BBC on Oil - are low prices here to stay

michaels

I'm asking not telling.

You suggest that the value of alternative sources because they are irregular, can never be more than the value of the conventional fuel saved as there is still a requirement for conventional sources to be able to supply peak load during periods when alternative generation is zero.

How would the availability of grid scale electricity storage such as hydro pumped schemes etc effect this analysis?

cells

michaels wrote: »

I'm asking not telling.

You suggest that the value of alternative sources because they are irregualr, can never be more than the valeu of the conventional fuel saved as there is still a requirement for conventional sources to be able to supply peak load during periods where alternative generation is zero.

How would the availability of grid scale electricity sorage such as hydro pumped schemes etc effect this analysis?

Grid scale energy storage isn't possible outside of conventional hydro and then thats sometimes as not all dams are capable of acting in that way

Pumped hydro acts more as peak shaving and frequency regulation and through filling than energy storage. Also its expensive the big ine in wales cost as much as a nuclear power stations would have at that time

The national grid was invented as a way to avoid the extreme costs and problems with mass energy storage. Instead power would be delivered in a load following manner


Another way to think of all this is that just for arguments sake you can think of fossil fuels as costing 2.5p and their storage and coversion costs 2.5p to make 5p in total. So a coal plant is really like a battery and its storage is the milloon tons of coal sitting outside. And we are back to the value of uncontrollable energy at 2.5p or thereabouts*




*the exact figure is irrelevant for the hair splitters out there

cells

People should be billed as the costs are so they can then make correct informed choices rather than be fooled with accounting tricks.

The grid cost is a fantastic example. How many people know it costs them ~10p a day to be connected to the grid? If they knew this how would it impact 'off grid' dreams and analysis?

With the grid costing £36 a year I wouldn't replace it will a battery that lasts for 6 years unless the battery system was a good deal less than £200* fully delivered and installed. Also I would be very aware that the environmental impact of building such a system and scrapping it in 6 years is about infinity times greater than just keeping the copper wire than already exists



*and thats assuming I had a system that could charge and discharge these batteries for no more than 10p/kwh and not factoring in the need to dedicate an area in the house to store the chemical fire risk batts

Martyn1981

cells wrote: »

People should be billed as the costs are so they can then make correct informed choices rather than be fooled with accounting tricks.

Do you mean a breakdown of costs, or actually billed for the true costs of generation, such as carbon costs, or externalities such as the health impacts of coal emissions.

After all, we are paying for them in the end, even if they don't appear on our leccy bill:

European coal pollution causes 22,300 premature deaths a year, study shows


Anyway, back to your main argument against PV/intermittent generation. I'm surprised that you are still trying to 'sell' your argument, since it all hinges on your belief that carbon emissions don't have a cost.

But that puts you at odds with the vast scientific majority view, the view of most countries, and the IPCC. The study on CO2 impacts is probably the most researched subject ever undertaken by civilisation, but you disagree with it?

Looking again at your arguments suggesting PV can't match gas off-set, they simply don't stack up, even in the UK.

I understand where you got that 2.4p/kWh value for gas generation, but it is based on the most efficient gas generation running at it's most efficient. More importantly it's based on the current low value of gas, whereas a fairer average for this decade would be 4p.

Looking at carbon costs and using the US as a guide (since they have been late to the CO2 game), they value CO2 emissions at between $37 to $220 per ton.

Estimated social cost of climate change not accurate, Stanford scientists say

[I know that you have repeatedly claimed that Europe places a value of ~ €6/ton, but we both know that, that is a misrepresentation of the facts. You are of course eluding to the carbon trading scheme, which was running at approx €30/ton in 2006 (so similar to the lower US value) but with the recession, and the drop in production/manufacturing in Europe, that led to a glut of permits, and the collapse of their price. The UK treasury is aiming for a CO2 price of £30/tonne by 2020.]

So we have a CO2 value of between 1p and 6p/kWh, giving us a target (using your criteria) of 5p to 10p/kWh. That's not a difficult target. Even domestic generation, in the UK, is now below 10p/kWh for a reasonably sited 4kWp south facing retro-fit install, new build is cheaper and prices are still falling.


Moving on, you may be interested in this recent article:

Carbon crash, solar dawn: Deutsche Bank on why solar has already won

Deutsche Bank says solar market is massive, will generate $5 trillion in revenue by 2030. It describes solar plus storage as the next killer app, and says even in India there will be 25% solar by 2022.

Deutsche Bank has produced another major report that suggests solar will become the dominant electricity source around the world as it beats conventional fuels, generates $5 trillion in revenue over the next 15 years, and displaces large amounts of fossil fuels.

In a detailed, 175-page report, the Deutsche analysts led by Vishal Shah say the market potential for solar is massive. Even now, with 130GW of solar installed, it accounts for just 1 per cent of the 6,000GW, or $2 trillion electricity market (that is an annual figure).

But by 2030, the solar market will increase 10-fold, as more than 100 million customers are added, and solar’s share of the electricity market jumps to 10%. By 2050, it suggests, solar’s share will be 30% of the market, and developing markets will see the greatest growth.

Mart.

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Do you mean a breakdown of costs, or actually billed for the true costs of generation, such as carbon costs, or externalities such as the health impacts of coal emissions.

After all, we are paying for them in the end, even if they don't appear on our leccy bill:

European coal pollution causes 22,300 premature deaths a year, study shows


Anyway, back to your main argument against PV/intermittent generation. I'm surprised that you are still trying to 'sell' your argument, since it all hinges on your belief that carbon emissions don't have a cost.

But that puts you at odds with the vast scientific majority view, the view of most countries, and the IPCC. The study on CO2 impacts is probably the most researched subject ever undertaken by civilisation, but you disagree with it?

Looking again at your arguments suggesting PV can't match gas off-set, they simply don't stack up, even in the UK.

I understand where you got that 2.4p/kWh value for gas generation, but it is based on the most efficient gas generation running at it's most efficient. More importantly it's based on the current low value of gas, whereas a fairer average for this decade would be 4p.

Looking at carbon costs and using the US as a guide (since they have been late to the CO2 game), they value CO2 emissions at between $37 to $220 per ton.

Estimated social cost of climate change not accurate, Stanford scientists say

[I know that you have repeatedly claimed that Europe places a value of ~ €6/ton, but we both know that, that is a misrepresentation of the facts. You are of course eluding to the carbon trading scheme, which was running at approx €30/ton in 2006 (so similar to the lower US value) but with the recession, and the drop in production/manufacturing in Europe, that led to a glut of permits, and the collapse of their price. The UK treasury is aiming for a CO2 price of £30/tonne by 2020.]

So we have a CO2 value of between 1p and 6p/kWh, giving us a target (using your criteria) of 5p to 10p/kWh. That's not a difficult target. Even domestic generation, in the UK, is now below 10p/kWh for a reasonably sited 4kWp south facing retro-fit install, new build is cheaper and prices are still falling.


Moving on, you may be interested in this recent article:

Carbon crash, solar dawn: Deutsche Bank on why solar has already won



Mart.

So if PV is so fantastic why does it need state support?

PS what do you think of your off griding idea now that we have figured out the cost of a grid is 10p a day?

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Do you mean a breakdown of costs, or actually billed for the true costs of generation, such as carbon costs, or externalities such as the health impacts of coal emissions.

After all, we are paying for them in the end, even if they don't appear on our leccy bill:

European coal pollution causes 22,300 premature deaths a year, study shows


Anyway, back to your main argument against PV/intermittent generation. I'm surprised that you are still trying to 'sell' your argument, since it all hinges on your belief that carbon emissions don't have a cost.

But that puts you at odds with the vast scientific majority view, the view of most countries, and the IPCC. The study on CO2 impacts is probably the most researched subject ever undertaken by civilisation, but you disagree with it?

Looking again at your arguments suggesting PV can't match gas off-set, they simply don't stack up, even in the UK.

I understand where you got that 2.4p/kWh value for gas generation, but it is based on the most efficient gas generation running at it's most efficient. More importantly it's based on the current low value of gas, whereas a fairer average for this decade would be 4p.

Looking at carbon costs and using the US as a guide (since they have been late to the CO2 game), they value CO2 emissions at between $37 to $220 per ton.

Estimated social cost of climate change not accurate, Stanford scientists say

[I know that you have repeatedly claimed that Europe places a value of ~ €6/ton, but we both know that, that is a misrepresentation of the facts. You are of course eluding to the carbon trading scheme, which was running at approx €30/ton in 2006 (so similar to the lower US value) but with the recession, and the drop in production/manufacturing in Europe, that led to a glut of permits, and the collapse of their price. The UK treasury is aiming for a CO2 price of £30/tonne by 2020.]

So we have a CO2 value of between 1p and 6p/kWh, giving us a target (using your criteria) of 5p to 10p/kWh. That's not a difficult target. Even domestic generation, in the UK, is now below 10p/kWh for a reasonably sited 4kWp south facing retro-fit install, new build is cheaper and prices are still falling.


Moving on, you may be interested in this recent article:

Carbon crash, solar dawn: Deutsche Bank on why solar has already won

Mart.

Well as someone who has walked past and inspected and done chemical tests on millions of tons of coal and coke for multiple years I just don't buy the claims of deaths or costs associated to be remotely feasible.

Tell me what a million tons of coal smells like and maybe I might think about thinking that you have a clue about what you speak

Also as I have noted before I suspect a lot of the fossil fuel costs to society garbage is more false accounting.


Also pretty much everything is a positive and a negative. For instance I believe nuclear power could replace all coal used in electricity and fairly quickly but that would be a good deal more costly than to keep using coal. So we would get the benefits of not using coal (simple things like less traffic less coal ash less ugly coal mines fewer coal mining accidents) but the downside is that we would be poorer as we would need to dedicated more to power generation. And poverty is a real cost to humanity rather than your accounting tricks


by 2020 the world would have soent over a $1 trillion dollars on PV and Wind. A trillion dillars which would have been much much better spent on development in ooor nations (one of the best of which would be to build a grid for them)

Generali

cells wrote: »

So if PV is so fantastic why does it need state support?

PS what do you think of your off griding idea now that we have figured out the cost of a grid is 10p a day?

If solar is so lousy, why are investors putting so much money into it?

cells

Moving on, you may be interested in this recent article:

Carbon crash, solar dawn: Deutsche Bank on why solar has already won

Mart.

Then you will surely be advocating the removal of state subsidy and fake carbon costs? As solar has 'already won'


Also I just read your guardian link and it is such trash


For all your crying about the heath and wealth impacts of co2 being terrible what we find in reality is that more coal use leads to a higher life expectancy and more wealth. Look at the Chinese they burn a lot more coal than 15 years ago and they are massively more wealthy and healthy. Energy is an economic enabler and coal is a secure affordable abundant cheap source of this economic enabler.

Even if I believed your view and thought coal and !!!!!! reduced life expectancy by 1 year for everyone (a !!!!in joke) I would still believe they are a net benefit as they add more than 1 year of life expectancy in other ways in their form kf economic enablers

cells

if is so lousy, why are investisrs putting so much money into it?

Because governments are paying some 3-4x what its actual worth (in the UK at least) an investor gets a positive return.

If fully installed PV farms fall to 1/3rd to 1/4th the current price they work on their own merits but this price point looks difficult to achieve

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Do you mean a breakdown of costs, or actually billed for the true costs of generation, such as carbon costs, or externalities such as the health impacts of coal emissions.

After all, we are paying for them in the end, even if they don't appear on our leccy bill:

European coal pollution causes 22,300 premature deaths a year, study shows


Anyway, back to your main argument against PV/intermittent generation. I'm surprised that you are still trying to 'sell' your argument, since it all hinges on your belief that carbon emissions don't have a cost.

But that puts you at odds with the vast scientific majority view, the view of most countries, and the IPCC. The study on CO2 impacts is probably the most researched subject ever undertaken by civilisation, but you disagree with it?

Looking again at your arguments suggesting PV can't match gas off-set, they simply don't stack up, even in the UK.

I understand where you got that 2.4p/kWh value for gas generation, but it is based on the most efficient gas generation running at it's most efficient. More importantly it's based on the current low value of gas, whereas a fairer average for this decade would be 4p.

Looking at carbon costs and using the US as a guide (since they have been late to the CO2 game), they value CO2 emissions at between $37 to $220 per ton.

Estimated social cost of climate change not accurate, Stanford scientists say

[I know that you have repeatedly claimed that Europe places a value of ~ €6/ton, but we both know that, that is a misrepresentation of the facts. You are of course eluding to the carbon trading scheme, which was running at approx €30/ton in 2006 (so similar to the lower US value) but with the recession, and the drop in production/manufacturing in Europe, that led to a glut of permits, and the collapse of their price. The UK treasury is aiming for a CO2 price of £30/tonne by 2020.]

So we have a CO2 value of between 1p and 6p/kWh, giving us a target (using your criteria) of 5p to 10p/kWh. That's not a difficult target. Even domestic generation, in the UK, is now below 10p/kWh for a reasonably sited 4kWp south facing retro-fit install, new build is cheaper and prices are still falling.


Moving on, you may be interested in this recent article:

Carbon crash, solar dawn: Deutsche Bank on why solar has already won



Mart.

Also why waste your and my time with this fake trash carbon pricing just tell me what it will cost over and beyond keeping what we got ...to run the UK on solar wind


You can then tell me how much you intend to put up income taxes and cut the NHS budget to pay for it all. And then we can also discuss how much healthier and wealthier we are as a result of those cuts and taxes