The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[hidetheelephants]

Nickgnome said:

The FIT is not of any particular interest to me as I can source and install much more economically than approved contractors and obviously I will still get approved certification.

How do you become an approved installer then?

[LongQ]

I find it odd that governments around the world witter on about saving energy to save the world and it's a message that is relayed by many very wealthy to extremely wealthy individuals and not a few so called celebrities yet none of them, governments or individuals, so to do anything tif any significance to set any sort of meaningful initiative.

Fit a few panels if you like - it might make you feel better but won't mean anything.

It's a bit like how to save money by driving a Bentley Bentayga efficiently or buying a diesel for the better fuel consumption when one only drives the thing a thousand miles a year.

At some point, if it ever became a legal requirement to have solar panels fitted to every building, the economics of power generation would collapse unless those installation were taxed rather than subsidise.

If it happened not to collapse it might be that only the rich could afford energy 24/7 and the poor could not longer afford to cook. I rather suspect that there might be other problems with large number of roofless people before that stage was reached. It might be a good idea to keep the yacht well stocked and secure yet handy for a rapid escape.

Despite the apparently urgent demands to save the world by, in part, cutting energy consumption, that is not happening as widely as it might and ever more complexity and associated profligate waste of energy seems to be the new normal.

I would have no problem with that if it wasn't for the constant protestations of piety from some of the worst wasters. At some point the world economy will signal that whatever the currently available energy source at the time the total result and the cost of producing it is not fit for purpose across all levels of comparative wealth. At that point things could get interesting.

Of course policy, at least in the short term, might change temporarily for pragmatic (political) reasons. Unlikely once the politicians have a course set - but possible, maybe though the then longer terms challenge related to the price of energy over all may be something that is not directly related unfettered demand alone.

[PRTVR]

Nickgnome said:

PRTVR said:

Condi said:

PRTVR said:

Nickgnome said:

Just wondering how many kw of Pv we should put on our new south facing flat roof.

Overall about 14m x 12m. Inclination will be 31 deg

I’m thinking 6kw and may be 1kw on the separate garage.

Shouldn’t we all be doing this?

It will provide power when you least need it, during the day when you are at work, on a cold winter's night you will be in the same situation as if you didn't have it.

If you have a big hot water tank thats an easy way to store excess power. Get a system which dumps excess energy you're not consuming into an immersion heater and you'll barely need to pay to heat water, even in winter you can often get a few hours.

Morally I have always thought they were wrong,I have a friend who has his detached house on a gated estate, his roof is covered along with water heating panels, he makes enough from the feed in tariff not to have to pay any energy bill during a year, the ones with money are paid by the poor who cannot afford the panels, not an ideal situation.

I find that a very strange attitude. I applaud his approach and just wish government would allow a differerent approach toward grants to upgrade housing stock for the less fortunate.

A strange attitude that I do not think the poor should subsidise the rich ?
Grenfell towers is what happens when governments attempt to improve housing stock, there is also problems with new homes that have been built to be very energy efficient standards with damp etc there is no easy fix, but in my opinion going down the expensive electricity route is not the answer until the efficiency of the housing stock is improved.

[V8 Fettler]

Condi said:

V8 Fettler said:

Are you capable of logical argument?

The gas deficit notice of March 2018 confirms that the existing design of the grid is not robust, but fortunately we had coal-fired to carry us through. How will the design of the grid change by 2025 to permit the end of coal-fired?

I'm very capable of logical argument.

But as the government has written into law that coal stations without carbon capture will not be allowed to operate from 2025, then everyone from the top down is working on the assumption that from 2025 there will be no coal. Repeating the argument 'we need coal' doesnt change the fact there wont be any (unless the government changes their plans) and so you seem to trying to swim against a very strong tide! Or, as some would say, are pissing in the wind.

Anyway, as for how NG see the winter, this contains all the answers you'll need. And you'll like it, coal features quite strongly!

https://www.nationalgrideso.com/sites/eso/files/do...

How is "No, because no. " logical argument?

I've skimmed through the National Grid document, I can find very little about improving the robustness of the existing design to avoid a repeat of the gas shortages in winter 2018, although the document does make reference to reviewing the Gas Deficit Warning, where reviewing = no meaningful action.

National Grid said:

As discussed in our 2018 Winter Review and Consultation document, the cold weather front at the end of February 2018 brought unseasonably low temperatures and heavy snowfall

The NG regards low temperatures in February as "unseasonable"? It was winter, and it wasn't particularly cold compared to - say - 1963.

The NG's proposed model for dealing with a repeat of the cool spell late Feb / early March 2018 is flawed, see: https://www.utilitywise.com/2018/03/06/gas-deficit...

National Grid said:

Our analysis showed that had coal-fired generation been replaced entirely by gas-fired generation on 1 March, this would have led to an additional 45 mcm of gas demand over the day. This additional demand could have been met by the IUK and BBL interconnectors flowing at their maximum, and more liquefied natural gas (LNG) being put into the system. However, this may have required associated changes to expected LNG deliveries to support continued flow.

Utilitywise said:

With high demand across Europe, supplies via flexible pipelines from Belgium and the Netherlands fell significantly. Through most of February, these pipelines were providing around 60mcm of supply a day. However, since the ‘Beast from the East’ began to bite, this fell closer to 30mcm.

Utilitywise said:

Were that rate to continue, LNG stocks would be empty within a week. This gas will have to be replenished but there are currently no tankers booked for the UK.

The question remains unanswered: How will the design of the grid change by 2025 to permit the end of coal-fired? Is the only option power cuts?

[Gary C]

V8 Fettler said:

The question remains unanswered: How will the design of the grid change by 2025 to permit the end of coal-fired? Is the only option power cuts?

Possibly, and it might be the impetus the country needs.

My concern it will be started by a reactor trip (as you can imagine, the protection systems are very extensive and do very occasionally give a spurious trip) and nuclear will be blamed.

It's not long before 4 nuclear stations will be at end of life and shutdown then another 3 by 2035, along with all coal and 37 gas stations. That's a loss of 46GW by 2035 with little to replace it

Hinckley C won't cover the gap even if it comes in on time.

[Nickgnome]

PRTVR said:

Nickgnome said:

PRTVR said:

Condi said:

PRTVR said:

Nickgnome said:

Just wondering how many kw of Pv we should put on our new south facing flat roof.

Overall about 14m x 12m. Inclination will be 31 deg

I’m thinking 6kw and may be 1kw on the separate garage.

Shouldn’t we all be doing this?

It will provide power when you least need it, during the day when you are at work, on a cold winter's night you will be in the same situation as if you didn't have it.

If you have a big hot water tank thats an easy way to store excess power. Get a system which dumps excess energy you're not consuming into an immersion heater and you'll barely need to pay to heat water, even in winter you can often get a few hours.

Morally I have always thought they were wrong,I have a friend who has his detached house on a gated estate, his roof is covered along with water heating panels, he makes enough from the feed in tariff not to have to pay any energy bill during a year, the ones with money are paid by the poor who cannot afford the panels, not an ideal situation.

I find that a very strange attitude. I applaud his approach and just wish government would allow a differerent approach toward grants to upgrade housing stock for the less fortunate.

A strange attitude that I do not think the poor should subsidise the rich ?
Grenfell towers is what happens when governments attempt to improve housing stock, there is also problems with new homes that have been built to be very energy efficient standards with damp etc there is no easy fix, but in my opinion going down the expensive electricity route is not the answer until the efficiency of the housing stock is improved.

I believe you on conflating two different issues. Unless you never claim expenses against tax and in fact pay more tax than is due then you are just like most others taking advantage of tax breaks. That is completely different from government policy on paying the less fortunate insufficient to live decent lives. It’s as simple as that.

The impact of renewable allowances is a completely different argument. You happen not to agree with them I do. Simple as that. If they did not exist what would make you think the government would not generate cash in another way or the power companies do likewise.

We have poverty in this country and it has nothing to do with a fuel levy. You will not be convinced but it really doesn’t matter because the most you are able to do is post on here.

If you were so concerned about fuel poverty what charitable action could you take?

[With This Staff]

Nickgnome said:

If you were so concerned about fuel poverty what charitable action could you take?

First - blow up the HoC with all residing there
Second - tactical nuke on Greenpeace and FOE.
Third - have brew (job well done)

[Nickgnome]

With This Staff said:

Nickgnome said:

If you were so concerned about fuel poverty what charitable action could you take?

First - blow up the HoC with all residing there
Second - tactical nuke on Greenpeace and FOE.
Third - have brew (job well done)

Well, that enhanced the debate no end. Does your employer give you time out to post?

[With This Staff]

Nickgnome said:

With This Staff said:

Nickgnome said:

If you were so concerned about fuel poverty what charitable action could you take?

First - blow up the HoC with all residing there
Second - tactical nuke on Greenpeace and FOE.
Third - have brew (job well done)

Well, that enhanced the debate no end. Does your employer give you time out to post?

Yep - I asked the boss!

The above is in jest - with a bit of spice.

[PRTVR]

Nickgnome said:

I believe you on conflating two different issues. Unless you never claim expenses against tax and in fact pay more tax than is due then you are just like most others taking advantage of tax breaks. That is completely different from government policy on paying the less fortunate insufficient to live decent lives. It’s as simple as that.

The impact of renewable allowances is a completely different argument. You happen not to agree with them I do. Simple as that. If they did not exist what would make you think the government would not generate cash in another way or the power companies do likewise.

We have poverty in this country and it has nothing to do with a fuel levy. You will not be convinced but it really doesn’t matter because the most you are able to do is post on here.

If you were so concerned about fuel poverty what charitable action could you take?

But the feed in tariff is not paid out of tax, we all pay it on our fuel bills, the poor will get hit the hardest, yes we have poverty in this country, this doesn't make it better but makes it worse.

[dickymint]

PRTVR said:

Nickgnome said:

I believe you on conflating two different issues. Unless you never claim expenses against tax and in fact pay more tax than is due then you are just like most others taking advantage of tax breaks. That is completely different from government policy on paying the less fortunate insufficient to live decent lives. It’s as simple as that.

The impact of renewable allowances is a completely different argument. You happen not to agree with them I do. Simple as that. If they did not exist what would make you think the government would not generate cash in another way or the power companies do likewise.

We have poverty in this country and it has nothing to do with a fuel levy. You will not be convinced but it really doesn’t matter because the most you are able to do is post on here.

If you were so concerned about fuel poverty what charitable action could you take?

But the feed in tariff is not paid out of tax, we all pay it on our fuel bills, the poor will get hit the hardest, yes we have poverty in this country, this doesn't make it better but makes it worse.

Lump in the "free" smart meters on our bills too!

[turbobloke]

Nickgnome said:

If you were so concerned about fuel poverty what charitable action could you take?

What charitable action might be taken over fuel poverty?

Head over to the nearest charity shop with any old encycopedia sets, other big fat books that nobody reads any more, and hand them in.

'Pensioners Are Burning Books to Keep Warm'

-Workers at one charity shop in Swansea, in south Wales, described how the most vulnerable shoppers were seeking out thick books such as encyclopaedias for a few pence because they were cheaper than coal.
-Volunteers have reported that a large number of elderly customers are snapping up hardbacks as cheap fuel for their fires and stoves.

Charity volunteer quoted in Metro article said:

Book burning seems terribly wrong but we have to get rid of unsold stock for pennies and some of the pensioners say the books make ideal slow-burning fuel for fires and stoves.

A lot of them buy up large hardback volumes so they can stick them in the fire to last all night.

Tut tut toasty tragedy.

[Nickgnome]

PRTVR said:

Nickgnome said:

I believe you on conflating two different issues. Unless you never claim expenses against tax and in fact pay more tax than is due then you are just like most others taking advantage of tax breaks. That is completely different from government policy on paying the less fortunate insufficient to live decent lives. It’s as simple as that.

The impact of renewable allowances is a completely different argument. You happen not to agree with them I do. Simple as that. If they did not exist what would make you think the government would not generate cash in another way or the power companies do likewise.

We have poverty in this country and it has nothing to do with a fuel levy. You will not be convinced but it really doesn’t matter because the most you are able to do is post on here.

If you were so concerned about fuel poverty what charitable action could you take?

But the feed in tariff is not paid out of tax, we all pay it on our fuel bills, the poor will get hit the hardest, yes we have poverty in this country, this doesn't make it better but makes it worse.

I never said it was. You had an issue with someone taking advantage of a feed in tariff.

I think renewables are important and you don’t, that’s it. You are not going to pursuade me and I’m not trying to convince you out of your intrenched position.

[Condi]

turbobloke said:

Tut tut toasty tragedy.

The article is 8, nearly 9 years old.

Yet more looking backwards and not forwards.



You amuse me, no matter how much you complain about the UK power policy on PH it really wont change. Someone once told me to worry about the things you can control, and work within the environment you've got. You seem to worry about things you cant control, and simultaneously are planning for a future which is radically different everyone else is planning for.

Here, read this.
https://data.bloomberglp.com/bnef/sites/14/2018/10...

[PRTVR]

Nickgnome said:

PRTVR said:

Nickgnome said:

I believe you on conflating two different issues. Unless you never claim expenses against tax and in fact pay more tax than is due then you are just like most others taking advantage of tax breaks. That is completely different from government policy on paying the less fortunate insufficient to live decent lives. It’s as simple as that.

The impact of renewable allowances is a completely different argument. You happen not to agree with them I do. Simple as that. If they did not exist what would make you think the government would not generate cash in another way or the power companies do likewise.

We have poverty in this country and it has nothing to do with a fuel levy. You will not be convinced but it really doesn’t matter because the most you are able to do is post on here.

If you were so concerned about fuel poverty what charitable action could you take?

But the feed in tariff is not paid out of tax, we all pay it on our fuel bills, the poor will get hit the hardest, yes we have poverty in this country, this doesn't make it better but makes it worse.

I never said it was. You had an issue with someone taking advantage of a feed in tariff.

I think renewables are important and you don’t, that’s it. You are not going to pursuade me and I’m not trying to convince you out of your intrenched position.

I have nothing against renewables, I would prefer not to pay for other people to have them, if people want to take advantage of the system that is there choice, my friend who has them is still my friend, we still go out for drinks, not to have them is a personal choice nothing more.

[Evanivitch]

V8 Fettler said:

The question remains unanswered: How will the design of the grid change by 2025 to permit the end of coal-fired? Is the only option power cuts?

Better gas planning, better gas storage, better gas power plants, hopefully some district heating and some fracking.

[V8 Fettler]

Evanivitch said:

V8 Fettler said:

The question remains unanswered: How will the design of the grid change by 2025 to permit the end of coal-fired? Is the only option power cuts?

Better gas planning, better gas storage, better gas power plants, hopefully some district heating and some fracking.

Why should we rely on hope? Although I suppose we could always hope for a warm winter.

Better gas planning? What's that then?

We cannot rely on gas interconnectors when continental demand is high. Gas storage is a possibility, how much do we currently have, one week? How much do we need? Thirteen weeks?

[Condi]

There are new gas storage units being built, such as this one in Cheshire.

https://www.storengy.com/countries/unitedkingdom/e...

There are also new offshore gas fields being found and exploited, such as this one owned by Total.

https://www.total.com/en/media/news/press-releases...

[dickymint]

Not sure if it's been mentioned on here but isn't the Governments mid/long term plan for all new builds to be electric only and all gas heating to be scrapped. All gas will be for generating electricity?

[Evanivitch]

V8 Fettler said:

Why should we rely on hope? Although I suppose we could always hope for a warm winter.

Better gas planning? What's that then?

We cannot rely on gas interconnectors when continental demand is high. Gas storage is a possibility, how much do we currently have, one week? How much do we need? Thirteen weeks?

I'm not suggesting we rely on hope, I believe fracking will go ahead and it will provide energy security in the medium term, but we also have a very shaky government that traditionally seeks support from rural communities.

Better gas planning is simply to plan-ahead gas deliveries better. All this talk of interconnects, but 25% of our gas comes from South Hook alone.

We are currently at a low in gas storage, however new facilities are coming online.

Is there any practical reason that an LNG carrier couldn't wait off shore with cargo? Aside from economic of course.