The Alternative Green Energy Thread

JKenH

Here perhaps is a starter.

Renewable energy: Costs

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/renewable-energy-costs/

This actually looks quite favourable for renewables. However the chart is based on a downward trajectory of renewables costs continuing and appears to fail fail to take into account the failure of AR5 and the much increased offshore wind costs in AR6 which work out at around £82/MWh in today’s money. Offshore wind is shown in the chart at around £50/MWh. Add £32/MWh to that and the ELCOE increase from around £105 to nearer £137/MWh. This compares with a pre Ukraine war price for gas generation of £80/MWh. The level of uplift applied in the BEIS estimate for 2025 gas was a guess and I don’t  know exactly how today’s gas price compares to the assumption but in early 2024 gas prices were not far from the pre war levels. They rose towards the end of the year but will probably fall again in the summer. Given the new US policy of “Drill Baby, Drill” the likelihood is gas prices will come down. 

I did some work on gas prices in a previous post so will need to look at them. 

JKenH

Exiled_Tyke said:

Well Kathryn's Twitter (sorry X) profile tells us all we need to know about her perspective, bias and propensity for objective reporting! 

Kathryn Porter

@KathrynPorter26

Independent energy consultant helping businesses with projects across the electricity, gas and oil industries.

For heaven’s sake, she is an energy consultant. She works in all three fields.

Have you never noticed all the links posted from renewables advocates like PV Magazine and ReNews singing the praises of their industries and lobby groups like Transport and Environment submitting heavily biased content. Of course it may appear balanced to you because their content aligns with your own biases. 

It really is difficult to find truly objective sources. I am even sceptical about the promises made by NESO who in my view have an overly optimistic take on our achieving NetZero by 2030 without additional cost. The bods there are hardly likely to say it isn’t possible without putting their careers at risk. 

Exiled_Tyke

JKenH said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

Well Kathryn's Twitter (sorry X) profile tells us all we need to know about her perspective, bias and propensity for objective reporting! 

Kathryn Porter

@KathrynPorter26

Independent energy consultant helping businesses with projects across the electricity, gas and oil industries.

For heaven’s sake, she is an energy consultant. She works in all three fields.

Have you never noticed all the links posted from renewables advocates like PV Magazine and ReNews singing the praises of their industries and lobby groups like Transport and Environment submitting heavily biased content. Of course it may appear balanced to you because their content aligns with your own biases. 

It really is difficult to find truly objective sources. I am even sceptical about the promises made by NESO who in my view have an overly optimistic take on our achieving NetZero by 2030 without additional cost. The bods there are hardly likely to say it isn’t possible without putting their careers at risk. 

Seriously? An objective energy consultant?  I suggest you look at this.....

https://www.desmog.com/2023/06/22/climate-sceptic-goes-unchallenged-on-bbcs-today-programme/

Of particular note from this 

"Before setting up her own company, Porter’s website records her work with oil and gas producers in finance roles at Barclays Capital, the energy company EDF, French bank Societe Generale and most recently at British gas parent company Centrica, with “North Sea oil and gas producers and small electricity generators”.

On the Watt-logic website, Porter states: “I help owners of conventional energy assets to optimise their portfolios, carry out due diligence for the sale or acquisition of new assets, and adapt their business models in the face of changing markets.” 

Porter has also been associated with political groups leading the charge against climate action. Last June she spoke on a panel about the energy crisis organised by Net Zero Watch (NZW), the campaign arm of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the UK’s main climate science denial group. 

NZW has urged the government to “recommit to fossil fuels” with “a new fleet of coal-fired power stations”, and has called for wind and solar power to be “wound down completely”. Porter cited NZW director Andrew Montford in a blog post last week titled “wind farm costs are not falling”. Another of her sources, Paul Homewood, has written for the GWPF. 

In a June 2017 blog post, arguing that then President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement was “not a disaster”, she cited Nigel Lawson, the founder of the GWPF, on how “governments and policymakers have been intimidated by a highly vocal environmental lobby into pursuing these expensive and often unsuccessful de-carbonisation policies”.

In September, Porter spoke at an event on the UK energy system run by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a libertarian think tank which has called for the UK’s net zero target to be scrapped, and which received funding from oil giant BP from 1967 to at least 2018. "

JKenH

Exiled_Tyke said:

JKenH said:

Exiled_Tyke said:

Well Kathryn's Twitter (sorry X) profile tells us all we need to know about her perspective, bias and propensity for objective reporting! 

Kathryn Porter

@KathrynPorter26

Independent energy consultant helping businesses with projects across the electricity, gas and oil industries.

For heaven’s sake, she is an energy consultant. She works in all three fields.

Have you never noticed all the links posted from renewables advocates like PV Magazine and ReNews singing the praises of their industries and lobby groups like Transport and Environment submitting heavily biased content. Of course it may appear balanced to you because their content aligns with your own biases. 

It really is difficult to find truly objective sources. I am even sceptical about the promises made by NESO who in my view have an overly optimistic take on our achieving NetZero by 2030 without additional cost. The bods there are hardly likely to say it isn’t possible without putting their careers at risk. 

Seriously? An objective energy consultant?  I suggest you look at this.....

https://www.desmog.com/2023/06/22/climate-sceptic-goes-unchallenged-on-bbcs-today-programme/

Of particular note from this 

"Before setting up her own company, Porter’s website records her work with oil and gas producers in finance roles at Barclays Capital, the energy company EDF, French bank Societe Generale and most recently at British gas parent company Centrica, with “North Sea oil and gas producers and small electricity generators”.

On the Watt-logic website, Porter states: “I help owners of conventional energy assets to optimise their portfolios, carry out due diligence for the sale or acquisition of new assets, and adapt their business models in the face of changing markets.” 

Porter has also been associated with political groups leading the charge against climate action. Last June she spoke on a panel about the energy crisis organised by Net Zero Watch (NZW), the campaign arm of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the UK’s main climate science denial group. 

NZW has urged the government to “recommit to fossil fuels” with “a new fleet of coal-fired power stations”, and has called for wind and solar power to be “wound down completely”. Porter cited NZW director Andrew Montford in a blog post last week titled “wind farm costs are not falling”. Another of her sources, Paul Homewood, has written for the GWPF. 

In a June 2017 blog post, arguing that then President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement was “not a disaster”, she cited Nigel Lawson, the founder of the GWPF, on how “governments and policymakers have been intimidated by a highly vocal environmental lobby into pursuing these expensive and often unsuccessful de-carbonisation policies”.

In September, Porter spoke at an event on the UK energy system run by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a libertarian think tank which has called for the UK’s net zero target to be scrapped, and which received funding from oil giant BP from 1967 to at least 2018. "

Well, they would say that wouldn’t given their backers. 

Have you anything to say about renewable energy costs and our electricity bills? 

Edit: here is an extract from her profile on LinkedIn 

Working with businesses across the energy value chain to capture the commercial opportunities of the energy transition. As the energy sector de-carbonises, traditional market frameworks are being rapidly replaced enabling new sources of income while threatening legacy business models.

DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES
Helping investors and operators to develop robust, future-proof business models for distributed energy resources including renewable generation, storage and demand-side response.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathrynporter26/details/experience/

Of course it would never do for someone to advise parties on both sides of the renewables debate - you must be for us or against us. Still it might give you a better perspective.

Exiled_Tyke

Yeah she's changed her profile more recently to try to look more balanced.  Her history is still her history ...leopards and spots and all that.  The fact that she appeared on GB news certainly tells me all I need to know about her.  

'Of course it would never do for someone to advise parties on both sides of the renewables debate - you must be for us or against us. Still it might give you a better perspective.' I'm all for balance but this isn't it.

Then again this is the 'green and ethical'  category of the boards so really is unashamedly focused on promoting green and ethical.     So perhaps energy scepticism discussion is more suited to the energy boards? 

JKenH

Exiled_Tyke said:

Yeah she's changed her profile more recently to try to look more balanced.  Her history is still her history ...leopards and spots and all that.  The fact that she appeared on GB news certainly tells me all I need to know about her.  

'Of course it would never do for someone to advise parties on both sides of the renewables debate - you must be for us or against us. Still it might give you a better perspective.' I'm all for balance but this isn't it.

Then again this is the 'green and ethical'  category of the boards so really is unashamedly focused on promoting green and ethical.     So perhaps energy scepticism discussion is more suited to the energy boards? 

No, it is for discussing green and ethical energy (including electricity bills) and that is what we are doing, or at least what I am trying to do. You, on the other hand, it seems just want to  shutdown debate. 

JKenH

Exiled_Tyke said:

Yeah she's changed her profile more recently to try to look more balanced.  Her history is still her history ...leopards and spots and all that.  The fact that she appeared on GB news certainly tells me all I need to know about her.  

'Of course it would never do for someone to advise parties on both sides of the renewables debate - you must be for us or against us. Still it might give you a better perspective.' I'm all for balance but this isn't it.

Then again this is the 'green and ethical'  category of the boards so really is unashamedly focused on promoting green and ethical.     So perhaps energy scepticism discussion is more suited to the energy boards? 

The highlighted comment suggests that perhaps you aren’t for balance after all. Do you ever watch GB News? Yes, it is right leaning just as Channel 4 News is left leaning (perhaps you would see it as centrist) but it does often offer a perspective not offered by the BBC. Have a read of this article. https://www.thearticle.com/gb-news-an-analysis. GB News is surprisingly popular getting similar viewing figures to Sky News https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/dec/04/gb-news-overtakes-rival-sky-in-latest-live-viewing-figures-data-shows and at times beats BBC News. https://order-order.com/2024/11/21/gb-news-beats-bbc-and-sky-for-three-consecutive-days/

and if you are wondering where I stand I tend to watch BBC News. I subscribe to the Telegraph but regularly read the Guardian (via Readly) as a counterpoint. Often though when I go looking for a Guardian take on something I find it hasn’t covered the story. I was really surprised as well when the Guardian left X. It’s as though it is protecting its readers from right wing views and that isn’t healthy.

BTW Kathryn Porter also is a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Energy Studies so whatever her leanings she is a voice likely to be heard.

https://pges.org.uk/about/people

michaels

JKenH said:

Here perhaps is a starter.

Renewable energy: Costs

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/renewable-energy-costs/

This actually looks quite favourable for renewables. However the chart is based on a downward trajectory of renewables costs continuing and appears to fail fail to take into account the failure of AR5 and the much increased offshore wind costs in AR6 which work out at around £82/MWh in today’s money. Offshore wind is shown in the chart at around £50/MWh. Add £32/MWh to that and the ELCOE increase from around £105 to nearer £137/MWh. This compares with a pre Ukraine war price for gas generation of £80/MWh. The level of uplift applied in the BEIS estimate for 2025 gas was a guess and I don’t  know exactly how today’s gas price compares to the assumption but in early 2024 gas prices were not far from the pre war levels. They rose towards the end of the year but will probably fall again in the summer. Given the new US policy of “Drill Baby, Drill” the likelihood is gas prices will come down. 

I did some work on gas prices in a previous post so will need to look at them. 

Do we know the timescale over which network costs resulting from moving generation location are assessed? I sort of feel they are a 'one off' rather than ongoing cost.  Some time in the dim and distant past we obviously set up the network for out current generation and usage patterns but we are not including that in the price of generation at existing sites.

JKenH

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Here perhaps is a starter.

Renewable energy: Costs

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/renewable-energy-costs/

This actually looks quite favourable for renewables. However the chart is based on a downward trajectory of renewables costs continuing and appears to fail fail to take into account the failure of AR5 and the much increased offshore wind costs in AR6 which work out at around £82/MWh in today’s money. Offshore wind is shown in the chart at around £50/MWh. Add £32/MWh to that and the ELCOE increase from around £105 to nearer £137/MWh. This compares with a pre Ukraine war price for gas generation of £80/MWh. The level of uplift applied in the BEIS estimate for 2025 gas was a guess and I don’t  know exactly how today’s gas price compares to the assumption but in early 2024 gas prices were not far from the pre war levels. They rose towards the end of the year but will probably fall again in the summer. Given the new US policy of “Drill Baby, Drill” the likelihood is gas prices will come down. 

I did some work on gas prices in a previous post so will need to look at them. 

Do we know the timescale over which network costs resulting from moving generation location are assessed? I sort of feel they are a 'one off' rather than ongoing cost.  Some time in the dim and distant past we obviously set up the network for out current generation and usage patterns but we are not including that in the price of generation at existing sites.

Sorr, I can’t answer that.

silverwhistle

As I'm on Agile I'm a keen observer of electricty prices and trends but have to say that I only come on this thread ,and rarely post, purely for the amusement of seeing JKenH complaining about 'narratives' when he so obviously has one of his own, and periodically complaining about others wanting "to shutdown debate".

Thanks to Exiled_Tyke for the effort in investigating one of the sources quoted: it's not research I could be bothered to do myself.

There is talk on here of increased cost of building out wind, but no mention of the cost overruns on nuclear, and although I haven't got a link to hand the cost of CCGT plant has also gone up.

My average Agile price has been bad for the last 3 weeks and tipped over the SVR in early January but over the New Year week was just over 8p, Christmas week just under 15p and the week before that just over 5p a unit.

The bad weather took its toll, but it should also be noted that nuclear (Heysham2.7)  had planned stoppages for refuelling, and there were unplanned outages too (Heysham 1 and Hartlepool 1), plus a number of the undersea links had faults or were running at reduced capacity.

But seeing half hour prices has underlined to me that lower prices are associated with higher wind overnight at a time when demand is lower and during the day when solar output is better. Gas will undoubtedly play a role for a number of years, but the moaning about renewables on here is not an argument for stopping them and the associated grid infrastructure, even if improvements in implementation would be welcome. Mandated roof-top and car park solar, for example, would be a tremendous help.