The future of fuel: will today be Britain's first coal free day since the Ind Rev?

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hopefully this months CfD auction will result in off-shore wind bids at less than the CfD awarded to Hinkley Point C. HPC is to get a 35yr subsidy of £100/MWh in today's money, whilst the 15yr off-shore wind contracts have steadily fallen from about £160 down to £120, with expectations of £100 this year, and perhaps £85 by the mid 2020's.

So it should be joining on-shore wind and PV which are already considerably cheaper than nuclear at around £83, with more recent European contracts this year down to around £60.

Germany has laid out plans for unsubsidised off-shore wind, but these are for construction starting in about 5yrs time and based on the assumption that larger turbines will be possible (around 15MW each) which will pull down costs considerably.

Also, whilst the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon will be expensive to test out the technology, the tidal lagoon package (equal to about 150% of the annual generation of HPC) should come in at around on-shore wind / PV costs.

So 55% wind power is more than possible, especially given the rapidly falling costs of storage. Add on 20% from PV, 12% from tidal, 4% from hydro, 10-20% from bio-energy, 10% grid balancing/demand following from natural gas, and we are well over the finishing line, even if the current nuclear fleet isn't replaced.

You are not going to pollute the countryside and residential buildings with 20% PV

Offshore wind fine but not at current prices of £100 !
200 TWh at £50 above wholesale = £10 billion annual subsidy
That is ridiculous I would rather we spent that tax on the NHS or something more worthwhile

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

You are not going to pollute the countryside and residential buildings with 20% PV

Offshore wind fine but not at current prices of £100 !
200 TWh at £50 above wholesale = £10 billion annual subsidy
That is ridiculous I would rather we spent that tax on the NHS or something more worthwhile

Correct, it wouldn't pollute the countryside, and with 70%-80% of the public supporting PV and wind, v's only 4%-8% opposing it, it would also be a popular choice. [See the summary tables from 20 surveys covering the last 5yrs, and particularly the rise in support (and fall in opposition) for on-shore wind during the large build out as reality replaced fear of the unknown.]

I didn't realise the 55% wind you were referring to was all off-shore, I was referring to a mix, perhaps 35% off v's 20% on. On-shore wind is probably heading down to about £60/MWh, in line with wholesale price predictions from 2023 onwards (see page 39).

Off-shore wind would currently cost more with predictions of £85/MWh by the mid 2020's but that is still a lot less than the £100/MWh for nuclear.

So for contracts starting in the late 2020's better to pay a 15yr subsidy of £0 to £25/MWh, than a 35yr subsidy of £40/MWh for nuclear.

If, like Germany we can go to the even larger off-shore WT's, then off-shore wind might come down to on-shore prices, as the higher wind speeds off-shore, and the larger turbines (reaching higher and faster wind) are pulling costs down.

michaels

Heat pump efficiency falls off just when needed most, those cold still nights when wind and sooar aren't generating so whilst possibly more efficient overall it certainly doesn't help with capital/storage requirements.

Hinkly C is getting a huge subsidy and carries risk, why are wind subsidies less beneficial.

There are lots of buildings in the uk that would look better clad in aolar panels....

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

All three options are silly large capital low usage low efficiency ideas. The UK should just go for efficiency EVs and large amounts of gas in CCGTs.

Sorry, I can't follow that.

If economical, then producing methane from grass seems a far better solution than fraccing.

Using EV's for storage, and to eliminate the evening peak is an excellent addition to our storage options, but isn't a singular solution, and P2G allows a large 'volume' of storage, and can utilise the existing gas storage and infrastructure.

Heat pumps are more efficient (not less efficient) at space heating. As I said, an average COP of 2.9 means less gas consumption, even if the leccy comes from gas generation at approx 50% efficiency. My small ASHP can supplement (or even replace GCH) during the warmer heating months, and at those times will be getting a COP of around 4, and mostly running off PV generation.

Of course the most efficient way to reduce gas consumption is insulation, given that space heating accounts for far more gas than electricity generation.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Correct, it wouldn't pollute the countryside, and with 70%-80% of the public supporting PV and wind, v's only 4%-8% opposing it, it would also be a popular choice. [See the summary tables from 20 surveys covering the last 5yrs, and particularly the rise in support (and fall in opposition) for on-shore wind during the large build out as reality replaced fear of the unknown.]

I didn't realise the 55% wind you were referring to was all off-shore, I was referring to a mix, perhaps 35% off v's 20% on. On-shore wind is probably heading down to about £60/MWh, in line with wholesale price predictions from 2023 onwards (see page 39).

Off-shore wind would currently cost more with predictions of £85/MWh by the mid 2020's but that is still a lot less than the £100/MWh for nuclear.

So for contracts starting in the late 2020's better to pay a 15yr subsidy of £0 to £25/MWh, than a 35yr subsidy of £40/MWh for nuclear.

If, like Germany we can go to the even larger off-shore WT's, then off-shore wind might come down to on-shore prices, as the higher wind speeds off-shore, and the larger turbines (reaching higher and faster wind) are pulling costs down.

The surveys are ridiculous as the persons are uninformed. Also people simply lie or estimate things grossly incorrectly. Like if you ask people how much a human life is worth you get answers in the $10 million dollar ballpark. Yet we know people don't value their lives anywhere near that in reality by their refusal to take life cheap extending actions that cost very little or would even save them money. Like quitting smoking

With the green question your surveys don't show the reality which is that this folly of plastering solar farms in the countryside and expensive offshore wind all backed up by ever present CCGTs is going to cost more than £10 billion annually.

Since half the population are too poor to contribute the other half of households will need to pay £700 per year extra in more expensive goods services and electricity. Ask it that way if they are happy to see their electric bills go up £700 per year or if they would rather spend £10 billion annually on chinese PV panels or the NHS and let's see what those surveys say

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

The surveys are ridiculous as the persons are uninformed. Also people simply lie or estimate things grossly incorrectly. Like if you ask people how much a human life is worth you get answers in the $10 million dollar ballpark. Yet we know people don't value their lives anywhere near that in reality by their refusal to take life cheap extending actions that cost very little or would even save them money. Like quitting smoking

With the green question your surveys don't show the reality which is that this folly of plastering solar farms in the countryside and expensive offshore wind all backed up by ever present CCGTs is going to cost more than £10 billion annually.

Since half the population are too poor to contribute the other half of households will need to pay £700 per year extra in more expensive goods services and electricity. Ask it that way if they are happy to see their electric bills go up £700 per year or if they would rather spend £10 billion annually on chinese PV panels or the NHS and let's see what those surveys say

So the consistent results from 20 surveys over 5 years are down to all the people being uninformed?

Not sure why you think the countryside would be plastered with PV, we could put 20GWp on domestic houses, and twice that on commercial buildings and carparks.

If off-shore wind is cheaper than nuclear, then doesn't that save money?

Not sure why you claim leccy bills will go up £700 a year. If the wholesale price goes to £60/MWh from the current £40/MWh, then that's a 2p/kWh increase, or approx £70 on an average consumption household. The wholesale price has previously been as high as £80/MWh. When asked if they support renewables subsidies the population is highly supportive, despite thinking that they pay around 14x more than they do (similar to your estimates).

Not sure why you'd want to spend £10bn annually on Chinese panels, since £10bn would buy approx 28GWp of PV, which added to current capacity would give us around 40GWp, or about 10% of annual generation.

Also we don't ask people for a binary choice of clean energy or the NHS, as that's not realistic. We need to spend money on both.

Removing coal from the mix has huge savings on health including the NHS, and reducing CO2 emissions helps to mitigate AGW costs. If renewables weren't 'net cheaper' than FF's then we wouldn't be doing it, and setting up false choices against NHS spending is not a rational argument.

WengerIn

wotsthat wrote: »

In the scenario where the electric motor assists rather than provides 100% propulsion people might decide not having a fat Harris is a welcome by-product along with improved mental health and a lower risk of the diseases associated with wealth (heart attack/ cancer/ diabetes).

There's also a self-satisfied glow (smugness) you get having cycled 30 miles to work in the morning. Plus there's the diesel saved.

Yes, the road surfaces are crap but they're crap for cyclist and motorist alike although disproportionately more dangerous to the cyclist.

I love cycling too but unfortunately you have hit on a pet hate of mine: the misuse of slang.

Your bottom is your Aris. Aris >> Aristotle >> Bottle >> Bottle and Glass >> Ar$3. I mean that in the spirit of educating a fellow cyclist not to belittle you.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So the consistent results from 20 surveys over 5 years are down to all the people being uninformed?

Not sure why you think the countryside would be plastered with PV, we could put 20GWp on domestic houses, and twice that on commercial buildings and carparks.

If off-shore wind is cheaper than nuclear, then doesn't that save money?

Not sure why you claim leccy bills will go up £700 a year. If the wholesale price goes to £60/MWh from the current £40/MWh, then that's a 2p/kWh increase, or approx £70 on an average consumption household. The wholesale price has previously been as high as £80/MWh. When asked if they support renewables subsidies the population is highly supportive, despite thinking that they pay around 14x more than they do (similar to your estimates).

Not sure why you'd want to spend £10bn annually on Chinese panels, since £10bn would buy approx 28GWp of PV, which added to current capacity would give us around 40GWp, or about 10% of annual generation.

Also we don't ask people for a binary choice of clean energy or the NHS, as that's not realistic. We need to spend money on both.

Removing coal from the mix has huge savings on health including the NHS, and reducing CO2 emissions helps to mitigate AGW costs. If renewables weren't 'net cheaper' than FF's then we wouldn't be doing it, and setting up false choices against NHS spending is not a rational argument.

Dont paint fake pictures it isn't nuclear vs wind/solar there is also the option of Keeping what we have which works fine and is cheap

The UK does have finite capability so if you are subsidising wind and pv farms at x billion that is x billion not being spent on something else.

More fooling around with data to lie to the public. The public pays not only their electricity bill but the electricity bill embodied in the goods and services they purchase. You yourself said wholesale is £50 and wind is £100 so the difference is the amount not spent on the NHS but spent on Chinese PV panels.

With EVs we are likely to go towards 400TWh all of which will be paid for by the public directly or indirectly. If you are willing to green the lot at £100/MWh that is £20 billion annual subsidy funds not spent on the NHS that could be spent on the NHS. That £20 billion will not be paid for by half of households who are already net receivers of tax so it will fall on the 14 million who are net payers. Or about £1400 per household that actually pays. I'm sire you will jump in and say your not aiming for 100% green and that the spread between green and grey will narrow to reduce the bills. Maybe but then what's the rush

Also there is no real heath savings from closing coal plants down. A coal plant 100 miles away doesn't do you any harm your morning burnt toast in your kitchen probably gives you magnitudes higher exposure than you will get from years of coal plant emissions.

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

Dont paint fake pictures it isn't nuclear vs wind/solar there is also the option of Keeping what we have which works fine and is cheap.

Keeping what we have is not an option. It's off the table. Whilst gas has lower GHG emissions and pollution than coal, it's still far too high for us to meet future targets. So no, what we have now does not work, and it's certainly not cheap, please take a look at the 2025 LCOE for CCGT with CCS.

GreatApe wrote: »

The UK does have finite capability so if you are subsidising wind and pv farms at x billion that is x billion not being spent on something else.

This is a false argument. We are moving to low carbon generation, because of the higher cost of carbon emissions. So we are reducing costs. You may choose to ignore the health and GHG costs of FF generation, but the rest of the world (perhaps excluding Trump's US) doesn't.

Setting up false arguments of renewables v's the NHS, is simply that, a false argument.

GreatApe wrote: »

More fooling around with data to lie to the public. The public pays not only their electricity bill but the electricity bill embodied in the goods and services they purchase. You yourself said wholesale is £50 and wind is £100 so the difference is the amount not spent on the NHS but spent on Chinese PV panels.

Predictions for future electricity prices have been reducing, as you would see if you looked at page 40 of the NAO report I referenced. 2015 projections are around £10/MWh less than the 2012 projections, and that's why the subsidy element for HPC has been revised up from £6bn to £30bn. This is largely due to the rapidly falling cost of RE generation, and its better than expected performance. If you take a look at table 7 of the previously referenced BEIS report, you will see a simply staggering difference between the estimated costs of RE as made in 2012, v's those made/actual in 2016.

Your statement doesn't actually make any sense. You start of by quoting the off-shore wind figure of £100, but reference that against all future wind, when on-shore wind is now £80, and probably heading for £60 based on more recent contracts issued in Europe. You then go on to apply it to PV which is also already down to £80, with domestic subsidies of £65, and recent German contracts at sub £60.

So not only is it a fake argument to put PV costs up against the NHS, but your numbers are also incorrect, despite my supplying you with accurate information previously. So you seem determined to post scaremongering figures simply to mislead.

Your attempt to place all clean generation costs on domestic households is also a false argument, as you have ignored all the costs of carbon and pollution from FF generation, that RE is displacing, much of it, costs that burden the NHS. For instance the pollution (not carbon) costs of coal, when divided into generation at the time, work out at around £60/MWh. That's on top of generation costs, yet on-shore wind and PV are already in the £60/MWh ballpark for all costs.

Coal burning costs UK between £2.5bn and £7bn from premature deaths

GreatApe wrote: »

With EVs we are likely to go towards 400TWh all of which will be paid for by the public directly or indirectly. If you are willing to green the lot at £100/MWh that is £20 billion annual subsidy funds not spent on the NHS that could be spent on the NHS. That £20 billion will not be paid for by half of households who are already net receivers of tax so it will fall on the 14 million who are net payers. Or about £1400 per household that actually pays. I'm sire you will jump in and say your not aiming for 100% green and that the spread between green and grey will narrow to reduce the bills. Maybe but then what's the rush

That's a totally false argument from beginning to end. You want to add on the cost of electricity generation for EV's, but ignore the fact that we already pay for petrol/diesel, and also for the pollution and carbon costs too. You can't add generation costs, without subtracting the current fuel costs.

So if someone uses an EV, they will pay a higher leccy bill, but they will have a lower petrol/diesel bill, so your argument makes no sense.

BTW, I would agree with the 400TWh figure. If all cars became EV's, then based on average mileage this would require about 80TWh of electricity, but would also save around 40TWh of electricity consumed in refining petrol/diesel (approx 6.5kWh per gallon), which currently comes mostly from coal plants with direct feeds to the main UK refineries.

If you don't get the rush to reduce CO2 emissions and improve air pollution, especially in cities, then you've probably missed the whole point of reducing coal, and the reason why the UK's coal free day made international news.

GreatApe wrote: »

Also there is no real heath savings from closing coal plants down. A coal plant 100 miles away doesn't do you any harm your morning burnt toast in your kitchen probably gives you magnitudes higher exposure than you will get from years of coal plant emissions.

You appear to be in direct conflict with all medical science and the known impacts of coal emissions. Please see the article I referenced earlier.


BTW, I apologise for all the links and references throughout my posts, but without them, my numbers and arguments might appear as personal opinion with no substance or basis in reality.

antrobus

Martyn1981 wrote: »

...You appear to be in direct conflict with all medical science and the known impacts of coal emissions. Please see the article I referenced earlier....

I'd simply note in passing, that typing 'coal power health effects' into Google brings up a lot of stuff. Coal fired power plants chuck out a lot of pollution, and that's aside from the fact that somebody has to dig that coal out of the ground, which is a nasty, dirty job. I would imagine that there are achievable "health savings" in not having to dig that coal.