The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[powerstroke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Do you believe there would ever be the volume required, and pipeline, to bring the costs down?
Notwithstanding it is more or less the opposite that has brought the costs down innWind: Griwth in the individual generation components that have brought the costs down.

Are you suggesting making more but smaller Nuclear? Why would that be cheaper than large and singular?

Transmission costs !!!

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

And in a timely announcement yesterday :

“The next UK Contracts for Difference (CfD) auction is planned for spring 2019, the UK Government informed today, along with the announcement that up to GBP 557 million will be made available for renewable energy projects as part of the Clean Growth Strategy.

As part of the strategy, developers will compete for up to GBP 557 million of funding in Contracts for Difference auctions.

The latest CfD round was launched in April 2017, resulting in three offshore wind projects being awarded Contracts for Difference with strike prices going as low as GBP 57.50/MWh, 50% lower compared to the results of the first auction held in 2015.

The three projects are the 860MW Triton Knoll offshore wind farm off England, the 1,386MW Hornsea Project Two off England, and the 950MW Moray Offshore Windfarm (East) off Scotland.

GBP 290 million was made available for renewable energy projects in this year's CfD auction.

Confirming the new funds for renewables within the government's Clean Growth Strategy today, Energy Minister Richard Harrington said: "The government’s Clean Growth Strategy will set out how the whole of the UK can benefit from the global move to a low carbon economy. We’ve shown beyond doubt that renewable energy projects are an effective way to cut our emissions, while creating thousands of good jobs and attracting billions of pounds worth of investment”

So Paddy, can you explain what the £557 million is for if the proposals are likely to be so cheap and self funding?

And what is the industry's current guestimate for offer prices likely to be made?

Will the availability, performance and pricing of the newer larger turbines be a known quantity and proven resource by then?

[hidetheelephants]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Do you believe there would ever be the volume required, and pipeline, to bring the costs down?
Notwithstanding it is more or less the opposite that has brought the costs down innWind: Griwth in the individual generation components that have brought the costs down.

Are you suggesting making more but smaller Nuclear? Why would that be cheaper than large and singular?

SMRs designed to be built in factories can offer scaling and learning; construction on site has militated against cost control throughout the nuclear age because there's been little of either.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

To validate a point - many of them to be honest - I’ve just flown in to Teesside airport, and passing over the EDF 27 x Siemens Turbines a mile off the coastline at Redcar

Following the river inshore to the airport and within a mile inshore, one can see a few wind farms to the North.


The Offshore Turbines are all spinning away, generating power.

The inshore one a few miles away, aren’t.

Offshore wind without a doubt creates more reliable wind.

Paddy, do really believe this is a valid conclusion to what you observed?

I live almost next to an airport.

The airport proudly announced some years ago that it was installing 2 turbines that would help to make it less reliant on grid power (it then had a grid supply failure that cost it several hours of operation), could supply 100% of its operational needs (which operational needs were not specified but it sounded like operating the passenger terminal and similar) and would likely be expanded to 4 turbines within a year or so.

Bear in mind this is a relatively windy and exposed location.

Some years later they still only have 2 turbines. Rarely does one see both working at the same time. Frequently as one passes, neither are turning despite days that suggest there is likely enough wind energy available to make a contribution. These are private turbines as far as I know. Independent of the grid so no reason not to have them operational unless they are simply more expensive to run that to have idle. Or, perhaps, they are connected to the grid as well and can attract payments for curtailment.

Some years later - probably about 4 or 5 years ago now - two much larger turbines were erected in the wide valley nearby on the edge of a city in an industrial estate area.

It transpired that they interfered with the radar for the airport and so for some time only seemed to move either very slowly very occasionally (presumably to keep bearings and gearboxes moving) or slightly faster when one might guess that some tests of the radar were being undertaken.

More recent I have seem them rotating a little faster and more often so presumably they have worked out a way to allow for them on the radar. Either that or the owners have simply ignored the needs of the airport.

Of course, any turbines producing output intended to be traded in the market rather than for "private" use might also be influenced by market pricing factors. Historically the benefits of generating offshore have been significantly greater than those for generating onshore.

So the point is that if you are using your in-flight observation to come to a conclusion about the reliability of wind offshore compared to onshore, a feature of wind energy comparisons that is not disputed, you are failing to mention (even if you have considered them) other factors that might have influenced your observations. That makes the observations somewhat more dubious than they might have been and therefore the conclusions somewhat suspect.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

LongQ said:

So Paddy, can you explain what the £557 million is for if the proposals are likely to be so cheap and self funding?

And what is the industry's current guestimate for offer prices likely to be made?

Will the availability, performance and pricing of the newer larger turbines be a known quantity and proven resource by then?

I did suggest yesterday to an audience this may be the last time Offshore Wind uses CFD - and may not even though that funding is available. Price drops are getting very serious (hence the 50%) and throwing off the CFD auction rule book would allow further savings to be made.....

Industry guesstimates for September I was hearing was lower £70's.
Go figure what they'll be next time, but I would suspect Vattenfall, Iberdrola, and Statoil with their three monster pipelines of projects to string together some very cheap prices (as above, in or out of the CFD regime)

[b]Availability of Turbines - interesting nugget from a presentation by the world biggest supplier of Offshore Turbines - SGRE, they have stopped taking any orders for their 7MW turbine, and yet haven't delivered one yet.
They have postponed the launch of their 10MW unit scheduled for 2021, because it is not big enough....[/b]..

Thanks for that background.

It would be interesting to map that apparent business expectation to similar times of rapid product development and deployment in other industries where we have past experience - especially disruptive technical industries.


Your observations about SGRE jumping a whole stage or more of proposed development and associated learning, for them and their customers (if their statement as reported is to be taken at face value) does not deliver and warm and comfortable feeling. One can't help but wonder whether this is a primarily strategic price pitch policy decision rather than good engineering practise. I guess we won't know for a few years.

To that end, what are the project due to start in the next few years going to install? Presumably units from turbine developers other than SGRE? In which is their statement more like bravado in the face of not having a competitive product at the right time?

[rolando]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Hub height of Onshore / Offshore makes a huge difference to wind speed / generation

Paddy, for clarity do you mean that it's the hub height that makes a huge difference or, for a similar hub height it's the location on- or offshore makes that difference?

[rolando]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

rolando said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Hub height of Onshore / Offshore makes a huge difference to wind speed / generation

Paddy, for clarity do you mean that it's the hub height that makes a huge difference or, for a similar hub height it's the location on- or offshore makes that difference?

They go hand in hand, don't they - ergo the point.

What you said originally makes no sense whatsoever. Answer the question for a change.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

LongQ said:

Paddy, do really believe this is a valid conclusion to what you observed?

I live almost next to an airport.

They were 15 - 20 miles from the airport.

Hub height of Onshore / Offshore makes a huge difference to wind speed / generation

I'm aware of that. Mention of the airport was merely background info and making a point that there is often decent windspeed available for at least some generation - but even then it seems it is often not used or, with one spinning and the other not, not all used.

Odd, one feels, in the circumstances.

[rolando]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

So you can intentionally pick it apart I assume.

The Height of the Hub.

No. I was just asking you to explain your gibberish

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

The wind speed is generally speaking greater with elevation. Site / Met Ocean etc will give Stats for Sea level, 10m above, and 100m above.
Wind speed is increased with height, generally speaking.

The Height of the Hub of an Offshore Turbine is higher than an onshore Turbine (respective to the land / shear, as opposed to the height of the site above sea level and then the associated tower height before pedants get excited).

Onshore Turbines are up to an arbitrary 3MW and associated height scale. Offshore now are 6MW / 8MW and heights associated (plus the TP/ splash zone height).

I have / google has many images and diagrams of the scale difference.

I can't disagree with any of this but this doesn't justify the use of intermittent, therefore unreliable, pre-industrial revolution technology. Wind cannot provide the future needs of industry and commerce, especially as we're all being asked to use electric cars which do nothing other than transfer emissions from the exhaust pipe to the power station.

[LongQ]

rolando said:

I can't disagree with any of this but this doesn't justify the use of intermittent, therefore unreliable, pre-industrial revolution technology. Wind cannot provide the future needs of industry and commerce, especially as we're all being asked to use electric cars which do nothing other than transfer emissions from the exhaust pipe to the power station.

In the papers today is a report that the use of gas for domestic cooking and heating will be banned by 2050.

So in 30 years all domestic power around the house and for transportation will need to be electric.

To generate electricity form gas and then distribute it rather than consume the gas directly makes no sense whatsoever on the basis of energy efficiency losses and with coal banned that leaves, realistically, nuclear, wind and solar as the primary options.

Announcing the target 30 years into the future effectively means that the gas boiler market will be dead in about 10 years from now unless there is a clear change of "policy" by then. Few are likely to invest in technology that is about to be outlawed and lack of demand will make the supply infrastructure less and less affordable in terms of maintenance costs. Maybe the electricity companies will be able to upgrade their cabling to the level that will be required by stuffing cables through redundant gas pipes rather than digging up roads and pavements for decades.

The countyside where I live is already be industrialised at an astonishing rate presumably due to the greed and self importance of local authorities. It seems like the rest of the country will be allowed to go the same way with wind and solar power generation and fields of "backup" facilities replacing green spaces.

Is no one thinking of the children? Or is the plan centred on an education that promotes appreciation of networked "device led" lives and thus largely eliminates and concerns for protection of the "great outdoors"?

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

You and others said you’re quite happy with the sight of Pylons and Power cables before?


And FWIW I don’t envisage it will be the future you describe.

You have brought that up before Paddy.

No, Pylons and power lines are pretty ugly BUT as they age they do at least blend in to some extent. They are not as tall as most turbines (that are of any possible use whatsoever), certainly not as wide and they don't move.

Moreover there are modern designs that have even less visual intrusion. In many areas the power supply cables are now being installed underground as they are updated. Roadworks and traffic disruption being the most obvious outward signs.

This is just as well since with so many part time generation installations required to change to "renewables" the march of Pylons and power cables to connect generation to point of use would otherwise need to increase substantially more than seems likely even now.

Very expensive still to bury cable as I understand it. And being much less direct from point to point the costs and transmission losses are, presumably, higher in all respects.

On balance probably not a great deal from a consumer perspective.But breeding birds seem to like pylons.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

What makes you think that more Power Grid is required- above or below ground ?
What is the change in (or predicted) electricity consumption?
Yes everything will electric - but less consumption
We are not industrial consumers in the way we were as a nation before- so there is capacity.

Also the way things are and with ‘generation’ and storage popping up everywhere and locally- the demand on the mass grid changes things.
And this will only strengthen...

Energy consumption may or may not be reducing (depends on the source) but National Grid, with feet in all camps but especially electricity and gas distribution, offer the attached numbers.

http://fes.nationalgrid.com/media/1245/fes-in-5-fo...

That's the summary sheet. There's more if you have time to read it.

Now I know you think I'm a contrarian who rejects the consensus opinion and the messages of self proclaimed experts but here we have the primary manager o energy distribution in the UK looking ahead, as they must, some decades when planning for the business needs and coming up with numbers that suggest a growth in the demand for generated electricity due to policy uptake. In turn their comments are likely to influence policy decisions. This electricity demand , assuming it happens, is likely to significantly influence transmission needs both long distance and local. It has always been thus.

Your reading of the situation and your conclusions seem very different to that of the National Grid. Why is that? Where does your industry internal intelligence tell you that NG is wrong?

[turbobloke]

ST Article said:

MPs arriving at Westminster Tube station have lately been presented
with a huge advertisement claiming that the cost of electricity from
offshore wind farms has been cut by ”50 per cent over the past five
years". Despite the fact that this was paid for by various green
lobbyists, including Greenpeace, the WWF and foreign-based owners of
offshore wind farms, it seems from comments by MPs, the BBC,
journalists and even our energy minister Claire Perry, that they all
believe this boast.

But The Global Warming Policy Foundation has complained
to the Advertising Standards Authority that this poster
could hardly be more outrageously misleading. It is based only on
figures relating to two offshore wind farms that haven‘t even been
built yet and possibly never will be.

https://www.thegwpf.com/gwpf-lodges-asa-complaint-over-false-claims-in-offshore-
wind-campaign/

[Gary C]

Amazing how this thread has turned in to a wind V everything else topic. Problem is, if it was a free for all, we would just have gas generation.

Now that might or might not be a problem.

Maybe we should have some sort of central, maybe government run, agency that plans a strategic future for power.

Can't think though what we would call the centralised generating board though

[LongQ]

Gary C said:

Amazing how this thread has turned in to a wind V everything else topic. Problem is, if it was a free for all, we would just have gas generation.

Now that might or might not be a problem.

Maybe we should have some sort of central, maybe government run, agency that plans a strategic future for power.

Can't think though what we would call the centralised generating board though

The Scottish government is a step ahead of you.

[LongQ]

Well, here we go. The Governement's latest "insight" into future Power sources and Electricity Generation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...


And here is an interesting analysis of the work.

http://euanmearns.com/the-uks-clean-energy-strateg...

which contains some interesting word and phrase analysis.

Make of it what you will. Just don't expect the Government to appear to have any solid concept at all about the Future of Power Generation in Great Britain.

[Sylvaforever]

LongQ said:

Gary C said:

Amazing how this thread has turned in to a wind V everything else topic. Problem is, if it was a free for all, we would just have gas generation.

Now that might or might not be a problem.

Maybe we should have some sort of central, maybe government run, agency that plans a strategic future for power.

Can't think though what we would call the centralised generating board though

The Scottish government is a step ahead of you.

Indeed. So much hot air from hollyrood.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

LongQ said:

And here is an interesting analysis of the work.

http://euanmearns.com/the-uks-clean-energy-strateg...

which contains some interesting word and phrase analysis.

Make of it what you will. Just don't expect the Government to appear to have any solid concept at all about the Future of Power Generation in Great Britain.

I suspect Fortunately :

Paddy,

What is the connection between the part of my post that you selected and the image you uploaded to Thumbsnap?

It's too subtle for me to work out.

[rolando]

The worlds first wind farm pensioned off: a post-mortem
Capacity factor of 22% and only generated 55% of the anticipated output.
No doubt there will be some who think this performance good. They are entitled to that view but this just goes to show that the wind industy's predictions should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

[rolando]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Alternatively - the ones the Sturgeon has been crowing about today in the news are individually bigger in capacity with better productivity and reliability than all of that site together.

Proven reliability?