We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

1331332334336337857

Comments

  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 15,485 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    New windfarms will not cost billpayers after subsidies hit record low
    The UK’s next wave of offshore windfarms will generate clean electricity at no extra cost to consumers after record low subsidy deals fell below the market price for the first time.

    New offshore wind projects will power millions of British homes under “zero-subsidy” support contracts within the next four years, following a record-breaking government subsidy auction.

    On Friday, the results of the auction showed offshore wind costs had tumbled by a third to about £40 per megawatt hour, which is less than the price of electricity in the wholesale energy market.

    This means households will not face extra costs to support the new projects, which may even help to bring energy bills down.
    Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 28kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • EricMears
    EricMears Posts: 3,313 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 20 September 2019 at 5:36PM
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    Might I suggest you pop me on ignore since my pro-RE posts, on a pro-RE thread on a pro-RE board upset you so much.
    I'm certainly not 'anti-RE' but think it only fair to point out that MSE is a Money Saving site not a pro-RE site. The two often coincide but the primary purpose of the site remains saving money.
    NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq5
  • 1961Nick
    1961Nick Posts: 2,107 Forumite
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 20 September 2019 at 2:10PM
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    Nick I really don't know what your problem is.

    Yesterday you had to create the claim that I don't like profits, so that you can have another go. Now today you've moved on to 'bludgeoning' people, when I have no problem what people's interest is (or isn't).

    No idea why you keep getting so upset when all I do is post news and pushback against three of you ....... oh I see, it's because I've called out so many of your false claims, like the UK only being responsible for 1% of cumulative CO2 emissions, when it's 5%, or when I challenged your response to that claiming scientists disagree whether it's 1% or 4%, or when you said a high mileage driver would have twice the costs in a BEV, or that crops benefit from more CO2, or the UK's contribution to acting against AGW (around £1tn) isn't worth it, or we should spend on dealing with AGW, not spend on minimising it, and so on .....

    Please just give it a rest now. RE is good, it's good for jobs, it's good for profits, it's good for the economy, and it clearly won't bankrupt us.

    Might I suggest you pop me on ignore since my pro-RE posts, on a pro-RE thread on a pro-RE board upset you so much.
    I think I've mentioned it before, but it was "current CO2 emissions" ...which is correct ... and don't you think you've done that misquote to death?
    4kWp (black/black) - Sofar Inverter - SSE(141°) - 30° pitch - North Lincs
    Installed June 2013 - PVGIS = 3400
    Sofar ME3000SP Inverter & 5 x Pylontech US2000B Plus & 3 x US2000C Batteries - 19.2kWh
  • GreatApe
    GreatApe Posts: 4,452 Forumite
    michaels wrote: »
    Indeed very low prices which presumably have implications for any further nuclear build out.
    If wind can be profitable without subsidies why aren't we seeing projects being built outside of the govt price guarantee CFD scheme?


    The UK doesn't need new nuclear primarily because we have significant old nuclear and we are very close to excess north coast French reactor fleet (and are building 3 new links to France to take advantage of this) plus the dual reactors currently under construction. What this means is the UK could be ~40% nuclear powered (domestic + Imports) by just keeping its old nukes going

    More than 40% is unnecessary especially since we are committed to 33%+ offshore wind and also have significant contribution from solar onshore wind and even hydropower and will be importing a lot of Norway hydropower too.

    New nuclear should be abandoned in the UK but old nuclear should be kept as long as safe
    Give EDF a 15 year CFD starting from 2025 for the old reactors at perhaps a price of £45-55/MWh
    This gives them the security of income and security to invest into the mid term
    Let UK nukes work out to 2040 and hinkley C plus French imports means the UK would be about 40% nuclear and would have a very low carbon grid
  • GreatApe
    GreatApe Posts: 4,452 Forumite
    What is £40/MWh (2012) in today's prices?
    Quick Google suggest 19% CPI over the last 7 years?
    So about £48/MWh in 2019 pounds?

    That is pretty good and certainly acceptable but not fantastic
    The price needs to fall towards £25-30 for truely sub free

    More importantly there needs to be cheap variable electricity tariffs so as to electrify heating
    If the public could buy cheap electric heaters that could purchase electricity for 3p a unit then that would be a cheap way to do wind powered heating. Offshore wind power would need to fall to £30/MWh and the grid fees would need to be zero (using excess capacity) with normal electricity useage paying for the grid.

    If wind power could be produced for £30/MWh and if the electricity companies could be regulated to sell electricity for heating for 3p/unit then that is one way to do very rapid conversion of gas to electricity. When the wind blows the cheap electric heater turns itself on. When there is no wind the gas boiler kicks in as today
  • GreatApe
    GreatApe Posts: 4,452 Forumite
    edited 20 September 2019 at 5:25PM
    GreatApe wrote: »
    The UK doesn't need new nuclear primarily because we have significant old nuclear and we are very close to excess north coast French reactor fleet (and are building 3 new links to France to take advantage of this) plus the dual reactors currently under construction. What this means is the UK could be ~40% nuclear powered (domestic + Imports) by just keeping its old nukes going

    More than 40% is unnecessary especially since we are committed to 33%+ offshore wind and also have significant contribution from solar onshore wind and even hydropower and will be importing a lot of Norway hydropower too.

    New nuclear should be abandoned in the UK but old nuclear should be kept as long as safe
    Give EDF a 15 year CFD starting from 2025 for the old reactors at perhaps a price of £45-55/MWh
    This gives them the security of income and security to invest into the mid term
    Let UK nukes work out to 2040 and hinkley C plus French imports means the UK would be about 40% nuclear and would have a very low carbon grid




    Quoting myself

    Another Reason we don't need additional new nuclear is because we will be saturated with green soon and arguably already are

    7.0 GW domestic nuclear.
    3.3 GW new nuclear under construction
    7.4 GW links to France existing, under construction, likely (and potentially more will be built)

    That means during summer nights we could be as much as 90% nuclear electricity which is excessive because we will have wind and hydro and other interconntors too

    Old nuke lives should be extended another 10-20 years with CFDs if necessary but new nukes are not needed
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 15,485 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    EricMears wrote: »
    I'm certainly not 'anti-RE' but think it only fair to point out that MSE is a Money Saving site not a pro-RE site. The two often coincide but the primary purpose of the site remains saving money.

    Yep, but I didn't say pro-RE site, I said board, as in the Green & Ethical Board.

    Personally, and this is where it gets strange, you'll probably have noted my posts over the years are very focused on costs and economics, so it's weird to have the opposite said about me by Nick!

    What makes me happiest, and links in with this site, is that RE is now becoming the economical choice, so we can 'sell' the benefits to those that don't even care about the green side.

    Win win.
    Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 28kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 15,485 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    1961Nick wrote: »
    I think I've mentioned it before, but it was "current CO2 emissions" ...which is correct ... and don't you think you've done that misquote to death?

    Sorry Nick, but once again, please stop lying. Your post claimed 1% of cumulative emissions were down to the UK, and I can't misquote it, as it's your post and I'm simply 'quoting' it:
    1961Nick wrote: »
    £1T is a lot of money when you consider the UK is responsible for about 1% of global carbon emissions.....that's about 1.4ppm out of a total concentration of about 400ppm (260ppm are naturally occurring).


    The rise from ~260ppm to ~400ppm is cumulative from the start of the industrial revolution.

    The difference, you state perfectly clearly, is 140ppm. That is not an annual addition, it is a cumulative addition from the start of the industrial revolution.

    The amount you allocate to the UK is 1.4ppm, which is clearly 1% of the cumulative increase.

    You did not say "current emissions" you said, and I've quoted it many times "global carbon emissions".

    My response pointed this out and referenced the fact the UK is actually responsible for 5%:
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    I'm not sure what your argument is. The problem isn't +1.4ppm, but the whole, and if we are part of the problem, then we have a responsibly to be part of the solution. Plus the UK has 1% of the world's population so even at 1% of (current) emissions that confirms our responsibility, it doesn't excuse it?

    The cost of not acting is far greater, and historically the UK was the greatest emitter of CO2 until 1911 when the US overtook us, but we are still in 3rd or 4th place (depending on whether India has now caught us up). [Edit - according to that chart the UK is responsible for 5% of global CO2 emissions in total. Taking population into account we are just a tiny fraction behind the US, and nearly 9x worse than China. M.]

    See the third chart.

    But the point I was trying to make is that much of that £1tn 'cost' seems to just be normal spending (a BEV instead of an ICE, RE leccy instead of coal/gas leccy), not additional spending.

    And, at the end of the day, FF's will run out, so we have to do it anyway, so not additional spending.

    Your response (un-referenced) was to claim scientists are in dispute:
    1961Nick wrote: »
    One expert says 1% , another says 4%....that really goes to show how little we actually know about the climate & our impact on it.

    My point is that we have to be careful not to go too hard at carbon reduction & price ourselves out of the market. If we do that, we won't have an economy that can support widescale adoption of BEVs etc.

    So you under reported the UK contribution by 80%, and when caught, used the old denial myth that experts disagree.

    Please stop denying the thread contents.

    If you absolutely won't admit you are wrong, and claim the 1.4ppm addition for the UK is current and annual, then you are also claiming that the UK is responsible for ~60% of the annual CO2 ppm rise, since it's around 2-2.5ppm pa.
    Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 28kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 15,485 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 20 September 2019 at 6:54PM
    GreatApe wrote: »
    The UK doesn't need new nuclear primarily because we have significant old nuclear and we are very close to excess north coast French reactor fleet (and are building 3 new links to France to take advantage of this) plus the dual reactors currently under construction. What this means is the UK could be ~40% nuclear powered (domestic + Imports) by just keeping its old nukes going

    More than 40% is unnecessary especially since we are committed to 33%+ offshore wind and also have significant contribution from solar onshore wind and even hydropower and will be importing a lot of Norway hydropower too.

    New nuclear should be abandoned in the UK but old nuclear should be kept as long as safe
    Give EDF a 15 year CFD starting from 2025 for the old reactors at perhaps a price of £45-55/MWh
    This gives them the security of income and security to invest into the mid term
    Let UK nukes work out to 2040 and hinkley C plus French imports means the UK would be about 40% nuclear and would have a very low carbon grid

    Two problems with that argument:

    1. The 'old' UK fleet is already at end of life, and the whole fleet is to close down from 2023 to 2030.

    You can't just increase their life, something which has already been done without great expense and a lowering of their output to effectively stretch out their life, but not increase their generation.

    2. The interconnectors are not being built to make use of French nuclear, but to better link us with the continent for import and export.

    The French have previously announced a reduction in their nuclear percentage from around 80% to 50%, and an expansion of RE generation. As French nuclear declines, they will not have as much or any overnight spare for us.*

    As RE costs continue to fall, and French nuclear costs continue to rise we can expect the 50% figure to most likely be revised downward.

    So apart from all the nuclear you are relying on, not being available, I'm sure your plan is sound. And just to repeat in case you didn't get it, you suggest 40% from new and old nuclear, when all we will have is 7% from new nuclear HPC, and that's at a subsidy cost of approx £45bn v's todays results delivering approx the same amount of generation from off-shore wind for zero subsidy ..... and arriving before HPC.

    *Note that nuclear in France is even less popular than nuclear in the UK. they have it, they pay for it, and they've concluded ...... no thanks!

    European Perceptions of Climate Change (EPCC)

    please see page 27, table 8

    French support for nuclear is 23%, for RE 80%-90%

    page 31, table 9

    support to include nuclear in the energy mix is 28%, support subsidies for RE 76%

    GreatApe wrote: »
    7.0 GW domestic nuclear.
    3.3 GW new nuclear under construction
    7.4 GW links to France existing, under construction, likely (and potentially more will be built)

    That means during summer nights we could be as much as 90% nuclear electricity which is excessive because we will have wind and hydro and other interconntors too

    So, without the old UK nuclear, and no French spare, we are down to approx 3.2GW (HPC) against ~20GW UK summer nightime demand, so not 90% as you claim, but approx 16%.

    But wait, there's more. that's before additional transportation BEV charging, and a small 'elephant in the room' that nuclear typically refuels or carries out maintenance during the summer.

    HPC is, if I recall correctly, to spend two months every two years being refueled, hence the cf of ~92%. So if we widen 'summer' to 4 months when we can fairly assume heating won't be needed and demand is low, then we lose 1 month per year (2 months every two years), so HPC will provide that 16% for 3/4 months, or 12%.

    Next let's assume a 20% leccy demand increase for all BEV's (I've previously calculated approx 10% net for cars), then that's 70TWh pa, or 191GW per day, over 12 hrs (very rough generalisation for nightime) comes to 16GW.

    So now we have a nighttime demand of ~36GW and HPC supplying 2.4GW or 7%, v's your 90% claim.

    just saying!
    Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 28kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 15,485 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    GreatApe wrote: »
    What is £40/MWh (2012) in today's prices?
    Quick Google suggest 19% CPI over the last 7 years?
    So about £48/MWh in 2019 pounds?

    That is pretty good and certainly acceptable but not fantastic
    The price needs to fall towards £25-30 for truely sub free

    Putting aside your made up claim that we need £25-£30 for sub free ....... :rotfl:

    What is £40 today, well a simple test would be to look at the CFD Register I've given before and look at the 2017 offshore auction price which was £57.50 (2012 baseline) and as of Apr 2019 is now £65.09.

    So (£40 x £65.09) / £57.50 = £45.28

    For comparison the 35yr CfD (RE gets 15yr subsidy) for HPC is now £101.99.
    Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 28kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.