore wind generation for developments coming on line in 2028?
Will the actual price be less than the bid price (wholesale)?
How much with 4 or 5 million people (maybe more by then?) on pre-paid meters be paying per unit of energy?
What do you think Paddy?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
What will be the bid price for offshore wind generation for developments coming on line in 2028?
Will the actual price be less than the bid price (wholesale)?
Where?Will the actual price be less than the bid price (wholesale)?
(Emerging markets, Far offshore floating? etc)
ETA - none of you believed me last time. Why will you this time ?
But if you want to spread your options wider because you feel it has medium to long term relevance than I would not mind at all.
What does it matter whether people believe you now if you are proven to be correct when the time arrives?
In five years time (2023 iirc) when last year's lowest bids come on line and are soon to be joined by many others you will be able to look back with pride and explain to anyone left on PH that you educated everyone to the forthcoming price benefits years before and emphasize how perceptive you were when no one else was. Then when the even later bids are in and everything is up and running you will be able to repeat the exercise and attract a whole new generation of admirers.
What could be wrong with that?
Heck, you don't even have to risk any money betting on it - though I suppose you might choose to if one of the gambling operators is able to make some odds. The opportunity might be too good to miss.
I would guess you might want to make the numbers relate to 2018 pounds or euros or dollars to provide some basis of relative stability and inflation (or even deflation) adjustment.
RobDickinson said:
Grid scale batteries will have a huge impact on smoothing power out between sources and reducing costs.
There are already services in USA that install batteries grid side of companies meters and reduce costs.
It's all about removing the need for peakers
That has become necessary for grid stability, sure, but does not address intermittency at any large scale of deployment.There are already services in USA that install batteries grid side of companies meters and reduce costs.
It's all about removing the need for peakers
Are there any signs that the proposed reduced costs are likely to be passed on to the consumers?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
We are discussing the UK according to the thread title. So UK.
Ahh - if the UK, didn't you read a suggested report I gave before then ? https://www.auroraer.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/0...
I'll take the rest in the tongue in cheek manner it was offered....
What tends to happen round these ways is once proven wrong, poster f
k off, move the goal posts or change the subject entirely - so unfortunately all of the upsides you offer, become an utter let down due to the poor form of the Armchair experts 
No I had not seen that link. I have glanced at it now and will attempt to read it in detail later.
However the summary page seems to be suggesting that all this wonderful reduced cost that can be delivered by offshore wind if every other source is driven out of the market and CPS is pushed up to renewables favouring rates will save every household £20 per annum on its electricity bill by allowing faster expansion and thus offering some savings in certain areas by economies of scale.
Moreover the graph on page 10 seems to be suggesting an increasing price from 2024 (or thereabouts) to 2040 unless some other approaches are enacted which increase prices earlier via 15 CfDs but then stabilise them as far as 2038. that is if the plan works out. And in any case the price differences are pretty small.
This, presumably, is the industry appealing for special support (and the elimination of Nuclear investment) in order to skew the possible market in its favour based on an appeal to the God of CO2 reduction.
Interesting.
If we take that graph as your basis for prediction of future bids it looks like the bids are not likely to get much lower and will eventually start to rise. All numbers based on 2016 £ relative worth if I have read things correctly.
So we can watch for the £58 becoming an actual CfD value in around 2023/24 and 5 years on it might still be much the same or it might be a little higher.
If they get the "unsubsidised" support they are suggesting.
That should be interesting to extract form the detail in the text.
And of course it is only one report presenting one view.
For what it is worth I was not being tongue in cheek. Merely suggesting an opportunity to forecast into the future and provide something that could be compared to "expert" analysis and thus facilitate some discussions.
Are you proposing the Aurora report as your offering to the discussion?
An interesting read, good to see the assumptions set out since, as with all modelling, assumptions are key.
• 13-15MW turbines available to market participants from the mid-2020s
• Load factors for these turbines may be as high as 51-53% depending on location
• Capex reductions are forecast to be ~25-30% from current available wind turbine technologies on a £ per kW basis. Opex reductions are forecast to follow a similar trajectory
• In addition, response times of offshore wind turbines (i.e., their ability to vary output) are assumed to be under 2 seconds through both speed/ inverter control and blade control
• Aurora assumes that contracted revenue streams are discounted at 8% nominal, unlevered, pre-tax, and merchant revenue streams are discounted at 13% nominal, unlevered, pre-tax
• Aurora assumes interconnection reaches 8.4GW by 2023 and then no further capacity is added to 2040. In addition, Aurora assumes nuclear capacity drops and then plateaus at approximately 7GW out to 2040
• Aurora uses data from National Grid’s ‘Future Energy Scenarios’ to forecast demand – total electricity demand increases by approximately 7% to 2040 and ACS peak demand increases approximately 4% from current levels
• Aurora assumes significant growth in electric vehicles to 2040 – approximately 10 million electric vehicles in GB by 2040
• Aurora forecasts gas prices to rise slowly as the global LNG market rebalances – prices stabilise at ~£6-8 per MMBTu through the late-2020s and 2030s
• Aurora assumes a lower carbon price trajectory than BEIS with a combination of Carbon Price Support and EU ETS allowance reaching £40 per tonne by 2040
Fiction or not, time will tell.
• 13-15MW turbines available to market participants from the mid-2020s
• Load factors for these turbines may be as high as 51-53% depending on location
• Capex reductions are forecast to be ~25-30% from current available wind turbine technologies on a £ per kW basis. Opex reductions are forecast to follow a similar trajectory
• In addition, response times of offshore wind turbines (i.e., their ability to vary output) are assumed to be under 2 seconds through both speed/ inverter control and blade control
• Aurora assumes that contracted revenue streams are discounted at 8% nominal, unlevered, pre-tax, and merchant revenue streams are discounted at 13% nominal, unlevered, pre-tax
• Aurora assumes interconnection reaches 8.4GW by 2023 and then no further capacity is added to 2040. In addition, Aurora assumes nuclear capacity drops and then plateaus at approximately 7GW out to 2040
• Aurora uses data from National Grid’s ‘Future Energy Scenarios’ to forecast demand – total electricity demand increases by approximately 7% to 2040 and ACS peak demand increases approximately 4% from current levels
• Aurora assumes significant growth in electric vehicles to 2040 – approximately 10 million electric vehicles in GB by 2040
• Aurora forecasts gas prices to rise slowly as the global LNG market rebalances – prices stabilise at ~£6-8 per MMBTu through the late-2020s and 2030s
• Aurora assumes a lower carbon price trajectory than BEIS with a combination of Carbon Price Support and EU ETS allowance reaching £40 per tonne by 2040
Fiction or not, time will tell.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
You don't seem to be disputing them ?
In a not entirely unrelated manner - this was in one of the morning mails - https://www.offshorewind.biz/2018/02/12/orsted-str...
Can you see the advance or progress the industry is making on its own accord ?
I didn't realise they were so far off shore, the ones I can see out at sea from Bridlington and down the coast towards Hornsea must be something else then.In a not entirely unrelated manner - this was in one of the morning mails - https://www.offshorewind.biz/2018/02/12/orsted-str...
Can you see the advance or progress the industry is making on its own accord ?
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
turbobloke said:
An interesting read, good to see the assumptions set out since, as with all modelling, assumptions are key.
Fiction or not, time will tell.
You don't seem to be disputing them ? Fiction or not, time will tell.
Anyone can believe/disbelieve/guess. Evidence is needed to judge, and time will provide that evidence.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
turbobloke said:
People setting out their view of the future need to make assumptions, optimistic or pessimistic it makes no difference to the point that time will tell.
Anyone can believe/disbelieve/guess. Evidence is needed to judge, and time will provide that evidence.
But surely even you can see in contrast with the bulk of the sites you link to - this is based not on a loathing or hatred of Renewables but sound inputs ?Anyone can believe/disbelieve/guess. Evidence is needed to judge, and time will provide that evidence.
The same goes for your fictional 'loathing or hatred' nonsense as my position on renewables is based on objective evidence and related data. In falsely describing the basis of my views as emotional you're misprepreseting my position as other thread participants will easily see, but it's worth pointing out.
I have linked previously to e.g. IEEE, RE<C related, National Grid, beyond that I've cited numerous peer-reviewed research publications, a series of academic papers which you've singularly failed to know about/respond to in any meaningful way.
Anvari et al
Drake et al
Keith et al
Polley et al
Sreedevi et al
Vautard et al
Weißbach et al.
Zhu et al
That's an alphabetical list from the last 20 pages of this thread (using my PH page settings) and in going back through those pages to list the papers it was very difficult if not impossible to see any meaningful responses from anyone on the pro-renewables PH active service list.
One comment on issues raised by one of the papers went something like "so to be clear you're saying that'; when it's obvious that the paper lead author and fellow authors were saying it, not me.
This repeated tactic of personalising the debate confirms that you (and others afopting the same approach) have little or nothing to offer by way of on-topic response, a point illustrated by your reply above which is full of baseless rhetoric and little else. As a result there's a lot of irony in your posts and similar offerings especially when you stand in your glass house throwing stones.
Where in the last 20 pages have I linked to some dastardly website you particularly object to (and why)? Anything material to offer? Great work. Keep it up!
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
turbobloke said:
People setting out their view of the future need to make assumptions, optimistic or pessimistic it makes no difference to the point that time will tell.
Anyone can believe/disbelieve/guess. Evidence is needed to judge, and time will provide that evidence.
But surely even you can see in contrast with the bulk of the sites you link to - this is based not on a loathing or hatred of Renewables but sound inputs ?Anyone can believe/disbelieve/guess. Evidence is needed to judge, and time will provide that evidence.
You are asking us to to accept as unquestionable "sound inputs", projections that extend up to 20 years into the future whilst at the same time denigrating information in articles from two years ago or less?
If one was to go back 5 or 10years and make projections for today would they stand up to scrutiny?
LongQ said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
turbobloke said:
People setting out their view of the future need to make assumptions, optimistic or pessimistic it makes no difference to the point that time will tell.
Anyone can believe/disbelieve/guess. Evidence is needed to judge, and time will provide that evidence.
But surely even you can see in contrast with the bulk of the sites you link to - this is based not on a loathing or hatred of Renewables but sound inputs ?Anyone can believe/disbelieve/guess. Evidence is needed to judge, and time will provide that evidence.
You are asking us to to accept as unquestionable "sound inputs", projections that extend up to 20 years into the future whilst at the same time denigrating information in articles from two years ago or less?
If one was to go back 5 or 10years and make projections for today would they stand up to scrutiny?
Assumptions, optimistic or pessimisting depending on viewpoint, may be sufficiently accurate to be useful in modelling, or not. As I've said before, time will tell, waiting for evidence is a rational rather than emotional response and certainly preferable.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Toltec said:
I didn't realise they were so far off shore, the ones I can see out at sea from Bridlington and down the coast towards Hornsea must be something else then.
Perhaps you have not been along for all of the 'debate' on this and the other thread - but what most here do not realise is that anything that has been already built is a Model T Ford in contrast with the what is coming - with regards to size of units, locations offshore and importantly - energy to be harnessed.Its an evolving offshore landscape that those within the industry struggle to keep up with in earnest.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Someone told me at thewWind Europe event late last year that whilst the Siemens D7 / SWT-7.0-154 has been bought in the hundreds, not one was (at the time) installed yet, ......but now pulled from the market in Europe in favour of their next model up already !
Sounds like wtgs are even more instant landfill than mobile phones.Toltec said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Someone told me at thewWind Europe event late last year that whilst the Siemens D7 / SWT-7.0-154 has been bought in the hundreds, not one was (at the time) installed yet, ......but now pulled from the market in Europe in favour of their next model up already !
Sounds like wtgs are even more instant landfill than mobile phones.Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
If one was to go back 5 or 10years and make projections for today would they stand up to scrutiny?
No.They were not nearly as optimistic as they should have been.
Targets for 2020 were met in 2017.
Growth in technology and efficiency outgrown expectations.
Would you say the same thing today about recent reports with predictions like the reports from Aurora?
Rob Dickinson has made some interesting observations recently and prompted me to look at the potential for New Zealand as a renewables supplier to the RoW.
With people talking about long distance HVDC cables over land one wonders if the technology may also become suitable undersea over extended distances and at great depth.
If so NZ to Australia would seem viable based on the future expectations for overland distance capabilities.
With enough interconnectors the longitudinal coverage from NZ to Perth might produce some interesting options for a solar based source as well as the wind based options for which, based on what I have read so far, NZ has mostly extremely good conditions.
With a relatively sparse population and a largely agrarian land use the potential for deploying solar and, especially, wind generation seems to far exceed anything that local demand could fully use.
I would imagine the industrialisation of the landscape could be constrained to fairly minimal compared to the area available depending upon where the best returns on investment turn out to be.
If very long distance transmission proves to be ultimately viable as the future global economy develops one would have to wonder how politics would develop in parallel to provide the political and social stability necessary to eliminate any concerns about security of supply over song distance through what have been and still are rather volatile parts of the world that seems to prefer to adopt on a selective basis the beneficial options that the currently more developed parts of the world believe they can offer.
The next generation or two could be very interesting.
Should a global grid become reality the idea of UK being supported by electricity generation from NZ as well as being a source for food supplies could be rather appealing.
With people talking about long distance HVDC cables over land one wonders if the technology may also become suitable undersea over extended distances and at great depth.
If so NZ to Australia would seem viable based on the future expectations for overland distance capabilities.
With enough interconnectors the longitudinal coverage from NZ to Perth might produce some interesting options for a solar based source as well as the wind based options for which, based on what I have read so far, NZ has mostly extremely good conditions.
With a relatively sparse population and a largely agrarian land use the potential for deploying solar and, especially, wind generation seems to far exceed anything that local demand could fully use.
I would imagine the industrialisation of the landscape could be constrained to fairly minimal compared to the area available depending upon where the best returns on investment turn out to be.
If very long distance transmission proves to be ultimately viable as the future global economy develops one would have to wonder how politics would develop in parallel to provide the political and social stability necessary to eliminate any concerns about security of supply over song distance through what have been and still are rather volatile parts of the world that seems to prefer to adopt on a selective basis the beneficial options that the currently more developed parts of the world believe they can offer.
The next generation or two could be very interesting.
Should a global grid become reality the idea of UK being supported by electricity generation from NZ as well as being a source for food supplies could be rather appealing.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
With people talking about long distance HVDC cables over land one wonders if the technology may also become suitable undersea over extended distances and at great depth.
Hate to say it, but I have been saying how the interconnections will make differences. the Tin Foilers fear the exposure, but common sense will prevail.I was watching the Norway to Germany interconnector construction video earlier today
The extremely long distance deployment of interconnectors, as I currently understand the challenge, is still in R&D and subject to such non-scientific constraints as economic viability and political stability. No doubt there are other factors in play that are as yet not completely visible.
It strikes me that if you want to go really wide area - wider than Europe for example and even Europe offers some evident challenges to assured political stability - as the basis of a "wind blowing/sun shining somewhere all the time" strategy for Energy policy, energy security will require either multiplication of resources (for the 100% renewables that seem to be the long term political objective) or a remarkable change in global politics and humanity's natural competitiveness. Both of which seem to me to be unlikely events, especially in the short term.
Has Germany yet built its own North to South interconnector? Or is it still reliant on parasitically offloading it's renewables policy problems onto other countries to the cost of its consumers as well as those on other countries?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff