Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

EricMears

Coastalwatch said:

Am I being too optimistic here?

Probably !  Some of us still remember that nuclear power would soon become "too cheap to meter".  Alas,  that still hasn't happened !

Coastalwatch

EricMears said:

Coastalwatch said:

Am I being too optimistic here?

Probably !  Some of us still remember that nuclear power would soon become "too cheap to meter".  Alas,  that still hasn't happened !

You're quite right there Eric, I understand Meter manufacturer's were concerned for their very futures as a direct result. Yet with it's costs escalating over the last sixty years or so it doesn't seem economically viable now. It never fails to amaze me the gimmicks various PR stunts come out with to try and sell something or inflate the price  disproportionately otherwise.

While Nuclear never did achieve that utopian aspiration Renewables on the other hand are demonstrating that from a generation perspective at least it is entirely within reach. Not that it would eliminate the need for Metering as costs for ROI, distribution and ongoing upgrades and maintenance must also be recovered.

But happy to daydream all the same!

Martyn1981

michaels said:

Sorry if it is in the mesages above but did anyone look on pvgis to confirm the 2x factor for Saudi generation compared to the uk, bviously they will habe higher temps that at least in the panels available here reduces output relative to insolation.

I guess the issue with new solar is that it basically produces at the same time of day as existing solar so at some point additional solar supply will push the price of all generation in that time window down.  It is not for nothing that the govt has to use CFD to attract suppliers which puts a floor on the return they receive.

(Controversial bit. Whilst the CFD also puts a cap on supply costs, a glut of cheap solar at certain times of the day/year pushing down the spot price may cause generation that can supply 24/7 to be withdrawn from the supply mix because it is uneconomical, reducing capacity at the time solar is not available and pushing up overall prices during these periods)

Looks like 2x to me, what results did you get?

As you know, I've never bought into yours and GA's argument about PV (or wind) cannibalizing their profits. Of course there will be times on some days when generation exceeds the ability to absorb it all, but as PV'ers we appreciate the difference between a capped PV system whose larger size may exceed the limits on times, but on an annual basis is fine, more than fine. The exact same could be claimed for FF generation, that at times will exceed needs (especially at night v's evening peak demand) but are (or were) still economic on an annual basis. And obviously storage, or BEV's charging during the day (perhaps at work) will help to manage this. Large scale, longer term storage may even create a floor price, though this may be very low of course, and just as importantly, large scale longer term storage, will also help to create a ceiling price.

Regarding the controversial bit, this is already happening all over the World, where 24/7 FF generation is being prematurely closed as it is now uneconomical ..... that's kinda the point. Jumping from there to higher overall supply prices is a direct contradiction, since you are  suggesting lower overall prices and higher overall prices at the same time to inadvertently create FUD.

michaels

Martyn1981 said:

michaels said:

Sorry if it is in the mesages above but did anyone look on pvgis to confirm the 2x factor for Saudi generation compared to the uk, bviously they will habe higher temps that at least in the panels available here reduces output relative to insolation.

I guess the issue with new solar is that it basically produces at the same time of day as existing solar so at some point additional solar supply will push the price of all generation in that time window down.  It is not for nothing that the govt has to use CFD to attract suppliers which puts a floor on the return they receive.

(Controversial bit. Whilst the CFD also puts a cap on supply costs, a glut of cheap solar at certain times of the day/year pushing down the spot price may cause generation that can supply 24/7 to be withdrawn from the supply mix because it is uneconomical, reducing capacity at the time solar is not available and pushing up overall prices during these periods)

Looks like 2x to me, what results did you get?

As you know, I've never bought into yours and GA's argument about PV (or wind) cannibalizing their profits. Of course there will be times on some days when generation exceeds the ability to absorb it all, but as PV'ers we appreciate the difference between a capped PV system whose larger size may exceed the limits on times, but on an annual basis is fine, more than fine. The exact same could be claimed for FF generation, that at times will exceed needs (especially at night v's evening peak demand) but are (or were) still economic on an annual basis. And obviously storage, or BEV's charging during the day (perhaps at work) will help to manage this. Large scale, longer term storage may even create a floor price, though this may be very low of course, and just as importantly, large scale longer term storage, will also help to create a ceiling price.

Regarding the controversial bit, this is already happening all over the World, where 24/7 FF generation is being prematurely closed as it is now uneconomical ..... that's kinda the point. Jumping from there to higher overall supply prices is a direct contradiction, since you are  suggesting lower overall prices and higher overall prices at the same time to inadvertently create FUD.

Agree, not higher overall prices but more incentive for suppliers to introduce tariffs that strongly penalise usage when supply is tightest which may price the poorest out of the market - the economically rational thing but not perhaps socially desirable? (I think I saw that during the recent Texas crisis even some domestic consumers faced crazy per unit prices?)

Martyn1981

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

michaels said:

Sorry if it is in the mesages above but did anyone look on pvgis to confirm the 2x factor for Saudi generation compared to the uk, bviously they will habe higher temps that at least in the panels available here reduces output relative to insolation.

I guess the issue with new solar is that it basically produces at the same time of day as existing solar so at some point additional solar supply will push the price of all generation in that time window down.  It is not for nothing that the govt has to use CFD to attract suppliers which puts a floor on the return they receive.

(Controversial bit. Whilst the CFD also puts a cap on supply costs, a glut of cheap solar at certain times of the day/year pushing down the spot price may cause generation that can supply 24/7 to be withdrawn from the supply mix because it is uneconomical, reducing capacity at the time solar is not available and pushing up overall prices during these periods)

Looks like 2x to me, what results did you get?

As you know, I've never bought into yours and GA's argument about PV (or wind) cannibalizing their profits. Of course there will be times on some days when generation exceeds the ability to absorb it all, but as PV'ers we appreciate the difference between a capped PV system whose larger size may exceed the limits on times, but on an annual basis is fine, more than fine. The exact same could be claimed for FF generation, that at times will exceed needs (especially at night v's evening peak demand) but are (or were) still economic on an annual basis. And obviously storage, or BEV's charging during the day (perhaps at work) will help to manage this. Large scale, longer term storage may even create a floor price, though this may be very low of course, and just as importantly, large scale longer term storage, will also help to create a ceiling price.

Regarding the controversial bit, this is already happening all over the World, where 24/7 FF generation is being prematurely closed as it is now uneconomical ..... that's kinda the point. Jumping from there to higher overall supply prices is a direct contradiction, since you are  suggesting lower overall prices and higher overall prices at the same time to inadvertently create FUD.

Agree, not higher overall prices but more incentive for suppliers to introduce tariffs that strongly penalise usage when supply is tightest which may price the poorest out of the market - the economically rational thing but not perhaps socially desirable? (I think I saw that during the recent Texas crisis even some domestic consumers faced crazy per unit prices?)

That's odd, you seem to be suggesting that there will be too much RE leccy, crushing wholesale prices, and therefore leading to poor people paying more, have you heard the phrase 'pick a lane'?

Perhaps that's what you saw with Texas, but I seem to have seen the exact opposite. As I understood it, the ability to use dynamic pricing encouraged the FF generators to ignore recommendations to winterize their powerplants, and also to provide enough capacity for extreme peaks, instead choosing to build out only enough for average peak demand, so that prices would rise exponentionally when a shortage occurs. This works if the rise in price for your product far outweighs the reduction in your supply.

So, just to reiterate, you are once again (as always when RE expansion is mentioned) trying to spin a negative based on the generation industry not knowing what they are doing economically, which will cause an overproduction, that in turn (presumably) doesn't correct itself, and this will lead to rising (not falling!) prices, and are trying to draw comparisons to the Texas disaster which was a result of a shortage* (not excess) of supply? 


*For anyone that missed the major issues behind the Texas disaster, it all revolves around the Texas grid staying seperate to the two large national grids that serve the rest of the lower 48. By staying seperate they are able to avoid having to follow any of the grids rules and regs.
Instead they get recommendations from the political leaders whose election campaigns they help to fund, and do not have to follow the recommendations if they so choose. This means that building out excess capacity for extreme situations, like the ice storm that hit recently, and similar such events which are now happening roughly every 10yrs, is not required. They also choose not to winterize their wind turbines, nor the safety gauges and water supplies for nuclear and coal/gas generation. They also don't have to ensure that coal stocks won't freeze solid. Texas also doesn't remove the water from nat-gas (a process carried out elsewhere in the World where cold temps are expected or possible), so the gas pipeline supplies and valves can jam up when the water element freezes.
In fact, the disaster was great news for the Texas generators as the reduced supply they were able to maintain was sold at a vast profit. I believe some estimates were that they made one to two years profits during that one week when several customers perished.

michaels

I am obviously not explaining very clearly, I was talking about the impact of eye-wateringly high prices on consumers who may end up with a choice of a fixed price tariff that has priced in surety of supply even when spot prices go very high hurting those who are on the fixed tariff, and market following tariffs that work out cheaper overall but where prices go very high when supply is tight which would encourage those short of money to cut back their usage even if it was deleterious to their health.

Here is an example of what happened in Texas, note this is nothing to do with the causes of the supply/demand imbalance, what I am trying to discuss is the impact - where energy pricing becomes more volatile there will be more incentive for demand and supply to be kept in balance through demand curtailment via surge pricing.  Economically it makes sense, socially I am just asking the question.

https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-15-000-electricity-bills-in-texas-155822

Martyn1981

Looked at the link, and as I said, the cause of the high prices was deregulation, or to be more accurate, the extreme measures that the Texas grid and its bought and paid for politicians took to avoid any regulatory protection for the customers in order to maximise profits.

From this they were able to get away with a system that guarantess shortage of supply, and enormous price rises.

So back to the issue in hand, which was originally the complete opposite - continued RE rollout will cause oversupply (not shortage of supply) and will lead to industry crushing low prices (not high prices), you are trying to argue that this reduction in wholesale prices will penalise the poor with eye-watering high prices, just like Texas (when Texas incurred the exact opposite situation) and in the UK with high regulation and licence agreements with The National Grid and ESO.

Once again, you are arguing that low prices will hurt the industry and at the same time these eye watering high prices will hurt customers ........ give us a break.

michaels

I don't know if it is worth trying to explain. 

Excess RE will reduce prices when RE is producing.

This will reduce the return for generators that supply all the time as for some periods their output will be loss making.

Some of these suppliers will leave the market.

This will mean supply is tighter in the periods when renewables are not available.

Impact on prices: 
Lower when RE is plentiful (but not always passed on to consumers due to CFD?)
Higher (Possibly painfully so) prices when less RE is available as this is needed to reduce demand enough to match supply

Painfully high prices = poor people being cold

I am sure you can come back with a response but perhaps if you could tell me which step(s) in the logic you think are not valid that would really help me.

Coastalwatch

michaels said:

I don't know if it is worth trying to explain. 

Excess RE will reduce prices when RE is producing.

This will reduce the return for generators that supply all the time as for some periods their output will be loss making.

Some of these suppliers will leave the market.

This will mean supply is tighter in the periods when renewables are not available.

Impact on prices: 
Lower when RE is plentiful (but not always passed on to consumers due to CFD?)
Higher (Possibly painfully so) prices when less RE is available as this is needed to reduce demand enough to match supply

Painfully high prices = poor people being cold

I am sure you can come back with a response but perhaps if you could tell me which step(s) in the logic you think are not valid that would really help me.

Keep digging.

michaels

Coastalwatch said:

michaels said:

I don't know if it is worth trying to explain. 

Excess RE will reduce prices when RE is producing.

This will reduce the return for generators that supply all the time as for some periods their output will be loss making.

Some of these suppliers will leave the market.

This will mean supply is tighter in the periods when renewables are not available.

Impact on prices: 
Lower when RE is plentiful (but not always passed on to consumers due to CFD?)
Higher (Possibly painfully so) prices when less RE is available as this is needed to reduce demand enough to match supply

Painfully high prices = poor people being cold

I am sure you can come back with a response but perhaps if you could tell me which step(s) in the logic you think are not valid that would really help me.

Keep digging.

Clearly not worth trying 😒