Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

debitcardmayhem

New one from the beeb , ICJ and climate change 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce379k4v3pwo

Cardew

EricMears said:

thevilla said:

debitcardmayhem said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

Well this is good news.  Another article telling us what most of us here know already but any declaration on the potential death of FF will help bring about the death of FF and hopefully put more pressure on those trying to lag behind.  It particularly cheers me after hearing news of the likes of BP and other oil companies reducing their comittments to RE.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/22/antonio-guterres-climate-breakthrough-clean-energy-fossil-fuels

Sadly though China, USA, and India are still emitting c50% of all CO2, we are less than 1%, every little helps☹️

There are 100+ nations each emitting less than1% of global emissions.  

The United Nations currently has 193 member states.  The average country therefore emits approx 0.5% of total emissions.   Any country emitting 1% of the total is therefore spewing out double its 'fair share'     

The population data is based on United Nations 2022 population estimates.

1. Vatican City, Population: 799
2. Nauru, Population: 11,232
3. Tuvalu, Population: 11,722
4. Palau, Population: 22,927
5. San Marino, Population: 34,037
6. Liechtenstein, Population: 39,135
7. Monaco, Population: 39,684
8. Marshall Islands, Population: 53,327
9. Saint Kitts and Nevis, Population: 57,713
10. Dominica, Population: 75,748

On that basis His Holiness The Pope will be content with 'their share', mind you all that smoke billowing from the Sistine Chapel every 20 years or so sets a bad example.

ed110220

debitcardmayhem said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

Well this is good news.  Another article telling us what most of us here know already but any declaration on the potential death of FF will help bring about the death of FF and hopefully put more pressure on those trying to lag behind.  It particularly cheers me after hearing news of the likes of BP and other oil companies reducing their comittments to RE.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/22/antonio-guterres-climate-breakthrough-clean-energy-fossil-fuels

Sadly though China, USA, and India are still emitting c50% of all CO2, we are less than 1%, every little helps☹️

This is missing Guterres's point that almost everywhere solar and wind are cheaper than FF (which is why they cover the majority of the world's increase in electricity demand each year and will soon cover more than all of it and send FF into absolute decline).

Countries with governments that see renewables and clean tech as a burden to either be taken up to look saintly, or to be avoided, or even worse rejected to vice signal will be less competitive than those that correctly see them as opportunities. China is certainly in the last group. 

michaels

Seems to be lots of bad news on net zero at the moment (for example the cancellation of existing wind contracts on 'economic grounds' that may now have to be recontracted at up to £116 per mwh) if we are to meet 95% by 2030.

However this sounded like a win:
This MIT spinout’s electric bricks store heat hotter than lava

Potentially using renewable electricity to fuel high temperature industrial processes.

Martyn1981

With regard to wind CfD prices it's important to explain that there has been a change in policy to use 2024 pricing rather than the longstanding 2012 baseline. So the potential increase is not as much as it might appear.

For instance, the administrative round 6 bid max for off shore wind was £73/MWh (contracts were issued at ~£59).
This years round 7 max bid of £113 is equivalent to £81 when compared to AR6.

On shore wind max bid has increased from £64 to £66 (AR6 contracts issued at ~£51), and solar has decreased from £61 to £54 (AR6 contracts issued at ~£50).

NedS

Contracts for difference (CfD's) have also been extended from 15 years to 20 years for wind and solar for the latest AR7 round, which seems reasonable given the lifespan of these assets, but also adds a 33% uplift to the overall cost.

QrizB

Martyn1981 said:

With regard to wind CfD prices it's important to explain that there has been a change in policy to use 2024 pricing rather than the longstanding 2012 baseline. So the potential increase is not as much as it might appear.

We've been discussing that exact topic over on the main Energy forum, in the "News" thread

NedS said:

Contracts for difference (CfD's) have also been extended from 15 years to 20 years for wind and solar for the latest AR7 round, which seems reasonable given the lifespan of these assets, but also adds a 33% uplift to the overall cost.

Although I guess it should also bring down the bid price, by spreading the construction costs out over a longer period?

Martyn1981

NedS said:

Contracts for difference (CfD's) have also been extended from 15 years to 20 years for wind and solar for the latest AR7 round, which seems reasonable given the lifespan of these assets, but also adds a 33% uplift to the overall cost.

Now that last line is really interesting.

First off, I totally get where you are coming from, so apologies for any pedantry, but it's not necessarily a 33% uplift to the overall (grant scheme) cost, but a 33% uplift to the subsidy period. [But I appreciate the two could very well end up as the same though.]

If I can use some made up numbers for example:

We have a CfD strike price of £80 and sell at an average market price of £60, so a top up subsidy of £20 is paid,

this means instead of 15yrs at £20, a total of £300, we pay 20yrs at £20, so 33% higher at £400.

But if the longer period allows for lower bids, say £75, then

instead of 15yrs at £20, a total of £300, we pay 20yrs at £15, so 0% higher at £300.


But it gets even more fun if the difference is smaller. Let's say £70 strike price and an average market price of £60, so a subsidy top up of £10,

again instead of 15yrs at £10, a total of £150, we pay 20yrs at £10, so 33% higher at £200.

But if the bids are £5 lower, so £65 against that £60 market price, then

instead of 15yrs at £10, a total of £150, we pay 20yrs at £5, so 33% lower at £100.


I've no idea how this will actually shake out, as there are multiple possibilities, and way too many issues for my ickle brain to contemplate, but it will be interesting to watch and learn. Also, I've got a nagging thought/memory at the back of my brain, that over a decade ago when the CfD scheme was created, wind had an expected lifespan of ~25yrs, and solar ~30yrs. But the technologies have done better than expected, and I think wind is now considered to be good for 30-35yrs, and solar around 40yrs. So the relative subsidy to non-subsidy time periods are probably still similar, allowing, as QrizB mentions, to spread the CAPEX costs over the longer subsidy period, which will hopefully impact bid prices.

And the changes come just when I thought I finally had a reasonable grip on CfD's ..... 

Martyn1981

Maybe cross your fingers, but don't hold your breath.

A bit of news and progress on one of the many wave power technologies being developed/tested.

As always with wave energy, the technical issues especially survival, are huge, but are nothing compared to the difficulties of making it economically viable. But I suppose, we only need one technology to make it, so I haven't given up all hope .... yet.

CorPower Ocean wins €40m for VianaWave

CorPower Ocean has secured a €40m grant from the EU Innovation Fund to develop VianaWave, a 10MW pre-commercial wave energy farm off the coast of northern Portugal.

The project will consist of a CorPack array of 30 Wave Energy Converters (WECs), generating around 30GWh of electricity annually—enough to power 7,500 homes.

Set to begin operations in 2028 or 2029, VianaWave builds on CorPower’s HiWave-5 demonstrator and represents a shift from pilot testing to commercial rollout.

michaels

Martyn1981 said:

NedS said:

Contracts for difference (CfD's) have also been extended from 15 years to 20 years for wind and solar for the latest AR7 round, which seems reasonable given the lifespan of these assets, but also adds a 33% uplift to the overall cost.

Now that last line is really interesting.

First off, I totally get where you are coming from, so apologies for any pedantry, but it's not necessarily a 33% uplift to the overall (grant scheme) cost, but a 33% uplift to the subsidy period. [But I appreciate the two could very well end up as the same though.]

If I can use some made up numbers for example:

We have a CfD strike price of £80 and sell at an average market price of £60, so a top up subsidy of £20 is paid,

this means instead of 15yrs at £20, a total of £300, we pay 20yrs at £20, so 33% higher at £400.

But if the longer period allows for lower bids, say £75, then

instead of 15yrs at £20, a total of £300, we pay 20yrs at £15, so 0% higher at £300.


But it gets even more fun if the difference is smaller. Let's say £70 strike price and an average market price of £60, so a subsidy top up of £10,

again instead of 15yrs at £10, a total of £150, we pay 20yrs at £10, so 33% higher at £200.

But if the bids are £5 lower, so £65 against that £60 market price, then

instead of 15yrs at £10, a total of £150, we pay 20yrs at £5, so 33% lower at £100.


I've no idea how this will actually shake out, as there are multiple possibilities, and way too many issues for my ickle brain to contemplate, but it will be interesting to watch and learn. Also, I've got a nagging thought/memory at the back of my brain, that over a decade ago when the CfD scheme was created, wind had an expected lifespan of ~25yrs, and solar ~30yrs. But the technologies have done better than expected, and I think wind is now considered to be good for 30-35yrs, and solar around 40yrs. So the relative subsidy to non-subsidy time periods are probably still similar, allowing, as QrizB mentions, to spread the CAPEX costs over the longer subsidy period, which will hopefully impact bid prices.

And the changes come just when I thought I finally had a reasonable grip on CfD's ..... 

On the other hand, if renewable penetration continues to increase then potentially there will be more curtailment in later years and this means the cost per used unit of production is higher.

And with falling costs over the longer term a 20 year CfD means an extra 5 years locked in at costs that may by that point be much higher than the cost of new generation.

I'm not saying either of these two will apply but just there are lots of scenarios where 20 years is more than 33% more expensive than 15 years.