Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

... However, storage smooths demand & strategic storage smooths demand on a longer term basis .....

What needs to be realised is that there's a link between storage and unit price ... if the industry gets 'greedy' (eg - maintain profit value over fewer unit sales) then the renewable self generation, direct purchase agreements and storage alternatives become more cost attractive to both consumers & industrial/commercial users which drives more business away ... at some time Ofgem will need to allow customers to have the option to arrange their grid connectivity directly with grid operators ... at this point the supply industry will seriously lose out - they (the industry) obviously know this and will be wary of pushing unit prices too far in order to avoid a complete Catch-22 melt-down of their business models of their own making ...

... and that's not even mentioning connected micro-grids with communities operating aggregated import/export agreements in order to share various microgeneration technologies within community power schemes ...

HTH
Z

The grid companies could and might have to change business models.

What they could and should do is charge a larger fixed amount and a much smaller marginal amount and also charge for time of peak usage etc

So instead of 10p a day in standing charges and 13p a unit (say the average person uses 10 units a day so the total cost is 10p + 130p = £1.40 for the day) they might have something like an average user tariff which is £1 a day in standing charges and 4p a unit for electricity again leading to £1.40 per day. This way the grid is paid for and the business model more accurately reflects profit/usage/losses. There would also be a charge for excess peak usage times so if you draw more during peak hours in winter days you will be charged more and if you use less during those hours you will be charged less.

It would give a big incentive to reduce peak usage and also as the grid goes green it would be a good way to get people using green electricity for heating/transport outside of peak hours.

GreatApe

The grid is one of mans top inventions its going nowhere. Over the next 25 years the world will build and add 1 billion homes to the grid and millions of businesses and industry. Grids are super cheap and super effective.

The only exception might be in very hot countries maybe a few homes could leave the grid but even that makes little sense other than 'look at me' browny points. You will need the grid to get rid of your excess production without curtailment and you will need the grid for backup.

Batteries will also help the grid itself become more efficient and robust and lower cost.
Nothing lowers costs like competition. Look at shale gas/oil everyone was saying under $100 its going to fail and go out of business and its all a scam etc etc but prices fell to below $40 and production just fell a little bit yet still maintained millions of barrels a day output

The grid is already cheap but if something comes along to give it competition then guess what the price will just be cut 50% as the competition encourages better costs. If the competition hots up further the price will be cut 50% again because the grid is mostly fixed costs paid off decades ago the companies will just write down the assets on their books and operate at lower costs.

So I welcome batteries hopefully they will put price pressure on the grid. I dont see this happening because the grid is so much cheaper and more effective than batteries that its just not likely. I dont see how an inert copper wire that just works is going to be beaten by 100+ kg of batteries that degrade over time.

lstar337

GreatApe wrote: »

The grid is already cheap but if something comes along to give it competition then guess what the price will just be cut 50% as the competition encourages better costs.

Presuming they can cut costs and still run it you mean?

I know your figure of 50% is just an example, but if they can just slash 50% and keep going as normal, then that implies that 50% is just being charged for the hell of it!

What happens when (in order to compete) they need to slash more than they need to keep it running? That is the exact hypothetical we were discussing.

It's a bit odd, but some of your posts make it sound like we are some how 'slagging off' the grid, or hoping it fails. That wasn't my intention at all. I just like to ponder about the future* and how the grid fits in to it all.

*distant future.

Martyn1981

lstar337 wrote: »

It's a bit odd, but some of your posts make it sound like we are some how 'slagging off' the grid, or hoping it fails. That wasn't my intention at all. I just like to ponder about the future* and how the grid fits in to it all.

*distant future.

We are in quite a nice position, as we'll get to see what happens elsewhere first.

Australia is the one to watch:-

• several studies have suggested that 1/3rd of domestic households could go off-grid as a cheaper option in the next few decades
• PV and batts have lowered import by approx 95% for some households
• their distribution charges, over $1 per day already, mean that PV + batts could become cheaper than the distribution cost of grid leccy, even before you add on the cost of the leccy generation
• about 20%+ households are already PV'ers

So the leccy generators and suppliers in Australia need to start working with households before they lose too much business. They are doing this already by using demand side batts as a source of supply, and rolling out supply side renewables.

But the biggy will be EV's and the impact that has on demand and supply. I'm not sure how much PV, and possibly stationary batts would be needed to run an EV off-grid, but I suspect it wouldn't be easy, so that might be the savior for the Aussie leccy suppliers.

So we should be able to watch and learn from others, plus of course, UK households won't be in the position of off-gridding anyway (probably).

Personally, I suspect we'll almost entirely remain on the grid, and even after PV, our leccy import will be similar to what it was before, but a much different profile with night time demand for charging EV's.

We might even see some cost reductions since 2/3rds of the standing charges reflect the distribution network (1/3 for the transmission network (managed by National Grid)), and a flatter demand thanks to batts could reduce their costs when it comes to meeting peak demands, if those peak demands are reduced.

GreatApe

lstar337 wrote: »

Presuming they can cut costs and still run it you mean?

I know your figure of 50% is just an example, but if they can just slash 50% and keep going as normal, then that implies that 50% is just being charged for the hell of it!

What happens when (in order to compete) they need to slash more than they need to keep it running? That is the exact hypothetical we were discussing.

It's a bit odd, but some of your posts make it sound like we are some how 'slagging off' the grid, or hoping it fails. That wasn't my intention at all. I just like to ponder about the future* and how the grid fits in to it all.

*distant future.

Yes many companies operate with lots of FAT they dont get serious until they have to and more so with natural monopolies

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

We are in quite a nice position, as we'll get to see what happens elsewhere first.

Australia is the one to watch:-

• several studies have suggested that 1/3rd of domestic households could go off-grid as a cheaper option in the next few decades
• PV and batts have lowered import by approx 95% for some households
• their distribution charges, over $1 per day already, mean that PV + batts could become cheaper than the distribution cost of grid leccy, even before you add on the cost of the leccy generation
• about 20%+ households are already PV'ers

So the leccy generators and suppliers in Australia need to start working with households before they lose too much business. They are doing this already by using demand side batts as a source of supply, and rolling out supply side renewables.

But the biggy will be EV's and the impact that has on demand and supply. I'm not sure how much PV, and possibly stationary batts would be needed to run an EV off-grid, but I suspect it wouldn't be easy, so that might be the savior for the Aussie leccy suppliers.

So we should be able to watch and learn from others, plus of course, UK households won't be in the position of off-gridding anyway (probably).

Personally, I suspect we'll almost entirely remain on the grid, and even after PV, our leccy import will be similar to what it was before, but a much different profile with night time demand for charging EV's.

We might even see some cost reductions since 2/3rds of the standing charges reflect the distribution network (1/3 for the transmission network (managed by National Grid)), and a flatter demand thanks to batts could reduce their costs when it comes to meeting peak demands, if those peak demands are reduced.

Australia is neither here nor there. But even there if the competition got serious the utilities would just cut prices to still be cheaper. It is difficult to get lower cost than an existing piece of copper wire that lasts a lifetime.

A billion homes will be connected to the grid over the next 20-30 years and if they follow china example 95% will be apartments. Urbanization and the move away from poverty to western standards will drive more and more people onto grids, grids that will mostly still need to move large amounts of power from less dense areas to urban cities and towns.

EVs will allow a lot more PV onto grids and more self consumption but the fact is most dense areas dont have the roof space to generate all their needs. Realistically maybe a third of needs can be met with local PV if all roofs were covered. You would still need a grid to import the other two thirds and a grid to export some of that energy when required.

Not to mention hydro-power which in many cases is primarily for irrigation and flood control and once built the power is virtually free. Maybe not so common in the UK but worldwide it is a beast supplying huge amounts of energy. The world isn't going to get rid of its grids and retire its hydro-power.

Not only is the grid here to stay but in 30 years time there will be >1 billion additional homes and businesses connected to grids.

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Australia is the one to watch:-

Speak of the devil ..... small news item on a town of 350 looking at going off grid, since Australia is taking it's time reducing FF use. [I think about 80% of Aussie leccy is still FF generation.]

Australian town goes off the grid ditching power companies

Martyn1981

Interesting and sensible decision by Washington State to level the playing field.

Social Cost of Coal Must Now Be Considered By Washington Utilities

The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has issued a directive to three utility companies in the state telling them to include the social cost of coal in their future planning. Under the new guidelines, the cost of coal calculation will be $42 per metric ton by 2020 and rise to $60 per metric ton by 2040.

Just exactly what is the social cost of coal? It is all the factors, known to economists as untaxed externalities, that degrade the environment or impact the health of human beings. With respect to fossil fuels, some of those externalities are melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, desertification, stronger hurricanes, flooding, and more forest fires.

With regard to human health, Physicians For Social Responsibility says the stuff that spews out of the smokestacks of coal-powered generating plants can kill us. It includes such things as “mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health.” The executive summary of a report by the group entitled Coal’s Assault On Human Health begins with this sentence: “Coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases.”

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Interesting and sensible decision by Washington State to level the playing field.

Social Cost of Coal Must Now Be Considered By Washington Utilities

But then don't you have to get into the embedded energy and pollution from constructing the power plants / alternative generation capacity in the first place and so on....

ed110220

I think you seriously underestimate the cost of the transmission and distribution of electricity. It's a lot more than just some copper wires. For example in Australia distribution costs are typically the largest single component of the cost of electricity (more than the cost of generation). In New South Wales transmission and distribution together comprise 60% of the final cost.

Grids are not going to disappear, but there will be big changes. Eg studies show that even fairly substantial towns in regional Australia would find it more cost effective to disconnect from the main grid and instead operate their own system of generation and batteries. I expect too that in developing countries the cost of extending the main power grids out into the countryside and smaller towns and villages will in many cases be higher than either individual homes and batteries or small town or village grids of the same.

Increasing standing charges and decreasing the unit price would be a very bad idea in my opinion as it would discourage self generation and efficiency and encourage wastage.