BBC on Oil - are low prices here to stay

cells

Generali wrote: »

Why wouldn't the value be the fuel plus my share of the costs of running the power station that is no longer needed.

If I can find a way to store the electricity then you can add to that the price of the 'poles and wires', i.e. the infrastructure that gets the electricity to me.

In all honesty I don't care about the value to society as that sounds like one of those dangerous communist ideas, I just care about the price I pay. It is starting to become a problem in Aus that a lot of people now effectively have no electricity bill so who pays for the multi-billion dollar bill for the coal-powered power station? The solution will be to increase the standing charge on the electricity bill or reduce again the feed in tariff. That will simply drive more people to look for storage solutions.

The economics of solar remind me of the economics of the zombie robot driving apocalypse: once people start to do it the rest are forced to by the numbers. You can only afford power stations as currently configured if you have everyone using them.

The honest way to sell power to a home in the UK would be something like

£25 per month grid connection
3p/kwh electricity price

so if you installed a PV cells its worth would only be 3p/kwh

---

Or think of it this way. Lets say everyone has a PV cell that meets 100% of their needs. Who will pay for the grid they are effectively using as a free battery?

----

Also if everyone has a PV cell to meet their average yearly needs peak output of the system would be some 5x greater than the grid could handle so in the UK alone we would need something to absorb some 200GW of power. Or 10 x three gorges dams going backwards at full blast. How much are thise? 10 a penny?

----

As for the fantasy of batteries solving all of PVs failings. How do you fix the mismatch between winter summer. What do you do with the big excess in summer and how do you gap the big shortfall in winter? A seasonal battery to shift 1MWh from summer to winter? You have no idea how crazy silly such a proposition is...

----

In summary you need a grid any fantasy of a future of no grids but batteries is a frankly absurd and as such tge true value to society and to you is only the saved fuel which in Australia is probably <2 cents a unit

cells

A petrol generator is the closest you can get to 'off grid'

If such a home with a petrol generator installs a PV kit that produces 4000KWh pa what would happen?

Well they still need the generator and its upkeep/replacement so that cost hasn't gone. Only the saved fuel has helped a tiny bit

whats more although the PV kit generates yearly 4000kwh and they use 4000kwh a year there is a mismatch between supply and demand which means the majority of the output isn't usable hence he won't buy a 4000kwh kit but only a 1000kwh kit and still need the generator for 75% of his needs


effectively that is what a grid is. But instead of petrol as the fuel source of the generator dead cheap coal/gas is the fuel

cells

Generali wrote: »

Why wouldn't the value be the fuel plus my share ofgenerator enof running the power station that is no longer needed.

If I can find a way to store the electricity then you can add to that the price of the 'poles and wires', i.e. the infrastructure that gets the electricity to me.

Imagine you have an off grid home with a petrol generator. The fuel for the generator costs £10pm upkeep of the generator is £40pm.

how much does buying a PV systdm help you?

The generator is still needed so that cost stays
The fuel cost doesn't fall to zero as you still need the generator about 75% of the time to cover nights and winter even some of the day hours


Not v.impressive PV in that situation is it?
You only think it makes sense due to trick accounting and a huge undervaluing of the role of a grid in acting as a free battery for PV owners but the grid isnt free its just being paid for by someone else due to current regs



as for finding a way to store daily power that is very expensive (much much more than the generator aka grid) but your real problem is seasonal storage which is simply impossible

Martyn1981

cells wrote: »

The cost of co2 as you put it, is just imaginary there is no cost of expelling co2 into the air. A cost might be placed on co2 but it will be totally artifical. Also as I have noted the IPCC expect some 70 years of positives before any net negatives (so by your cost on co2 model shoild we pay a bonus to coal plants as they are creating a 70 year positive?)

Perhaps the most effective thing that could be done is for the rich nations to subsidise into existence robo cars (-80% fuel use) and coal gas turbines (cheap 60% efficient coal plants). Those two can do far far far more than any realistic deployment of PV or Wind or Nuclear or all three of them combined.

Hmm! I can just about buy your gas saving figure, though I'm a bit wary about your attempt to use US pricings, and then to switch to the lowest Euro price you could find in the last few years (summer 2014). But with oil prices so low I can't really disagree with your numbers at the moment.

However, to value CO2 savings at zero is going too far. As I said, it doesn't matter if you don't believe in AGW, the simple fact is that these technologies are being rolled out to reduce CO2 emissions. Therefore the CO2 element is part of their value. So to dismiss CO2 reductions from their value to society is false. At the very least it's a personal belief and that is different from the position in these posts of stating (as a fact) that the only savings to society are the fuel savings.

I'm rather dubious of any future energy plans that rely on coal. India is looking to reduce coal use, and has cited PV as being cheaper than domestic coal generation. China very recently looks to have peaked on coal consumption. Their production last year fell, and is expected to fall again this year, which appears to be due to environmental requirements and the roll-out of renewables.

In Europe the externalities of coal, particularly the impacts on health push its real cost to society up to the point it is probably the most expensive form of generation, and that's before adding any CO2 cost. In the UK, coal is now on its last legs and will be displaced by gas/nuclear/renewables.

But, as I've said before it will be interesting to watch what happens. It's certainly been a very busy decade so far. Longer term the IEA are suggesting that solar will be the single largest source of generation by 2050, but I'd expect it's UK contribution to be much smaller (significant but smaller) given our lower solar levels.

Mart.

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hmm! I can just about buy your gas saving figure, though I'm a bit wary about your attempt to use US pricings, and then to switch to the lowest Euro price you could find in the last few years (summer 2014). But with oil prices so low I can't really disagree with your numbers at the moment.

However, to value CO2 savings at zero is going too far. As I said, it doesn't matter if you don't believe in AGW, the simple fact is that these technologies are being rolled out to reduce CO2 emissions. Therefore the CO2 element is part of their value. So to dismiss CO2 reductions from their value to society is false. At the very least it's a personal belief and that is different from the position in these posts of stating (as a fact) that the only savings to society are the fuel savings.

I'm rather dubious of any future energy plans that rely on coal. India is looking to reduce coal use, and has cited PV as being cheaper than domestic coal generation. China very recently looks to have peaked on coal consumption. Their production last year fell, and is expected to fall again this year, which appears to be due to environmental requirements and the roll-out of renewables.

In Europe the externalities of coal, particularly the impacts on health push its real cost to society up to the point it is probably the most expensive form of generation, and that's before adding any CO2 cost. In the UK, coal is now on its last legs and will be displaced by gas/nuclear/renewables.

But, as I've said before it will be interesting to watch what happens. It's certainly been a very busy decade so far. Longer term the IEA are suggesting that solar will be the single largest source of generation by 2050, but I'd expect it's UK contribution to be much smaller (significant but smaller) given our lower solar levels.

Mart.

The heath negatives of coal are in my view vastly overplay and I say that as someone who used to work in the middle of millions of tons of coal. Coal miming is certainly dangerous but not its use.

Also plot a graph of life expectancy vs fossil fuel use and you find a very good correlation of fossil fuels extending life expectancy as energy is vital to a developed world.

as for china or india look at what they are doing not what they are saying.
china coal use may peak by the end of this decade but thats like a 300kg man proudly saying I will reach 350kg and then stop getting fatter. Also china and india total fossil use will still grow for a long time. China nat gas use may go up 5x and their oil use double yet.

Both india and china may see a big deployment of wind and PV but on a per capita basis it will be not much.

and as a final note look at Germany. People were proudly drawing exponential graphs with their crayons not understanding what theu were talking about. PV install rates have crashed and the public is tired of their very expensive electricity. They are relying on biomass to 'save' them...now if youbwant to talk about dirty fuels thats the worst.

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hmm! I can just about buy your gas saving figure, though I'm a bit wary about your attempt to use US pricings, and then to switch to the lowest Euro price you could find in the last few years (summer 2014). But with oil prices so low I can't really disagree with your numbers at the moment.

I'm rather dubious of any future energy plans that rely on coal
Mart.

Local prices matter and big energy users are often big energy producers. Eg the USA and China are big energy users and both have domestic coal they can access for as little as $30 a ton. Canada Australia USA Saudi Iran Iraq Russia China Indonesia Qatar Mexico and plenty more places fossil fuels are cheap and they represent best part of 3 billion people

It isn't an energy plan that relys on coal, coal already powers the world it doesn't need to prove its capability. Its a statement that says its not going to be feasible to remove the cheapest fossil fuel which provides the best part of 5TW of power anytime soon if at all possible this century.

The fastest energy transition to date away from fossil fuels was France and even her she took 20 years and it doesn't look like the big energy users are going to go nuclear to the same extent. More likely coal will continue to grow for the next twenty years and then enter a stage of a very long time at that high.


Nuclear wind PV and NG could cut into coals marlet share but since the market is growing its nominal use is likely to also grow

Generali

I get your point cells but at present the capital costs of electricity infrastructure are mostly charged in the unit price for electricity rather than a realistic fixed charge. That means that by going solar I can avoid paying my fair share of the infrastructure so that charge falls on fewer people.

As capital costs remain about the same but fewer people are paying them, the costs per person will increase making solar more attractive.

If electricity companies try to split the fixed costs more equitably and a lot of people have already bought solar panels, the incentives to store the electricity locally increase as people remove themselves from the grid entirely.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/future-batteries-need-to-triple-capacity-cut-price-by-67/

Battery technology is improving quickly:

Sardo_Numpsa

Generali wrote: »

I get your point cells but at present the capital costs of electricity infrastructure are mostly charged in the unit price for electricity rather than a realistic fixed charge. That means that by going solar I can avoid paying my fair share of the infrastructure so that charge falls on fewer people.

As capital costs remain about the same but fewer people are paying them, the costs per person will increase making solar more attractive.

If electricity companies try to split the fixed costs more equitably and a lot of people have already bought solar panels, the incentives to store the electricity locally increase as people remove themselves from the grid entirely.

Battery technology is improving quickly:

Hey,

With regards to your signature, oil will still be in demand for production of plastic. Can't see us falling out of love with that stuff any time soon.

Just a thought.

cells

Generali wrote: »

I get your point cells but at present the capital costs of electricity infrastructure are mostly charged in the unit price for electricity rather than a realistic fixed charge. That means that by going solar I can avoid paying my fair share of the infrastructure so that charge falls on fewer people.

As capital costs remain about the same but fewer people are paying them, the costs per person will increase making solar more attractive.

If electricity companies try to split the fixed costs more equitably and a lot of people have already bought solar panels, the incentives to store the electricity locally increase as people remove themselves from the grid entirely.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/future-batteries-need-to-triple-capacity-cut-price-by-67/

Battery technology is improving quickly:

You are effectively using false accounting to make PV look far more attractive than it is. The grid acts for you as a 'free' battery but it isn't free and at sime point PV users will be charged for its use. So yes at the moment maybe you can make money with PV or more accurately you can make money charging other people and it has nothing to do with PV

do disconnect from the grid and come back and tell us yiur experiences and how horrible it is

Battery tech may be improving but what you don't appreciate is that to store solar isn't so much a task of storing sunlight today to use it tonight. Its a matter of storing 1MWh in the summer to use in the winter. Thats about 3x the size of a tesla car battery or over $50,000 and nearly a ton of batteries to do your storage.

Whats more batteries degrade over time.



Also more important that all of that, can I ask you whats wrong with the current method. £1 per day as much power as you need always on no worries?? Whats the problem you are trying to fix???


Also as a final note to all the solar battery fans. Well before that becomes a reality we will see battery trains and then cars and then daily utility battery use and then maybe home batteries. So thats about 10 billion tons of batteries manufacturered before its really viable in homes. Good luck this side of 2050

Generali

cells wrote: »

You are effectively using false accounting to make PV look far more attractive than it is. The grid acts for you as a 'free' battery but it isn't free and at sime point PV users will be charged for its use. So yes at the moment maybe you can make money with PV or more accurately you can make money charging other people and it has nothing to do with PV

do disconnect from the grid and come back and tell us yiur experiences and how horrible it is

Battery tech may be improving but what you don't appreciate is that to store solar isn't so much a task of storing sunlight today to use it tonight. Its a matter of storing 1MWh in the summer to use in the winter. Thats about 3x the size of a tesla car battery or over $50,000 and nearly a ton of batteries to do your storage.

Whats more batteries degrade over time.



Also more important that all of that, can I ask you whats wrong with the current method. £1 per day as much power as you need always on no worries?? Whats the problem you are trying to fix???


Also as a final note to all the solar battery fans. Well before that becomes a reality we will see battery trains and then cars and then daily utility battery use and then maybe home batteries. So thats about 10 billion tons of batteries manufacturered before its really viable in homes. Good luck this side of 2050

I get your point and it is a reasonable one albeit increasingly unreasonably presented. However, as I say, I am not charged a fixed amount for connecting to the grid and then a varible amount for my usage which reflects the variable costs of electricity generation. I am charged a small fixed amount and a much larger fee for using electricity. If my utility supplier wants to change this they can't without applying to the regulators to get it changed.

At present it wouldn't really be feasible to live 'off-grid' as battery technology isn't good enough. However I see no reason for battery technology not to continue to get better in leaps and bounds. As much as you seem to hate the idea, for a country like Australia solar power with some sort of storage mechanism is a great solution to our power needs. Anyother method of storage that is used is molten salt:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/molten-salt-storage-gives-push-to-us-solar-power/story-e6frg9df-1226843924302

with that, we go back to a grid system of course. Australia has millions of acres of land that has nil value that could be covered in solar panels very simply. This may not be the solution for a damp, dark island in Northern Europe but for a massive island in the sun it's pretty compelling. I don't need to save solar in my summer for my winter: the sun comes out most days and I don't have days with 6 hours of daylight. Long, hot summer days is when I use electricity the most. I heat my house for about 40 days each year.