The Great Big Green Discussion Thread

Martyn1981

Sorry guys, but I think you've missed the point.

The more demand there is for green leccy the more support (and even potentially a better price) that generation gets.

If you test the idea to the extreme, you could have 100% demand for green generation, and that would obviously drive deployment forward, faster.

It's a shame that in this case, as I read it, the example appears to be from existing generation (but I may be wrong), however much RE generation sourced through PPA's actually creates more generation. Some might even be built on your property/land, I think Bristol City (who are great at this) may have installed PV on the football stadium under a PPA agreement.

PPA's have proven to be the lifeline in many cases for PV and wind deployment when the government cut all the subsidy support too soon. They allow a generator to sell at a higher price than wholesale, but the customer to buy at a lower price than retail. And they provide long term guaranteed income and expenses for the parties.

Perhaps a better way of looking at it, if you can't see the pluses, is to think of the 'cost', does creating more demand for RE generation make things better or worse? Should these Uni's be contracting their leccy from windfarms or gas/coal generation? The direction of travel/progress is very important here.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

If you test the idea to the extreme, you could have 100% demand for green generation, and that would obviously drive deployment forward, faster.

To meet demand for 100% green generation you would need 9 times the current level of renewables to cope with days like 1st March 2019 unless there is investment in storage. For most of the year we would have excess capacity and generation would have to be curtailed making it uneconomic.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

PPA's have proven to be the lifeline in many cases for PV and wind deployment when the government cut all the subsidy support too soon. They allow a generator to sell at a higher price than wholesale, but the customer to buy at a lower price than retail. And they provide long term guaranteed income and expenses for the parties.

Just a question, Does the PPA mean the uni’s have to buy all their generation from the wind farms and the wind farms guarantee supply? Based on the 1st March example to guarantee supply the wind farm would need considerable spare generation capacity which presumably would be sold on the spot market. This might limit PPAs to say a tenth of a wind farm’s generation capacity UNLESS the wind farm is allowed to buy electricity on the spot market to make up any contract shortfall. It might then cease to be green electricity.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sorry guys, but I think you've missed the point.

The more demand there is for green leccy the more support (and even potentially a better price) that generation gets.

If you test the idea to the extreme, you could have 100% demand for green generation, and that would obviously drive deployment forward, faster.

It's a shame that in this case, as I read it, the example appears to be from existing generation (but I may be wrong), however much RE generation sourced through PPA's actually creates more generation. Some might even be built on your property/land, I think Bristol City (who are great at this) may have installed PV on the football stadium under a PPA agreement.

PPA's have proven to be the lifeline in many cases for PV and wind deployment when the government cut all the subsidy support too soon. They allow a generator to sell at a higher price than wholesale, but the customer to buy at a lower price than retail. And they provide long term guaranteed income and expenses for the parties.

Perhaps a better way of looking at it, if you can't see the pluses, is to think of the 'cost', does creating more demand for RE generation make things better or worse? Should these Uni's be contracting their leccy from windfarms or gas/coal generation? The direction of travel/progress is very important here.

So what you're saying is that these universities have entered into a contract to reduce the cost of electricity, and that this may have a positive effect on CO2 emissions several years down the line.

That's not quite how they sold it to the press is it?

pile-o-stone

I can never again hear or read the words:

1961Nick wrote: »

So what you're saying is...

without thinking about the car crash interview conducted by Cathy Newman where she repeatedly sought to undermine the interviewee by deliberately misinterpreting him.

The "You're just saying" video here showing the MANY times she took what the scholar said and changed it to something she cvould argue against:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XMJTWD2mzs
(Interview starts at about 1 min 40 secs)

I'd advise everyone interested in debating to watch the full video, it's astonishingly good.

Edit For those who don't have time to watch the video, Basically Cathy says "So what you're saying is...." 37 times and her interviewee retorts "no, what I'm saying is..." also 37 times.

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I can never again hear or read the words:



without thinking about the car crash interview conducted by Cathy Newman where she repeatedly sought to undermine the interviewee by deliberately misinterpreting him.

It certainly seems popular on here when presenting what is desired, regardless of what has been said.

Martyn1981

I'm on a green tariff, and I fully support them.

To claim, believe, suggest even that they won't drive change is to also deny that supply and demand have no relationship, something that would, of course, run contrary to the entire basis of economics 101.

I invested in Good Energy bonds, I think around the turn of the decade. These were for 5yrs and were to raise capital to allow them to build out more RE generation (wind I think). They were building out more to match the growing customer base they had, and therefore the amount of energy they had to put into the grid.

But here's the simple logic test, if contracting for green energy is to be labelled 'bad', then the obvious logical conclusion is that contracting for a FF supply would be good! Or, since that's wholly insane, then that deliberately contracting for a long term status quo energy mix, must be 'good', which also makes no sense v's a shift to a cleaner supply. It would also imply that I, and any others (there are millions of us) that choose a green provider are doing 'bad'.


So, back to the basics, the more demand for green energy there is, the more green energy that has to be supplied to the grid. So, as well as government driven schemes (over the years) to help support RE capacity build outs, such as FiT's, ROC's, CfD's etc., PPA's are another tool in the toolbox that can drive RE deployment. A guaranteed income (via a PPA contract) can remove doubts about investment in RE capacity, and also reduce costs as lower financing can now be obtained (lower to no risk factor given guaranteed sales and revenue).


@Ken, see para 5 of the article regarding your concerns/criticisms.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

@Ken, see para 5 of the article regarding your concerns/criticisms.

Ok, thanks Mart, I hadn’t read the whole article.

If I have understood the article properly the Uni’s will buy some of their leccy under the PPA - not all. Presumably they will have another supplier for the times when Statkraft can’t supply enough.
”Anglia Ruskin University...aim to source all of our electricity from zero carbon sources by 2025, and this power purchase agreement makes a significant contribution towards this goal”

Anglia Ruskin is admitting it still buys some electricity from non zero carbon sources.

Now I buy the 50% of my electricity needs that I can’t produce myself from Bulb which is sourced 100% from renewables. I also send about 2500 kWh of PV back to the grid. Does that make me greener than the Uni’s? Maybe the Guardian would like to run a story about me.:)

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

It certainly seems popular on here when presenting what is desired, regardless of what has been said.

.....or when sorting the facts out from the spin?

1961Nick

JKenH wrote: »

Ok, thanks Mart, I hadn’t read the whole article.

If I have understood the article properly the Uni’s will buy some of their leccy under the PPA - not all. Presumably they will have another supplier for the times when Statkraft can’t supply enough.
”Anglia Ruskin University...aim to source all of our electricity from zero carbon sources by 2025, and this power purchase agreement makes a significant contribution towards this goal”

Anglia Ruskin is admitting it still buys some electricity from non zero carbon sources.

Now I buy the 50% of my electricity needs that I can’t produce myself from Bulb which is sourced 100% from renewables. I also send about 2500 kWh of PV back to the grid. Does that make me greener than the Uni’s? Maybe the Guardian would like to run a story about me.:)

It makes you wonder what would have been said if Big Auto or Big FF energy had issued a press release with this much spin? There'd be calls for the directors to be publicly birched & then imprisoned for lying.

Now if these universities had clubbed together & purchased a wind turbine & a Tesla big battery, that'd be cause to celebrate & for them to take the accolades.

As far as 'green' ratings go, yours must be in the 99th percentile - I doubt there are many who have planted 1000 trees in their back garden!:cool: