The Alternative Green Energy Thread

JKenH

To be fair the  direct additional cost of higher CfDs on generation is minimal as you suggest. However with a very high penetration of renewables we not only have the potential for much higher curtailment costs but inevitably the balancing costs will be far higher, because load following capacity will be withdrawn from the grid. I know you have previously commented that we should retain gas capacity for this reason  (I agree) but in reality the government is more concerned about optics so gas plants will have to close just as coal plants have, even though the CO2 cost of their use in balancing the grid is minimal. 

The costs of balancing the grid are accelerating as this article confirms. (OK it is from the nuclear industry but the ffigures cannot be denied).

COST OF BALANCING BRITAIN’S POWER GRID SHATTERS RECORD

The cost of balancing Britain’s power grid hit £4.19 billion last year according to Nuclear Industry Association analysis of National Grid Electricity Systems Operator (ESO) data. The total cost for 2022 is equivalent to every household in Britain paying an extra £150 as National Grid ESO says the costs “are ultimately borne by consumers.” Costs have increased 250% since 2019, when the total was £1.2 billion. In those last four years, balancing the grid has cost British consumers £9.83 billion in total.

These soaring costs are a consequence of a shrinking baseload capacity as nuclear stations retire without replacement, coupled with a reliance on expensive imported gas to fill the gaps in electricity generation. The UK paid a peak of almost £10,000/MWh to prevent a blackout in July 2022.

https://www.niauk.org/cost-of-balancing-britains-power-grid-shatters-record/

As we remove baseload and load following capacity from the grid we increasingly expose ourselves to volatile pricing and the vagaries of the market. NG ESO are playing this down by blaming high gas prices but it isn’t gas prices that account for the spikes in balancing costs we see - it is a lack of market capacity when renewables are running at low levels. 

It isn’t, though, only shortfalls in renewable generation which are costing us money as the report below shows. Even where we have interconnectors in place, we may have to pay other countries to take our surplus electricity. Again this situation won’t improve as more and more renewables are added to the European grid.

Grid paying more to dump excess energy into other countries.

Recently it has been noticed that the National Grid ESO has been paying high amounts to dispose of energy in neighbouring EU countries. This raises concerns over energy management from the grid as the ESO has spent up to £550/MWh to dispose of excess power into other European countries.

Excess power from the national grid ESO is being disposed into countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands. This means that the ESO must pay high prices to offload the surplus energy.

https://www.resolveenergy.co.uk/blog/article/grid-paying-more-to-dump-excess-energy-into-other-countries

This cycle of too much and too little renewables generation will lead to balancing costs becoming an increasing proportion of our electricity bills. We may be able to mitigate this to some extent by building out a better grid and adding storage but all these add to costs which ultimately land back with the consumer (private or business). 

We can’t simply say that overproduction (or underproduction) is a separate argument as the CfD price dictates how much extra capacity is rolled out. If we double wind generation capacity then curtailment cost won’t just double, it could go up by a factor of 3 or 4 or even more (I haven’t attempted the sums) and with a 70% higher CfD price that could result in increase of 210% or 280% or more in curtailment payments. Grid balancing costs would follow a similar trend as baseload capacity was withdrawn and balancing costs could go from £150 per household to £450, £600 or even more. 

ABrass

Happily balancing costs this year are down heavily. In part because of lower electricity prices and because the 'baseload' generators weren't being taken offline for maintenance at short notice.

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/072823-uk-power-system-balancing-costs-fall-14-in-june

michaels

Surely having nuclear type baseload results in higher not lower balancing costs?

JKenH

michaels said:

Surely having nuclear type baseload results in higher not lower balancing costs?

If nuclear capacity exceeds minimum demand then possibly but generally the less intermittency, the less need for balancing. Reliable baseload plus adequate load following capacity = happy days.

JKenH

Are Chinese Battery Companies the Next Huawei?

Electric cars, charging networks, and batteries made in China come with critical security threats.

Just as with Huawei, the risks posed by Chinese BESS are immediate and undeniable. Research from the British risk management firm Aon reveals that pervasive cybersecurity deficiencies associated with BESS control systems could allow malign actors to trigger wide-scale electrical grid blackouts.

And a 2022 U.S. Department of Energy report made clear that malicious actors are already “positioned well” to hack distributed energy systems, including BESS, in the United States. Suspected Chinese cyberattacks on India’s power grid in 2021 and 2022 highlight the former’s readiness to target critical infrastructure. 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/10/30/china-batteries-electric-cars-charging-networks-catl-byd-zeng-yuqun-huawei-security-risk/

JKenH

Young people ‘failing to act on carbon concerns’

Greta Thunberg may be the voice of a generation alarmed about climate change but she is also the voice of a generation failing to do much about it, research suggests.

The study shows that young people are taking less action to lower their carbon footprint than older Britons and are much worse at taking simple steps to help the environment, such as recycling.

The over-65s are also more likely to have reduced the number of flights they take, to take steps to save water, to repair items, to wash clothes at low temperatures and to choose a renewable energy tariff. They are also more likely to turn the heating down and switch off lights in rooms they are not using.

While some of the findings may be the result of older Britons being more thrifty or having more time to take the practical steps necessary to cut their emissions, the results suggest that young people have a long way to go to live up to their reputation as being concerned for the planet.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/young-people-failing-to-act-on-carbon-concerns-92rqjvlhj

michaels

JKenH said:

Young people ‘failing to act on carbon concerns’

Greta Thunberg may be the voice of a generation alarmed about climate change but she is also the voice of a generation failing to do much about it, research suggests.

The study shows that young people are taking less action to lower their carbon footprint than older Britons and are much worse at taking simple steps to help the environment, such as recycling.

The over-65s are also more likely to have reduced the number of flights they take, to take steps to save water, to repair items, to wash clothes at low temperatures and to choose a renewable energy tariff. They are also more likely to turn the heating down and switch off lights in rooms they are not using.

While some of the findings may be the result of older Britons being more thrifty or having more time to take the practical steps necessary to cut their emissions, the results suggest that young people have a long way to go to live up to their reputation as being concerned for the planet.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/young-people-failing-to-act-on-carbon-concerns-92rqjvlhj

This is my teenage kids 100% - they don't even claim to be green, the normal attitude is the planet is fooked already (due to older generations) so they might as well have fun now before it is too late.  My attitude of not consuming even though I could afford and taking the time to recycle it is totally alien to them.  There is also the 'no one else is doing it so why should we?' defence and seeing the level of conspicuous consumption (holidays, cars, house extensions, brand items) locally they probably have a point.  Even amongst the parents suggesting that jetting away every school break might not be consistent with preserving the climate is met with hostility.  I have never seen myself as an ecowarrior, thinking I do a lot less than many but from observation actually 90% are completely (deliberately?) oblivious to the climate consequences of their spending - it is literally not on their radar.

JKenH

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Young people ‘failing to act on carbon concerns’

Greta Thunberg may be the voice of a generation alarmed about climate change but she is also the voice of a generation failing to do much about it, research suggests.

The study shows that young people are taking less action to lower their carbon footprint than older Britons and are much worse at taking simple steps to help the environment, such as recycling.

The over-65s are also more likely to have reduced the number of flights they take, to take steps to save water, to repair items, to wash clothes at low temperatures and to choose a renewable energy tariff. They are also more likely to turn the heating down and switch off lights in rooms they are not using.

While some of the findings may be the result of older Britons being more thrifty or having more time to take the practical steps necessary to cut their emissions, the results suggest that young people have a long way to go to live up to their reputation as being concerned for the planet.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/young-people-failing-to-act-on-carbon-concerns-92rqjvlhj

This is my teenage kids 100% - they don't even claim to be green, the normal attitude is the planet is fooked already (due to older generations) so they might as well have fun now before it is too late.  My attitude of not consuming even though I could afford and taking the time to recycle it is totally alien to them.  There is also the 'no one else is doing it so why should we?' defence and seeing the level of conspicuous consumption (holidays, cars, house extensions, brand items) locally they probably have a point.  Even amongst the parents suggesting that jetting away every school break might not be consistent with preserving the climate is met with hostility.  I have never seen myself as an ecowarrior, thinking I do a lot less than many but from observation actually 90% are completely (deliberately?) oblivious to the climate consequences of their spending - it is literally not on their radar.

Comment was made in a Telegraph article on the Times report about how many of the Just Stop Oil protestors are oldies. 

thevilla

In their defence, young people don't have the benefit of seeing changes over the last 40 or 50 years. Many of us have seen the countryside shrink, weather change, decline of insects etc etc.  It is more 'real' to us.

JKenH

Orsted hit by up to $5.6 billion impairment on halted US projects

Nov 1 (Reuters) - Renewable energy firm Orsted (ORSTED.CO) on Wednesday halted the development of two U.S. offshore wind projects and said related impairments had surged above $5 billion, as the industry grapples with supply chain delays and higher costs.

Orsted, the world's largest offshore wind developer, said it would stop developing its 2,248-megawatt (MW) Ocean Wind 1 and 2 projects in New Jersey. Related impairments could amount to as much as 39.4 billion Danish crowns ($5.58 billion).

On Tuesday, energy major BP (BP.L) booked a third-quarter writedown of $540 million on wind projects after officials in New York state rejected a request for better terms to reflect what BP called "inflationary pressures and permitting delays".

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/orsted-cease-development-some-us-offshore-wind-projects-2023-10-31/

and in a separate opinion piece on the subject

‘DING-DONG! ANOTHER WAKE-UP CALL FOR WIND ENTHUSIASTS’

We do not believe that Orsted will build the massive 2.85 GW Hornsea 3 it “won” in 2022 at a headline price of £37 MWh (£45 MWh adjusted for inflation escalation) and we question whether any of the UK offshore wind projects built on post-2017 CFD’s of sub-£100 will produce a return for investors. Indeed, the miraculous drop in UK CFD prices from 2017 – which vainglorious wind enthusiasts wrongly claimed made wind the “cheapest” form of power generation – is now like all miracles inexplicable. 

Unfortunately, it is the consumer who pays with exponentially rising prices for electricity because of wind company management getting their sums wrong with UK politicians having been conned into believing that wind was “cheap” and already betting Britain’s economic future solely on offshore wind, with plans to build 50 GW (another 36 GW) of generation capacity by 2030. 

Irrespective of the cost of generation, it is a fatal conceit to suggest that wind power has the same value to the electricity grid as dispatchable power on demand.

https://blog.argonautcapital.co.uk/articles/2023/11/01/ding-dong-another-wake-up-call-for-wind-enthusiasts/