How green is your energy tariff?

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

So I still think you are wrong to believe an individual signing up for renewably generated electricity has any impact on commercial decisions to build wind farms or any other renewable energy.

Nope. Breaking it down to an individual is misleading, just like arguing that one vote makes little difference. As I've said, if we test the argument to the extreme with 100% RE demand, then the suppliers will need to source more RE - that side of it is really simple and obvious.

Another position, that Nick mentions, is the supplier/generators that expand their RE portfolio in line with their growing customer base.

And another example is the PPA route (for larger consumers) where in many cases the RE is built out for them, such as Bristol City Football entering into a PPA with the Council who built the PV on their roof and sell it to them at an attractive price.

For many RE generators (potential generators) they are simply waiting for the economics to tip in their favour, they will have sites lined up, possibly even planning permission, so contracts from suppliers, who in turn are seeing an uptick in customers (contracts) requesting a green tariff, will directly lead to more supply.

The point I accepted from Mike, was that it won't 'necessarily' lead to more supply, since none of have a crystal ball (despite the odd way I walk), but whilst I accept it 'won't necessarily', in reality we pretty much know it will, statistically.

Martyn1981

mmmmikey wrote: »

No, no, no......

You may think that the problem is that I what I think you think isn't actually what you think you think, but what I think you think about what I think you think is what I thought you thought earlier before we had the discussion where I thought you thought that we were in agreement about our thinking.

So, having cleared that up, and to use some EU jargon, is this the point at which we go into the tunnel and work out the final text of the agreement before next week's summit?

If we can sort this out, I really don't see why everyone seems to be making such a big thing about Brexit......
:beer:

I think I thought a thunk?

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

The problem I see with expanding RE too quickly is the increasing frequency of curtailment & particularly how you apportion that cost. If the cost is solely allocated to green energy the price will inevitably rise. Adding more supply will result in a higher overall percentage of curtailment & even higher prices. The solution is obviously storage ... but that's just too expensive at the moment. Another option to mitigate the problem is GA's beloved interconnections.

Serious question - is curtailment an issue yet?

Last time this came up enough for me to research it (excluding GA posts) was probably about 5yrs ago. At that time it was in the news (DM and Torygraph) a lot, as they were reporting 'news' from the REF (remember he of the Crinkley Bottom and his anti-wind propaganda organisation). They used to report how many £m's were going to wind for curtailment.

When I checked, wind was getting approx 10% of the curtailment payments, and generating approx 10% of UK leccy, so it seemed fair and reasonable - remember, curtailment payments are not an RE issue, nor new, but are for generators to sit ready for action.

I assume wind gets more than 10% now, since it generates more, and was rapidly becoming a curtailment favourite with the NG as it can react very quickly by furling blades and rotating nacelles out of alignment with the wind, and can of course also return to generating quickly.

I'm being lazy, plus you may not trust anything I find, so perhaps you might want to look into curtailment and see if there are any more recent reports/figures.

Going forward, be it due to intra-day battery storage, or longer term chemical storage, we may see curtailment reduced, as the market for leccy might expand as the price falls, and the batts could step in to cover any spikes that the NG is fearful off?

Lots of speculation in there, but perhaps interesting?

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Serious question - is curtailment an issue yet?

Last time this came up enough for me to research it (excluding GA posts) was probably about 5yrs ago. At that time it was in the news (DM and Torygraph) a lot, as they were reporting 'news' from the REF (remember he of the Crinkley Bottom and his anti-wind propaganda organisation). They used to report how many £m's were going to wind for curtailment.

When I checked, wind was getting approx 10% of the curtailment payments, and generating approx 10% of UK leccy, so it seemed fair and reasonable - remember, curtailment payments are not an RE issue, nor new, but are for generators to sit ready for action.

I assume wind gets more than 10% now, since it generates more, and was rapidly becoming a curtailment favourite with the NG as it can react very quickly by furling blades and rotating nacelles out of alignment with the wind, and can of course also return to generating quickly.

I'm being lazy, plus you may not trust anything I find, so perhaps you might want to look into curtailment and see if there are any more recent reports/figures.

Going forward, be it due to intra-day battery storage, or longer term chemical storage, we may see curtailment reduced, as the market for leccy might expand as the price falls, and the batts could step in to cover any spikes that the NG is fearful off?

Lots of speculation in there, but perhaps interesting?

I've no problem with curtailment & I believe that we should be actively looking for ways to utilise that wasted energy - batteries, chemical, pumped hydro, interconnectors etc. As we add more RE without storage, the problem gets worse & the economic case for more RE declines ... regardless of the demand for green energy.

There is an alternative of course, and that's to tax FF generation & subsidise renewables to a greater extent. The problem with that is that we're already at the cusp of affordable energy prices & the blame for further increases could shift from the energy suppliers to the sitting government.

UnclaimedEnergy

Reading the article and the responses, most people seem to be fixated on 'power comes through the same pipeline' and looking at it on just a tariff level.

For me... how they source their energy and represent it as green shows the intention of the utility company...

Companies like Shell went 100% renewable and have 0 PPA contracts... this shows they don't care about the environment and are just using it as a selling tool.

Octopus Energy themselves have very few PPA contracts compared to their supply. However, they’re part of the Octopus family in which Octopus Renewables generate enough RE to cover the supply of OE. The overall intention is there, however the RE power is sold off to 3rd parties and replaced just by REGOs, which indicates they’re trying to maximise profits out of the RE system.

There’s only a few companies out there who actively own their own RE generating systems or have legitimate PPA contracts set up. Going through the effort to own RE or set up a PPA shows that the company has actual intent to make a difference and isn’t just using a marketing ploy.

There’s already a market trend for people shopping at certain places due to their values etc. and what they do in the background, outside of their main product offering. This just doesn’t seem like it’s kicked off as much in the utility side of things.

ABrass

I saw this https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-7281599/New-firm-Ripple-Energy-launches-unique-model-customers-owners-wind-farms.html and thought of this thread.

A new energy platform is encouraging prospective customers to become more environmentally friendly by giving them the ability to become co-owners of wind farms.

The 'unique business model' from Ripple Energy will see those signed up supplied by the low cost electricity the wind farms produce

Greenenergy

Just moved to eon , is there a way to see if they have PPA contacts ? Got o be honest I have no idea what they are or where to look !