Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

ABrass said:

michaels said:

Coastalwatch said:

Martyn1981 said:

My mind has been blown, honestly, that's simply staggering. It's almost Desertec 2.0.

Sent me off on a PVGIS play. I found PV at 45d pitch could still give ~1,700kWh/kWp but also a very flat(ish) gen across the months, with a low in Nov and Feb of about 80% of the highest month which is Aug. Dec & Jan are actually a tad higher, and compared to most of the other months (excl Aug, Nov and Feb) are about 90%. That's an extremely predictable and 'flat' annual generation.

I see the guesstimate for a CfD* is ~£48/MWh, which is also exceptional considering this would be a reliable source of generation, with its own storage to improve reliability.

That idea alone would be about 7.5% of current leccy demand, perhaps 3-5% of future demand.

Seriously shocked. I hope it's possible. Also interesting that the losses of 10-12% seem to match estimates I've found that HVDC loses around 3% per 1,000km.

*As CfD's are paid on the leccy supplied, this means that the risk wouldn't be borne by the UK, and any future high jinxs by a foreign country would cost them lots of money/sales, which hopefully removes some risk.

Not entirely sure here but wonder if the 10.5 GW generation is for eight hours only each day. So 84 GW/day which equates to a constant 3.5 GW for each of hour of the day assuming turbines and storage cover the hours of darkness. Coincidentally this equates approx to the proposed output of Sizewell C at 3.6 GW I believe.

Also of coincidence is the anticipated cost £18b vs £20b for SC. As Mart pointed out the financial risk of the project would not be carried by the British tax payer but the consortium putting it together.

Completion is projected by 2029 as opposed to SC's five years later.

Think I'd happily settle today at the suggested £48/MWh even if home based renewables do eventually come in cheaper.

I really can't see nuclear competing......unless I'm missing something!

If the costs are so similar why would the solar project only need a CFD of less than half SC?  Hopefully someone can explain rather than just call me stupid for asking.

At a guess, because once the renewables are built the running cost is very low. Nuclear plants have fueling and operational costs on top that have to be paid for.

Also, and this is a guess, but HPC may start operating around 2028, so that's 13ish years from start of construction, whereas this scheme is talking 6yrs. So at year 6 this scheme would begin to repay construction and financing costs, whereas HPC will have another 6yrs of compounded interest. One of the reasons that nuclear is so expensive is the interest (and interest on interest) from the long build out, v's say a gas generation plant that may take 2yrs, but of course have higher fuel costs.

Think of it like building a hotel, and the growing expense of interest before receipts come in, if it took 2, 6 or 13yrs to build. The cost escalates at a scary rate when compounding interest comes into play.

Exiled_Tyke

Martyn1981 said:

ABrass said:

michaels said:

Coastalwatch said:

Martyn1981 said:

My mind has been blown, honestly, that's simply staggering. It's almost Desertec 2.0.

Sent me off on a PVGIS play. I found PV at 45d pitch could still give ~1,700kWh/kWp but also a very flat(ish) gen across the months, with a low in Nov and Feb of about 80% of the highest month which is Aug. Dec & Jan are actually a tad higher, and compared to most of the other months (excl Aug, Nov and Feb) are about 90%. That's an extremely predictable and 'flat' annual generation.

I see the guesstimate for a CfD* is ~£48/MWh, which is also exceptional considering this would be a reliable source of generation, with its own storage to improve reliability.

That idea alone would be about 7.5% of current leccy demand, perhaps 3-5% of future demand.

Seriously shocked. I hope it's possible. Also interesting that the losses of 10-12% seem to match estimates I've found that HVDC loses around 3% per 1,000km.

*As CfD's are paid on the leccy supplied, this means that the risk wouldn't be borne by the UK, and any future high jinxs by a foreign country would cost them lots of money/sales, which hopefully removes some risk.

Not entirely sure here but wonder if the 10.5 GW generation is for eight hours only each day. So 84 GW/day which equates to a constant 3.5 GW for each of hour of the day assuming turbines and storage cover the hours of darkness. Coincidentally this equates approx to the proposed output of Sizewell C at 3.6 GW I believe.

Also of coincidence is the anticipated cost £18b vs £20b for SC. As Mart pointed out the financial risk of the project would not be carried by the British tax payer but the consortium putting it together.

Completion is projected by 2029 as opposed to SC's five years later.

Think I'd happily settle today at the suggested £48/MWh even if home based renewables do eventually come in cheaper.

I really can't see nuclear competing......unless I'm missing something!

If the costs are so similar why would the solar project only need a CFD of less than half SC?  Hopefully someone can explain rather than just call me stupid for asking.

At a guess, because once the renewables are built the running cost is very low. Nuclear plants have fueling and operational costs on top that have to be paid for.

Also, and this is a guess, but HPC may start operating around 2028, so that's 13ish years from start of construction, whereas this scheme is talking 6yrs. So at year 6 this scheme would begin to repay construction and financing costs, whereas HPC will have another 6yrs of compounded interest. One of the reasons that nuclear is so expensive is the interest (and interest on interest) from the long build out, v's say a gas generation plant that may take 2yrs, but of course have higher fuel costs.

Think of it like building a hotel, and the growing expense of interest before receipts come in, if it took 2, 6 or 13yrs to build. The cost escalates at a scary rate when compounding interest comes into play.

Anybody want to hazard a guess as to the likelihood of HPC being shelved at some point?  In which case the UK government will have been very clever: get a load of foreign investment and jobs and then wait for the providers to come to the conclusion that it's unviable and will never recoup its costs (in spite of guaranteed prices). 

Martyn1981

Coastalwatch said:

Martyn1981 said:

My mind has been blown, honestly, that's simply staggering. It's almost Desertec 2.0.

Sent me off on a PVGIS play. I found PV at 45d pitch could still give ~1,700kWh/kWp but also a very flat(ish) gen across the months, with a low in Nov and Feb of about 80% of the highest month which is Aug. Dec & Jan are actually a tad higher, and compared to most of the other months (excl Aug, Nov and Feb) are about 90%. That's an extremely predictable and 'flat' annual generation.

I see the guesstimate for a CfD* is ~£48/MWh, which is also exceptional considering this would be a reliable source of generation, with its own storage to improve reliability.

That idea alone would be about 7.5% of current leccy demand, perhaps 3-5% of future demand.

Seriously shocked. I hope it's possible. Also interesting that the losses of 10-12% seem to match estimates I've found that HVDC loses around 3% per 1,000km.

*As CfD's are paid on the leccy supplied, this means that the risk wouldn't be borne by the UK, and any future high jinxs by a foreign country would cost them lots of money/sales, which hopefully removes some risk.

Not entirely sure here but wonder if the 10.5 GW generation is for eight hours only each day. So 84 GW/day which equates to a constant 3.5 GW for each of hour of the day assuming turbines and storage cover the hours of darkness. Coincidentally this equates approx to the proposed output of Sizewell C at 3.6 GW I believe.

Also of coincidence is the anticipated cost £18b vs £20b for SC. As Mart pointed out the financial risk of the project would not be carried by the British tax payer but the consortium putting it together.

Completion is projected by 2029 as opposed to SC's five years later.

Think I'd happily settle today at the suggested £48/MWh even if home based renewables do eventually come in cheaper.

I really can't see nuclear competing......unless I'm missing something!

Looking at the article, they expect about 26TWh pa, so an annualised supply of about 3GW, which is almost identical to HPC/SC of ~2.94GW - I'm working that out on the basis of being down one month pa for re-fueling, so a cf of ~92%, though to be precise, I think these plants are to be refueled every two years, but down approx 2 months.

The scheme will have large scale storage in Morocco, and also 1/3rd of the generation is from wind turbines, hence how they can probably maintain night supply too, perhaps the 3.6GW is during daylight, and night supply closer to 2.4GW, giving us that annual figure? But all of this is just my guessing. We also need to know how long the CfD will be for, will it be 15yrs like RE, or 35yrs like HPC, or somewhere inbetween?

Martyn1981

Exiled_Tyke said:

Martyn1981 said:

ABrass said:

michaels said:

Coastalwatch said:

Martyn1981 said:

My mind has been blown, honestly, that's simply staggering. It's almost Desertec 2.0.

Sent me off on a PVGIS play. I found PV at 45d pitch could still give ~1,700kWh/kWp but also a very flat(ish) gen across the months, with a low in Nov and Feb of about 80% of the highest month which is Aug. Dec & Jan are actually a tad higher, and compared to most of the other months (excl Aug, Nov and Feb) are about 90%. That's an extremely predictable and 'flat' annual generation.

I see the guesstimate for a CfD* is ~£48/MWh, which is also exceptional considering this would be a reliable source of generation, with its own storage to improve reliability.

That idea alone would be about 7.5% of current leccy demand, perhaps 3-5% of future demand.

Seriously shocked. I hope it's possible. Also interesting that the losses of 10-12% seem to match estimates I've found that HVDC loses around 3% per 1,000km.

*As CfD's are paid on the leccy supplied, this means that the risk wouldn't be borne by the UK, and any future high jinxs by a foreign country would cost them lots of money/sales, which hopefully removes some risk.

Not entirely sure here but wonder if the 10.5 GW generation is for eight hours only each day. So 84 GW/day which equates to a constant 3.5 GW for each of hour of the day assuming turbines and storage cover the hours of darkness. Coincidentally this equates approx to the proposed output of Sizewell C at 3.6 GW I believe.

Also of coincidence is the anticipated cost £18b vs £20b for SC. As Mart pointed out the financial risk of the project would not be carried by the British tax payer but the consortium putting it together.

Completion is projected by 2029 as opposed to SC's five years later.

Think I'd happily settle today at the suggested £48/MWh even if home based renewables do eventually come in cheaper.

I really can't see nuclear competing......unless I'm missing something!

If the costs are so similar why would the solar project only need a CFD of less than half SC?  Hopefully someone can explain rather than just call me stupid for asking.

At a guess, because once the renewables are built the running cost is very low. Nuclear plants have fueling and operational costs on top that have to be paid for.

Also, and this is a guess, but HPC may start operating around 2028, so that's 13ish years from start of construction, whereas this scheme is talking 6yrs. So at year 6 this scheme would begin to repay construction and financing costs, whereas HPC will have another 6yrs of compounded interest. One of the reasons that nuclear is so expensive is the interest (and interest on interest) from the long build out, v's say a gas generation plant that may take 2yrs, but of course have higher fuel costs.

Think of it like building a hotel, and the growing expense of interest before receipts come in, if it took 2, 6 or 13yrs to build. The cost escalates at a scary rate when compounding interest comes into play.

Anybody want to hazard a guess as to the likelihood of HPC being shelved at some point?  In which case the UK government will have been very clever: get a load of foreign investment and jobs and then wait for the providers to come to the conclusion that it's unviable and will never recoup its costs (in spite of guaranteed prices). 

I'm going to bet on it happening, but there is still hope. The UK has a few ways out, such as withdrawing the CfD if gen doesn't start by 2035, or removing financing guarantees if Flamanville doesn't start generating ..... I think this year (can't remember, may be 2022), otherwise we are stuck as there's a £20bn poison pill if we pull out.

I do think that costs and delays could escalate, reducing returns for France and China, but since they have a high guaranteed price for the leccy, I'd guess that the deeper and deeper they get into this, the more they'll need it to come on line to make back their monies, or at worst reduce their losses.

ed110220

michaels said:

Coastalwatch said:

Martyn1981 said:

My mind has been blown, honestly, that's simply staggering. It's almost Desertec 2.0.

Sent me off on a PVGIS play. I found PV at 45d pitch could still give ~1,700kWh/kWp but also a very flat(ish) gen across the months, with a low in Nov and Feb of about 80% of the highest month which is Aug. Dec & Jan are actually a tad higher, and compared to most of the other months (excl Aug, Nov and Feb) are about 90%. That's an extremely predictable and 'flat' annual generation.

I see the guesstimate for a CfD* is ~£48/MWh, which is also exceptional considering this would be a reliable source of generation, with its own storage to improve reliability.

That idea alone would be about 7.5% of current leccy demand, perhaps 3-5% of future demand.

Seriously shocked. I hope it's possible. Also interesting that the losses of 10-12% seem to match estimates I've found that HVDC loses around 3% per 1,000km.

*As CfD's are paid on the leccy supplied, this means that the risk wouldn't be borne by the UK, and any future high jinxs by a foreign country would cost them lots of money/sales, which hopefully removes some risk.

Not entirely sure here but wonder if the 10.5 GW generation is for eight hours only each day. So 84 GW/day which equates to a constant 3.5 GW for each of hour of the day assuming turbines and storage cover the hours of darkness. Coincidentally this equates approx to the proposed output of Sizewell C at 3.6 GW I believe.

Also of coincidence is the anticipated cost £18b vs £20b for SC. As Mart pointed out the financial risk of the project would not be carried by the British tax payer but the consortium putting it together.

Completion is projected by 2029 as opposed to SC's five years later.

Think I'd happily settle today at the suggested £48/MWh even if home based renewables do eventually come in cheaper.

I really can't see nuclear competing......unless I'm missing something!

If the costs are so similar why would the solar project only need a CFD of less than half SC?  Hopefully someone can explain rather than just call me stupid for asking.

A big part will be that building a nuclear power station is seen as very financially risky. All of the six reactors that were meant to kick off a 'nuclear renaissance' in the western world about 15 or so years ago are/were massively over budget and massively delayed. One each at Flamanville in France and Olkiluoto in Finland and two each at Vogtle and VC Summer in the USA. None have started generating yet and the two reactors at VC Summer were abandoned mid build. 

Government transferred the risk to EDF and its backers at the cost of a high CFD. Later there was talk of a "regulated asset base" model that would lower the CFD but at the cost of transferring the risk to the public.

A much lower CFD for a project of the same estimated cost like this Morocco-UK scheme implies it is seen as much less risky, probably because wind, solar and HVDC projects don't have a history of being over budget and seriously delayed.

Coastalwatch

Well. Would you believe it! A, because they did actually commit a criminal act, but B, that the jury found them Not guilty against the instructions of the Judge. We might say, common sense prevailed, but I've no idea how this verdict sits in the eyes of the judiciary?

Extinction Rebellion: Jury acquits protesters despite judge's direction

Six Extinction Rebellion protesters have been cleared of causing criminal damage, despite a jury being told by the judge there was no defence in law for their actions.

Activists targeted Shell's London HQ, claiming the oil firm was directly contributing to climate change.

It was part of wider demonstrations across the capital on 15 April 2019.

Judge Gregory Perrins said that even if their actions were "morally justified", that did not provide a lawful excuse.

Southwark Crown Court had heard that each of the defendants deliberately sprayed graffiti or smashed windows at the Shell building in Belvedere Road, central London.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56853979

michaels

I am old fashioned, imho if you break the law (that has been enacted by democratically elected MPs) then you are guilty.  The Crown Prosecution Service have leeway to decide if a prosecution is in the public interest and the judge can decide within the (democratically) agreed punishment band what to impose.  I am not sure where the whole legal system stands if the jury decide to ignore the law.  Ie it is not that they decide that a case is not proven but that despite those charged being guilty they find them not guilty.

Coastwatch you seemed to be in favour of this.  Say the protesters had closed roads or whatever (for example smashed the windows and your company could no longer get insurance so decided to move abroad) so your job became unviable and you lost it or prevented an ambulance reaching a close friend or relative, would that still be fine?  After all the police might have made no attempt to clear the protest if they knew the courts would not actually enforce the law of the land.

Coastalwatch

michaels said:

I am old fashioned, imho if you break the law (that has been enacted by democratically elected MPs) then you are guilty.  The Crown Prosecution Service have leeway to decide if a prosecution is in the public interest and the judge can decide within the (democratically) agreed punishment band what to impose.  I am not sure where the whole legal system stands if the jury decide to ignore the law.  Ie it is not that they decide that a case is not proven but that despite those charged being guilty they find them not guilty.

Coastwatch you seemed to be in favour of this.  Say the protesters had closed roads or whatever (for example smashed the windows and your company could no longer get insurance so decided to move abroad) so your job became unviable and you lost it or prevented an ambulance reaching a close friend or relative, would that still be fine?  After all the police might have made no attempt to clear the protest if they knew the courts would not actually enforce the law of the land.

Indeed, I am of a similar view to yourself in that if you break the law you are guilty, whatever the circumstance and hence wouldn't embark on such an escapade myself. However, on the balance of the arguments one could perhaps appreciate that Shell are guilty of considerable environmental damage and being entirely aware of it for the last half century. In comparison breaking a few windows and spraying graffiti are barely comparable. I'm not condoning it, but on reflection, I'm pleasantly surprised the jury found as they did, if a little confused by what the eventual outcome might be. Hence my reason for posting

On the other you appear to be trying to deflect attention by introducing other elements with extreme consequences that did not apply in this case. Had they done so the outcome may well have been different.

As usual you once again appear to place a priority on the value of jobs above the value of the planet, which seems rather short sighted to me. After all, no planet, no jobs.

But of course you are entitled to your opinion.

Coastalwatch

 Some impressive claims made in this piece which make for an interesting and uplifting read. That is, for those who support clean renewable energy generation above those of the more traditional polluting forms.

World entering ‘new epoch’ as solar set to become most economic generation source by 2030

By 2030, all of the world's solar resource will be economic in comparison to local fossil fuel generation, according to a new report from thinktank Carbon Tracker.

Already around 60% of global solar generation is economic - with 15% of wind resource being economic - a figure expected to grow to more than 50% by 2030.

This is driven by huge drops in the price of generation from both sources with solar costs down on average 18% every year since 2010, allowing an energy reserve that can meet world demand 100 times over to be unlocked, according to The Sky’s the Limit report. As such, should the two generation technologies continue on the same trajectory by the middle of the century, solar and wind could power the world, entirely displacing fossil fuels.

In 2019, global energy consumption was 65 Petawatt hours (PWh), but using current solar PV technology there is the potential to capture more than 5,800PWh annually. This is more in one year than burning all known fossil fuel reserves

“Energy will tumble in price and become available to millions more, particularly in low-income countries. Geopolitics will be transformed as nations are freed from expensive imports of coal, oil and gas. Clean renewables will fight catastrophic climate change and free the planet from deadly pollution.”

https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/world_entering_new_epoch_as_solar_set_to_become_most_economic_generation_so

Martyn1981

Coastalwatch said:

michaels said:

I am old fashioned, imho if you break the law (that has been enacted by democratically elected MPs) then you are guilty.  The Crown Prosecution Service have leeway to decide if a prosecution is in the public interest and the judge can decide within the (democratically) agreed punishment band what to impose.  I am not sure where the whole legal system stands if the jury decide to ignore the law.  Ie it is not that they decide that a case is not proven but that despite those charged being guilty they find them not guilty.

Coastwatch you seemed to be in favour of this.  Say the protesters had closed roads or whatever (for example smashed the windows and your company could no longer get insurance so decided to move abroad) so your job became unviable and you lost it or prevented an ambulance reaching a close friend or relative, would that still be fine?  After all the police might have made no attempt to clear the protest if they knew the courts would not actually enforce the law of the land.

Indeed, I am of a similar view to yourself in that if you break the law you are guilty, whatever the circumstance and hence wouldn't embark on such an escapade myself. However, on the balance of the arguments one could perhaps appreciate that Shell are guilty of considerable environmental damage and being entirely aware of it for the last half century. In comparison breaking a few windows and spraying graffiti are barely comparable. I'm not condoning it, but on reflection, I'm pleasantly surprised the jury found as they did, if a little confused by what the eventual outcome might be. Hence my reason for posting

On the other you appear to be trying to deflect attention by introducing other elements with extreme consequences that did not apply in this case. Had they done so the outcome may well have been different.

As usual you once again appear to place a priority on the value of jobs above the value of the planet, which seems rather short sighted to me. After all, no planet, no jobs.

But of course you are entitled to your opinion.

I remember a few years ago when XR started their actions with road closures etc in London, and then other cities. My initial thought was that I get where they are coming from, and agree with them that massive action is needed immediately to save a fortune in the future, and the devastating impacts on people, workers etc. ....... but I also thought they would cause those that simply can't grasp the magnitude of what is happening, and needs to be done, to turn on environmentalism, and RE etc etc..

But, then I watched a news report, I think it was the BBC, but not sure, and the reporter asked an interesting question - "How will the actions of these individuals be viewed in the future" given the climate crisis, and the fact that as time goes on we will accept that greater action was needed sooner. The reporter compared public outrage (by some) against XR, to that of public outrage against the protests and property damage of the Suffrage Movement. At the time many saw them as troublemakers and criminals, but now they are seen as heroines whose cause was just, as the status quo at the time was entirely unfair, unsustainable and immoral.

That made me think. What is the bigger crime, with the greater harm and losses to all, especially those in poorer countries, and where do we draw the line between what is criminal and moral, or legal and immoral ....... today.

I've previously avoided mentioning XR, as I assumed the spin doctors and pot stirrers would come out of the shadows and use it as a way to disrupt G&E threads, or play the 'what about the poor', 'what about the jobs' card, whilst the planet suffers, the poor lose out, and vast numbers of jobs are delayed by FF campaigning and misinformation.