The Alternative Green Energy Thread

silverwhistle

I know renewables enthusiasts will disagree and think everything is
going well and getting better every with every kWh of fossil fuel
generation that is displaced but objectively if you were just trying to
run the industry in the most cost effective manner we would probably
have gone about it in a different way.

So what is your alternative way, and more importantly what would be your way of producing and using energy, given your less than enthusiastic response to the issues raised by changes to our systems? Change can be painful but harking back to the old CEGB (and I used to work in the ESI) is not a helpful reference. You seem to conflate organisation, ownership, politics and generation type in one general complaint about the current system.

I can see no issue with encouraging the displacing of fossil fuels, and I presume you have no issue with that?

So what exactly do you think would improve matters?

Many of us appreciate that the criticism from the right of net zero is given some weight by the cost of energy at the moment, but looking at Europe the countries that tend to have the lowest prices aren't the ones with low renewables.

michaels

Perhaps it is much simpler, if we priced fossil fuels based on the overall cost including climate change externalities then all this conversation re renewables being expensive would be moot?

JKenH

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82028203#Comment_82028203

My complaint about the system is that it is no longer focussed on providing cheap reliable electricity. The primary aim, or so it would appear, of recent government policy is to remove fossil fuel generation from the grid. I don’t think we should go down the rabbit hole of whether that is the right or wrong thing to do - views may vary on that; that is the course we have chosen and we are looking at the consequences of that as indeed is China.

When looking at renewables across Europe a distinction needs to be made between countries like the UK , Denmark, and Germany which rely on weather dependent renewables and other countries such as Norway, Austria and Portugal that have significant hydro generation. Retail electricity prices are very high in the UK, Germany and Denmark and we have some of the highest retail electricity prices in Europe. Norway and Swede meanwhile with high hydro generation are among the cheapest.

I have no issue with displacing fossil fuels if it is economical to do so but it’s not quite as simple as saying the wholesale price of renewable electricity is cheaper therefore it is better value. Utility is a very important factor and gas, being dispatchable offers increasing value for money as the renewable proportion of generation increases . Renewables are simply not reliable enough and are largely in the wrong place so much of their potential is wasted by curtailment which has a cost. We already have one wind farm (Seagreen) where 70+% of output is curtailed - is that really good value for money? Some days as in January 2025 wind and solar’s contribution was virtually non existent and we were heavily dependent on gas. Realistically how will we deal with those days in the future without the huge cost of maintaining standby gas generation? I recognise that NetZero by 2030 means still retaining 5% gas but why 5%? - why not 10, 15 or 20%? The cost of getting rid of that last 15, 10 or 5% is enormous compared to the CO2 benefit gained. Has any one done a calculation to establish what that cost is and indeed what it might be in CO2 terms? Building infrastructure and storage has a CO2 cost and if that infrastructure and storage will only be called into play a handful of days in a year can it be justified on anything but ideological grounds?

I am just trying to be pragmatic whereas much of the opposing sentiment and, indeed, current policy is driven by ideology.

JKenH

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82028214#Comment_82028214

Don’t we already do that with the Carbon Price Floor and the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS)?

1961Nick

The lesson should be to add more distribution capability to the network rather than adding more curtailment.

michaels

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82028248#Comment_82028248

ETS is about 1/3 the true environmental cost. Also no ETS on domestic gas. And that is even before we have the VAT subsidy on both.

JKenH

Adding a carbon tax to gas generation not only increases the wholesale cost of gas generation by an estimated 40% but also increases the price to the consumer of renewable generation.

silverwhistle

Thanks for your replies. I still think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective as a cost. That's not a universal opinion as this report concludes: https://publish.cbi.org.uk/articles/net-gains-the-uks-net-zero-economy-in-2025/

The first line says: "The transition to net zero is often framed as a cost or a constraint on the economy. But…"

As for gas, last year in 2025 electricity generation was 26% gas, which is on course to be nearer 20% this year with all the new windfarms (and solar) coming on-line. Domestic gas rates are due to be over 7p later this year due to the current global situation, which is yet another reason to reduce our dependence. I hope to get an HP for this winter and even at a COP of 3 it should be cheaper for me than heating by gas.

Centrica have realised that they can make money from gas in the shorter term, and they will no doubt sweat their assets in the meantime, but the natural progressive reduction of gas use I feel reduces the force of your argument about what the correct percentage should be.

The whole electricity supply environment is being modernised and is in a state of flux. The curtailment of Seagreen is unfortunate but I don't think it should be given particular weight in the argument. It's an issue to be resolved, a victim of the rapid change and possibly the result of a lack of higher level planning and the command economy you fear. But its location helps with the geographical spread we need with renewables so will still make a valuable contribution at times.

Also to be considered is that gas plant is only dispatchable from a warm state, so there is a cost there too. The peak demand times are still an issue, but the peak lopping function is rapidly being taken over by BESS.

Finally, if your concern is that net zero is ideologically driven I hope that you are far more concerned about the Trump groupies Reform, whose opposition to renewables is very much ideologically driven as their policy appears to be of little benefit to the UK and its economy.

JKenH

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82030813#Comment_82030813

Given that we appear to come from different ends of the political spectrum we are always going to have a different take on politics and policy. However, it does seem we are developing a less confrontational approach and more respectful dialogue. With that in mind I only want to pick up on one point you have raised and that is heat pumps. I certainly have no problem with these but they are better suited to some properties than others and it may well be your house falls into the former category and a wet ASHP installation is deal for you.

Where I think the government (and its predecessor) is missing a trick is with A2A heat pumps. Depending on on the property ( as we have seen with Mart and CW) these can be a very practical and cost effective alternative. It seems (given the zeroVAT rate on new installations) the government is ok with these in new houses but building regs, while not outright, banning them seem to (shall we say) be less than encouraging when it comes to new houses (at least this is what the Tories are saying). Leaving politics out of the matter, what all sides seem to be missing is just how good a fit the use of A2A heat pumps in aircon mode is with solar generation (both domestic and grid scale). There is quite a high correlation between peak demand for aircon and peak summertime solar generation which otherwise is likely to be curtailed.

We have had a couple of aircon units (2kW and 3.5kW) for 7 years and primarily they were installed for localised heating. We have a largish house and since the beginning of March have not used our central heating boiler at all. The aircon units we have only covered a part of the downstairs. This prompted us to look at installing some aircon units upstairs. Unfortunately as we already had two outside units we would have needed planning permission to add any more. From what I have read this can be quite involved and as I try to engage with officialdom as little as possible we decided to replace the lounge unit with a 3 way multisplit system. So we now have a new outside unit and a new indoor unit in the lounge and 2 upstairs (one in a bedroom and the other on the landing). Since we extended our kitchen with a sun/dining room it has been a bit of a struggle keeping it warm in winter and cool in summer due to a large glazed area (it got up to 28C indoors at times during the heatwave in May when the lounge was 20C) so we moved the 3.5kW unit from the lounge to the kitchen. What we did wasn’t the cheapest solution but from the decision being made to the system going in was just 2 weeks. Had we gone for PP it would have taken months.

We use a time of use tariff, solar and battery to run our ASHPs very cost effectively most of the year, they enable us to heat rooms selectively in the shoulder months and we have the benefit of aircon in summer. I would imagine for a smaller house an A2A system is more cost effective than a wet ASHP system and cheaper to run as the COP tends to be higher. I believe A2A systems are also eligible for grants in existing dwellings where the fossil fuel heating is being removed so the failure to encourage it in new dwellings is even more surprising.

Unlike in hotter countries (places like California) nearly all our aircon/cooling demand (domestic and offices) is during the daytime and in summer and much more use should be made of that good fit.

Edit: I posted in a rush with no time to check so have made a few corrections (nothing of substance).

michaels

Whilst I think we are going in the right direction, I think there is a lot wrong with govt policy

1. Subsidy for approved installer install just leads to cost inflation and cowboy outfits who by definition will disappear once the grants end
2. Not adjusting gas and electricity prices to reflect the true global warming impact. Yes gas would have to go up but the revenue raised could be used to cushion the blow. The reduced VAT rate also means that we relatively overuse fuel rather than looking for higher efficiency alternatives. Making the gas and electric prices reflect the real costs of each fuel would also make moving to heat pumps much more of a no brainer that an upfront subsidy that is pocketed by the installers
3. One size fits all you must replace gas. Perhaps for many a hybrid gas plus a2a would be the best interim solution and also reduce pressure on the grid
4. Leaving UK gas and oil in the N Sea then using imports. Lots of downsides, we are probably more careful about extraction pollution, the UK volume would not move world prices but royalties/taxes could be levied that would subsidise an awful lot of investment in renewables and energy efficiency leading to less fossil fuel use by the UK overall
5. Not apply an imbedded carbon tax to imports, again this money could be used for general subsidies so as not to drive inflation but it would put UK industrials and manufactures onto a level playing field with imports.

So all about using liberal economics to solve the problem rather than the command economy approach we have at present that is simply lining people's pockets at the expense of UK prosperity.