BBC on Oil - are low prices here to stay

antrobus

cells wrote: »

....But as far as I know there is no concensus on what X is

That's no 4
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Martyn1981

cells wrote: »

I missed this post from you until now

can you keep it simple and just tell me what size of PV panels a home in england would need to guarantee winter supply. Aka they can go off grid and be 99.9% confident of not running out of juice if they had a 1 day battery (eg a 5kwh battery)

Typical UK England home uses I think 3300KWh a year or 9KWh a day but winter demand is higher than summer. Lets agree to use 12KWh for a January day the exact figure isn't critical it could be 10 or 14 but whatever 12 it is for our example.


So to generate 12KWh in the worst January day needs a system of X-KWp

please find X for us

Firstly. I refer you to my previous answers. If you want to learn about off-gridding, rather than claim it's not possible, then ask those that are doing it.

Secondly. Why are you persisting with this nonsense argument. It's based on the often misused argument of selecting one renewable at a time and pointing out it's weakness. You have already expressed support for wind generation, and on the small scale PV is cheaper, so the simple and obvious solution to your dilemma is a mix of technologies (sorry that was a spoiler, but I doubt you have any intention of speaking to off-gridders.)

Thirdly, you are still referring to a small battery to justify your ludicrous suggestion of £20k's worth of PV. One of the simplest solutions is to invest in more battery storage (as I mentioned earlier) and far less PV, pocketing the difference. Then less PV again and some wind! In one example I gave I also mentioned the use of a stand by generator to cover the exceptional periods for which it may not be financially wise to provide for in either generation capacity or storage. The off-gridders I chat to take great pleasure in reporting how little fuel they now use having added PV to their mix. Some also produce their own fuels.


Regarding other points you've made recently:

cells wrote: »

Even at £100 a ton CO2 that means a new CCGT producing 330 grams /KWh is charged 3.3 pennies per KWh. Add that to PV and we have PV go from ~2.4p to ~5.7p

Are you saying that PV can't be generated at 5.7p/kWh (£57/MWh)?

cells wrote: »

If you install for arguments sake 50GW of PV and 50GW of windpower what happens in summer when the PV is outputting 35GW and the wind power 35GW? How do you handle the 70GW of power when demand is 40GW? What do yoy do with the 35GW? You throw it away

Are you seriously not aware of the complimentary nature of wind and PV generation? Average wind speeds are lower in the BST months, when PV generation is higher.

But on the off-chance that generation exceeds demand, are you also not aware of the numerous methods being developed for storage, such as compressed air. Or the developments in using excess (cheap) leccy to produce bio fuels and gas? It seems that most of your criticisms are based on a refusal to look forward and see what's happening/coming.

Mart.

Martyn1981

antrobus wrote: »

That's no 4
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Enjoy:

Mathematically accurate debate on climate change.

Mart.

cells

I will conceded that PV is fantastic best thing since sliced ham

No need for subsidy or free use of the grid then

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Are you saying that PV can't be generated at 5.7p/kWh (£57/MWh)?

Clearly not in a load following manner or you and I and the sliced ham factory down the road would all be using that instead of the £1 a day grid

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But on the off-chance that generation exceeds demand, are you also not aware of the numerous methods being developed for storage, such as compressed air. Or the developments in using excess (cheap) leccy to produce bio fuels and gas? It seems that most of your criticisms are based on a refusal to look forward and see what's happening/coming.

Mart.

Oh I am very aware of the lunacy of electricity to chemicals process for energy storage ..... you would be more wise to invest in a sliced ham factory


and no my criticisms isn't a refusal to look forward its from a very good understanding of the industry and the technology. The only thing I would ask you to do is put a date on your thoughts and when that date arrives reevaluate your beliefs when/if they are not met.

Martyn1981

cells wrote: »

Clearly not in a load following manner

I'm surprised that you have had to introduce 'load following' into your response. Your challenge throughout this thread was that the value of PV generation is only the value of displaced gas generation. Your point presumably being that gas generation capacity is still required for the load following element.

Having applied a carbon value, you appeared to set the cost/challenge of displaced gas generation at 5.7p/kWh (or £57/MWh).

[Technically, I think you set the challenge at 11.4p/kWh

cells wrote: »

But that price would have to be very very high to male solar HALF viable.

but I'll let that one slide.]

So my question was very simple, and I'll repeat it-
Are you saying that PV can't be generated at 5.7p/kWh (£57/MWh)?

cells wrote: »

Clearly not in a load following manner or you and I and the sliced ham factory down the road would all be using that instead of the £1 a day grid

Could you please clarify your £1 a day grid statement? You've made it many, many times now (like your 3c figure). But, if I accept your earlier post that winter consumption of 15kWh is reasonable, and I'm very generous and allow you a significant seasonal shift to 10kWh in the summer, that still means an average of 12.5kWh per day, and a bill of approx £700pa, or ~£2 a day. Are you using accounting tricks to support your various arguments and opinions, shifting the goal posts each time as it suits you?

Mart.

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm surprised that you have had to introduce 'load following' into your response. Your challenge throughout this thread was that the value of PV generation is only the value of displaced gas generation. Your point presumably being that gas generation capacity is still required for the load following element.

Having applied a carbon value, you appeared to set the cost/challenge of displaced gas generation at 5.7p/kWh (or £57/MWh).

[Technically, I think you set the challenge at 11.4p/kWh



but I'll let that one slide.]

So my question was very simple, and I'll repeat it-
Are you saying that PV can't be generated at 5.7p/kWh (£57/MWh)?




Could you please clarify your £1 a day grid statement? You've made it many, many times now (like your 3c figure). But, if I accept your earlier post that winter consumption of 15kWh is reasonable, and I'm very generous and allow you a significant seasonal shift to 10kWh in the summer, that still means an average of 12.5kWh per day, and a bill of approx £700pa, or ~£2 a day. Are you using accounting tricks to support your various arguments and opinions, shifting the goal posts each time as it suits you?

Mart.

You are intentially mixing up my posts. I calculated a value of 5.7p/kwh assuming an imaginary price of £100/ton co2 cost. The real EU carbon cost (also imaginary but imposed) is closer to £5 a ton

If you want an actual value my best guess would be

marginal cost of gas this summer in the UK ~1.3p/KWh fed through a 55% efficient CCGT = ~2.4p/KWh

~£5/ton carbon cost. 2500KWh to offset a ton. = ~0.2p/kwh carbon saving

add the two together and you get 2.4p for the value of the solar output and 0.2p for the carbom saving = 2.6p/kwh


I don't see how I can be any clear than that. If you keep mixig up my posts I will have to stop debating this with you and it will be your loss.


one final note. To be of value to the grid more than just a fuel saver needs PV output to contribute to peak demamd (around 6-7pm on the winter for the uk) which it doesn't in the UK but it might do in other locations. It doesn't need to peak at the same time but contribute to peak demand reliably.

To be of value off grid it needs to load follow. Aka a battery system attached.

in summary
no contribution to peak demamd = just fuel saver
some contribution to peak demand = between fuel saver to wholesale
load following = between wholesale to retail

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Could you please clarify your £1 a day grid statement? You've made it many, many times now (like your 3c figure). But, if I accept your earlier post that winter consumption of 15kWh is reasonable, and I'm very generous and allow you a significant seasonal shift to 10kWh in the summer, that still means an average of 12.5kWh per day, and a bill of approx £700pa, or ~£2 a day. Are you using accounting tricks to support your various arguments and opinions, shifting the goal posts each time as it suits you?

Mart.

British Gas website says average non economy 7 customer uses 3200KWh a year

Price comparison website shows for that many units it would cost £405 for the year which = £ 1.11 per day

You should also knock off a percentage for the green stuff that £1.11 per day pays for like insulation and wind farms and your solar subsidy.


So all this grid disconnected solar wonderland to save less than £1.11 a day

Generali

cells wrote: »

British Gas website says average non economy 7 customer uses 3200KWh a year

Price comparison website shows for that many units it would cost £405 for the year which = £ 1.11 per day

You should also knock off a percentage for the green stuff that £1.11 per day pays for like insulation and wind farms and your solar subsidy.


So all this grid disconnected solar wonderland to save less than £1.11 a day

If I disconnect from the grid then I don't have to pay for the grid. That is surely self-evident.

I get your idea that solar only replaces spot generation. Solar plus storage and removing myselfsfrom any backup from national electricity generation removes any requirement for me to pay towards the grid.

That's what could make the grid untenable in the end: the cost is split between too few people.