Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

joefizz said:

Thats the problem with using average figures for calculations and extrapolating them, if every day was 'average' there would be no problem.

I assume that's why the Gov were advised that RE + storage was cheaper than nuclear, not just the obvious that RE is cheaper than nuclear. 

joefizz

Martyn1981 said:

joefizz said:

Thats the problem with using average figures for calculations and extrapolating them, if every day was 'average' there would be no problem.

I assume that's why the Gov were advised that RE + storage was cheaper than nuclear, not just the obvious that RE is cheaper than nuclear. 

Dont get hung up on the 'cheaper' thing. With covid the penny might have finally dropped that doing the 'cheaper' thing isnt necessarily always the best scenario but I wouldnt hold my breath. The magic money printing presses are full on but very soon will have to stop.

It doesnt matter what something costs now because it can be borrowed at negative rates and inflated away in less than 10 years.

Again thats the problem with focussing on fiat money 'costs'. As I mentioned earlier, skip forward 10 years when we are all sitting in the dark right now wondering why they didnt spend that wee bit more ;-)

Martyn1981

joefizz said:

Martyn1981 said:

joefizz said:

Thats the problem with using average figures for calculations and extrapolating them, if every day was 'average' there would be no problem.

I assume that's why the Gov were advised that RE + storage was cheaper than nuclear, not just the obvious that RE is cheaper than nuclear. 

Dont get hung up on the 'cheaper' thing. With covid the penny might have finally dropped that doing the 'cheaper' thing isnt necessarily always the best scenario but I wouldnt hold my breath. The magic money printing presses are full on but very soon will have to stop.

It doesnt matter what something costs now because it can be borrowed at negative rates and inflated away in less than 10 years.

Again thats the problem with focussing on fiat money 'costs'. As I mentioned earlier, skip forward 10 years when we are all sitting in the dark right now wondering why they didnt spend that wee bit more ;-)

Hopefully that was a joke answer?
So you say not to focus on cheap, misrepresenting the lower cost solution as somehow inferior, when clearly that's not what the Gov advisors are suggesting.
Then you suggest we should pay more, but immediately then state that the money presses will have to stop. But then flip back again that inflation will remove any cost in 10yrs, which isn't true, and nuclear gets 35yr subsidies.
And then fear monger about the lights going out in 10yrs, which isn't true if we deploy RE + storage to steadily displace FF's, whilst supporting new nuclear deployment, none of which will be commissioned in the next 10yrs, and even the current build of HPC is questionable for that time frame.

Personally, I'm in favour of the low cost, hopefully zero subsidy option of RE, delivering FF displacement in time periods of 1-5yrs, rather than horrifically expensive nuclear, with vast subsidies for 35yrs, that lock in FF emissions for 10+yrs.

Edit - Regarding your entirely false claim that the extra cost of nuclear doesn't matter because it will be magically 'inflated away' in 10yrs, I'm, going to assume that you didn't know that the nuclear CfD strike price (currently £104/MWh for HPC*) is index linked for 35yrs. So no, it won't be inflated away, not a penny of it.

*For context the latest off-shore wind strike prices are £45/MWh for 15yrs.

Also odd how you started off a few days ago with the prevocational statement about RE subsidies "and inevitably with green projects the over reliance on government grants" but when it's pointed out that the 15yr RE subsidies are heading towards zero after just 10yrs of support, whilst the 35yr nuclear subsidies are enormous, despite 60yrs of subsidy support, you suddenly do a 180 and pretend subsidies don't matter!

joefizz

Martyn1981 said:

Hopefully that was a joke answer?

Nope.

The UK will theoretically have about 70GW of total installed wind capacity by 2030.
It currently has about 25GW of total installed wind capacity.
At time of posting that 25GW of wind installed capacity is generating 0.5GW. Current demand is 40GW.

Talk to me about costs again.

Martyn1981

joefizz said:

Martyn1981 said:

Hopefully that was a joke answer?

Nope.

The UK will theoretically have about 70GW of total installed wind capacity by 2030.
It currently has about 25GW of total installed wind capacity.
At time of posting that 25GW of wind installed capacity is generating 0.5GW. Current demand is 40GW.

Talk to me about costs again.

If I have too, but it seems somewhat pointless.

So, two and a half years ago the Gov were advised that the proposed nuclear element of future leccy supply could be provided by RE and storage at a lower cost.

This would appear to completely contradict your claims, and so far the only way you have tried to push back is to present cheaper in a derogatory way, when of course here it simply means that of the two solutions, one costs more and one costs less.

So your claims seem to fly in the face of the economic evidence. And referring to low wind generation is nothing more than a 'cheap' trick, since it ignores the storage element used by said economic advisers, in order to project a false and 'hysterical' future. As does criticising RE support, as does minimising nuclear support, as does pretending support is cost based and can therefore be inflated away, when it's actually revenue based and inflation linked.

That's why I assumed this was another of your 'wind ups' since at every point you seem to be making wild claims based on your not knowing the facts surrounding the issue, and thereby getting pretty much everything backwards. 

michaels

Martyn1981 said:

joefizz said:

Martyn1981 said:

joefizz said:

Thats the problem with using average figures for calculations and extrapolating them, if every day was 'average' there would be no problem.

I assume that's why the Gov were advised that RE + storage was cheaper than nuclear, not just the obvious that RE is cheaper than nuclear. 

Dont get hung up on the 'cheaper' thing. With covid the penny might have finally dropped that doing the 'cheaper' thing isnt necessarily always the best scenario but I wouldnt hold my breath. The magic money printing presses are full on but very soon will have to stop.

It doesnt matter what something costs now because it can be borrowed at negative rates and inflated away in less than 10 years.

Again thats the problem with focussing on fiat money 'costs'. As I mentioned earlier, skip forward 10 years when we are all sitting in the dark right now wondering why they didnt spend that wee bit more ;-)

Hopefully that was a joke answer?
So you say not to focus on cheap, misrepresenting the lower cost solution as somehow inferior, when clearly that's not what the Gov advisors are suggesting.
Then you suggest we should pay more, but immediately then state that the money presses will have to stop. But then flip back again that inflation will remove any cost in 10yrs, which isn't true, and nuclear gets 35yr subsidies.
And then fear monger about the lights going out in 10yrs, which isn't true if we deploy RE + storage to steadily displace FF's, whilst supporting new nuclear deployment, none of which will be commissioned in the next 10yrs, and even the current build of HPC is questionable for that time frame.

Personally, I'm in favour of the low cost, hopefully zero subsidy option of RE, delivering FF displacement in time periods of 1-5yrs, rather than horrifically expensive nuclear, with vast subsidies for 35yrs, that lock in FF emissions for 10+yrs.

Edit - Regarding your entirely false claim that the extra cost of nuclear doesn't matter because it will be magically 'inflated away' in 10yrs, I'm, going to assume that you didn't know that the nuclear CfD strike price (currently £104/MWh for HPC*) is index linked for 35yrs. So no, it won't be inflated away, not a penny of it.

*For context the latest off-shore wind strike prices are £45/MWh for 15yrs.

Also odd how you started off a few days ago with the prevocational statement about RE subsidies "and inevitably with green projects the over reliance on government grants" but when it's pointed out that the 15yr RE subsidies are heading towards zero after just 10yrs of support, whilst the 35yr nuclear subsidies are enormous, despite 60yrs of subsidy support, you suddenly do a 180 and pretend subsidies don't matter!

Interesting.  Do we think nuclear is cleaner and nearer in time than using hydrogen to store excess wind or indeed cheaper and greener than just keeping the current gas fleet maintained and running that up for the occasions where wind, solar and storage can't cope.  No not 'green at point of use' but if that point of use is only 5% of annual demand and it avoids the energy and cost embedded in the construction and decommissioning of nuclear might it not be greener and cheaper?

Martyn1981

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

joefizz said:

Martyn1981 said:

joefizz said:

Thats the problem with using average figures for calculations and extrapolating them, if every day was 'average' there would be no problem.

I assume that's why the Gov were advised that RE + storage was cheaper than nuclear, not just the obvious that RE is cheaper than nuclear. 

Dont get hung up on the 'cheaper' thing. With covid the penny might have finally dropped that doing the 'cheaper' thing isnt necessarily always the best scenario but I wouldnt hold my breath. The magic money printing presses are full on but very soon will have to stop.

It doesnt matter what something costs now because it can be borrowed at negative rates and inflated away in less than 10 years.

Again thats the problem with focussing on fiat money 'costs'. As I mentioned earlier, skip forward 10 years when we are all sitting in the dark right now wondering why they didnt spend that wee bit more ;-)

Hopefully that was a joke answer?
So you say not to focus on cheap, misrepresenting the lower cost solution as somehow inferior, when clearly that's not what the Gov advisors are suggesting.
Then you suggest we should pay more, but immediately then state that the money presses will have to stop. But then flip back again that inflation will remove any cost in 10yrs, which isn't true, and nuclear gets 35yr subsidies.
And then fear monger about the lights going out in 10yrs, which isn't true if we deploy RE + storage to steadily displace FF's, whilst supporting new nuclear deployment, none of which will be commissioned in the next 10yrs, and even the current build of HPC is questionable for that time frame.

Personally, I'm in favour of the low cost, hopefully zero subsidy option of RE, delivering FF displacement in time periods of 1-5yrs, rather than horrifically expensive nuclear, with vast subsidies for 35yrs, that lock in FF emissions for 10+yrs.

Edit - Regarding your entirely false claim that the extra cost of nuclear doesn't matter because it will be magically 'inflated away' in 10yrs, I'm, going to assume that you didn't know that the nuclear CfD strike price (currently £104/MWh for HPC*) is index linked for 35yrs. So no, it won't be inflated away, not a penny of it.

*For context the latest off-shore wind strike prices are £45/MWh for 15yrs.

Also odd how you started off a few days ago with the prevocational statement about RE subsidies "and inevitably with green projects the over reliance on government grants" but when it's pointed out that the 15yr RE subsidies are heading towards zero after just 10yrs of support, whilst the 35yr nuclear subsidies are enormous, despite 60yrs of subsidy support, you suddenly do a 180 and pretend subsidies don't matter!

Interesting.  Do we think nuclear is cleaner and nearer in time than using hydrogen to store excess wind or indeed cheaper and greener than just keeping the current gas fleet maintained and running that up for the occasions where wind, solar and storage can't cope.  No not 'green at point of use' but if that point of use is only 5% of annual demand and it avoids the energy and cost embedded in the construction and decommissioning of nuclear might it not be greener and cheaper?

Yes. In fact that's the current mechanism, where we roll out more and more RE, to displace FF generation, but of course it's the gas generation that makes this possible as it can demand follow.
To be green we need to roll out more low carbon generation, and to be greener, we need to do it faster, or as fast as possible. At this point we should therefore include nuclear in the discussions to get to net zero* asap. From there, the next logical step is to look at each generation source and check if it would be beneficial to replace it with something else. Wind and PV are safe, as they are both cheap and compliment each other. At this point nuclear falls down as it can now be replaced by more RE.
But first of course RE (and storage) had to prove themselves, both in cost and speed of deployment, and I suppose scaleability in the sense that there are no practical limits, and this option of RE + storage instead of nuclear is starting to make the news all over the World, not just the UK, as experts like Lazards point to the ever cheaper costs of RE.

The economic arguments / studies, seem to suggest that the fastest way to reduce CO2 from the leccy grid is via oversupply of RE, with excess being wasted, coal removed, and FF gas reduced in line with RE generation. As this goes on, we roll out storage when that's the cheaper option to more waste, so, purely as an example there may always be an element of waste:
20%RE 80%FF
25%RE 1% waste 75%FF
30%RE 3% waste 70%FF
40%RE 5% waste 60%FF (and storage becomes viable)
50%RE 10%RE via storage 5% waste 40%FF
70%RE 20%RE via storage 5% waste 10%FF

That 10%FF will be the gas you mention, though it might be a case that the gas generation plants are burning RE hydrogen or methane too, so the growing 'storage' part, might support the grid via the existing gas generation (hope that makes sense).

We then move to your theoretical example of 5% FF gas:-
73%RE 22%RE via storage 5% waste 5%FF                 ...........  which might be the quickest and cheapest way to get to high RE penetration, especially since leccy demand will rise perhaps 100%-150% over that time period as transport, industry and heating move to leccy and away from FF's.
[Obviously the figures should include some nuclear element, given we are committed to HPC, but it's more about the theory than anything close to reality.]

*Net zero is where our carbon emissions are balanced against carbon sequestration, so via CCS or re-wilding parts of the UK with forests, etc.

EricMears

Martyn1981 said:

.To be green we need to roll out more low carbon generation, and to be greener, we need to do it faster, or as fast as possible. At this point we should therefore include nuclear in the discussions to get to net zero* asap. From there, the next logical step is to look at each generation source and check if it would be beneficial to replace it with something else. Wind and PV are safe, as they are both cheap and compliment each other. At this point nuclear falls down as it can now be replaced by more RE.

Alas,  once installed it isn't very easy to get rid of nuclear generation !   Or,  more strictly,  it is quite easy but it takes a couple of centuries    
At least a few extra gas plants could be withdrawn from service much more conveniently.

Solarchaser

So the argument is that on a given day, the wind power is low, so the lights go off, right?

But that ignores the months of wind before that of which the excess was used to store energy in batteries, in flow batteries, in hydrogen, in laes etc etc.
It also ignores the months before that where the excess solar was stored in various ways.

Its the old argument of "you cant do that now!!" And the same response of "yeah, and no-one suggested we would,  we will build up to it, so that when the time comes, we can do it"

You cant switch everyone to an electric car now, there's not enough charging points.... etc etc etc

EVandPV

Solarchaser said:

Its the old argument of "you cant do that now!!" And the same response of "yeah, and no-one suggested we would,  we will build up to it, so that when the time comes, we can do it"

You cant switch everyone to an electric car now, there's not enough charging points.... etc etc etc

Quite tedious, isn't it.
The  change is happening, get over it !
There will come a point when petrol stations are as hard to come by in some places as charging points are in some areas now.