Energy news in general

debitcardmayhem

mmmmikey said:

debitcardmayhem said:

@mmmmikey @MikeJXE Hmmm, what about non-domestic users, what do you do about them. The power stations will still need to be brought online to stabilise the grid. You could switch off your stuff for 3hrs a week, your fridge , freezer will then kick in. 

Yes, you'd have to set things up differently, it's not just a question of sticking with the equipment and processes you've got and letting it break more often. But your enquiring mind has gone into "designing the solution" mode without actually answering the more basic question of whether it is something you would want if you see what I mean.

Not for me, no grid no export and unable to “help” when they are short on generation 😂

wrf12345

All the more reason to get rid of s/c's and have a surcharge on high users to recover the money, such discouragement leading to a drop in demand or more money to spend on the grid.

MattMattMattUK

wrf12345 said:

All the more reason to get rid of s/c's and have a surcharge on high users to recover the money, such discouragement leading to a drop in demand or more money to spend on the grid.

Or not, as once again you fail to understand what the majority of the standing charge is actually for.

GingerTim

wrf12345 said:

All the more reason to get rid of s/c's and have a surcharge on high users to recover the money, such discouragement leading to a drop in demand or more money to spend on the grid.

Stop me, oh-oho, stop me
Stop me if you think that you've heard this one before

Scot_39

MikeJXE said:

A switch off a couple of times a year to save half the bill  is a no brainer 

For some maybe.

For millions of others - especially in winter - not.

For those with medical kit in the home.

Or the vulnerable with only electric - who need constant heat in winter.

And remember if the greens have their way the 10s millions on cheap gas will - within 20 years max (the Scottish Green plans was far more aggressive - especially for landlords and new movers - who had to scrap gas within few yrs at one stage ) - all too soon be all electric. 

And the poor who cannot afford £2000 for a battery standby - that wont last an evening for those on all electric - let alone a day let alone several days(*) or weeks.

Or those who need their cars - with the greens marching us all towards EVs - for work or medical appointments etc

Yes it could be (hope no anti-smart folk reading) - switched off on a per meter disconnect signal basis - but the logistics - would you trust many power companies to get it right across 29 m homes ?

(From posts here some dont even know which of their customers are on RTS meters).

But get rid of too much more core CO2 emitting - so fossil - now mainly gas (their used to be diesel generator farms - 100s MW of  them - peak standby plants) and wood - generation - and apart from grid stability issues - we may not potentially be talking hours - but days - (*) as locked in still periods (atmospheric blocks) have just in last few years lasted 7-10 days - summer and winter - across UK and N / W Europe.

And even if Scotlands second major pump storage plan this decade (Earba, Coire Glas further  along) gets the financing terms it's proposers wants (it has iirc planning approval but not the pricing agreed) there combined 70 GWh wont last that long - just a day at max output - and they can only deliver 3GW of power - less than a 10ths summer peak demand.  

Still to be fair to them - thats actually significantly more than the 2GW wind has managed over last 24 hours (in fact its just dropped below 2 at 4:05 update)

Right now well at 3:15pm timestamp on the page - grid.iamkate says UK demand 33.6 GW - were importing 5.6GW - so 1/6th of that demand - and wind is supplying just 3.7GW - just over a 10th.

Thats not energy security - thats insecurity.

The last 24 hours average - wind an even lower 2GW - 7% of demand - and fossil gas / biomass -  over 42%. Even higher if not for interconnects - carrying another 18% of demand.

Until last spring our last remaining coal plant could have delivered that 2GW - emitted less CO2 and other gases per MWh than Drax wood power - and that and a few more like it - saved us £100s of billion on net zero costs - at least on our energy bills - now and in future.

That 2GW ave - from over 30GW theoretical installed capacity - a capacity that is costing us £bns pa in grid uprade financing past work already (remember existing network costs drove the recent doubling in standing charges and Ofgem have consistently warned us they will be an increasing share of our bills) in future coming to a standing charge and unit rate near you.

And just to add insult to injury last year paying the same generators - who often arent the ones paying for the grid infrastructure - over £1bn in curtailment to not generate. 

If they want to earn from generation - why arent they paying the 3 TNOs directly for the infrastructure to deliver it - all of it - at least to local 132 / 33 kV DNO level distribution handover at matching capacity demand points (largely for now in England for most of Scotland's wind capacity). 

Were about to hear I suspect a lot of greenwashed hurrah about being able to run the grid gas free for 1 single 1/2 hr period - as they have announced plans to try to do so - but the reality is days like today are not rare - and a significant number of weeks where wind struggles to deliver even a fifth to a quarter of demand -  at the end of April into early May this year - same last July.  

And for all they hype about installed capacity and the promises of energy security and lower pricing. 

It is the lows that risk our energy security - the lows that will force our EII to shutdown production where possible - another blow to UK economic performance, productivity and yes even many jobs - and if thats not enough - utlimately risk supplies to homes.

Scot_39

mmmmikey said:

xflare said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2kym1pvn4o

"The bill for expanding the Warm Home Discount will be paid by energy companies and could be passed on through the Standing Charge, so it is possible all customers will see a slight increase in bills in the autumn to cover this announcement."      could?? lol

We are all about to get whacked by another big increase in standing charges lol

Yes, could. The other option would be to pay for it by increasing unit rates. 

One way or the other it represents a cost of the order of £1 per month for a typical user - not an amount I would consider a big increase and I'm happy to pay it if it provides some help to people who genuinely need it.

But the clue is in the expanding.

It sounds like this will add to the current £198 of policy costs - the new £50 DRC and of course the £88 - soon to be £82 VAT in the new £1720 DF DD cap pricing.

All things our govts - past and present have direct or indirect / partial control over.

Its a common trick to say its only another £1 - then you get another - and then another.

(This effectively the 2nd such £1 announced by govt in last couple of weeks - as there is another £1 in the Sizewell C funding agreement iirc)

Even if just take the policy+VAT = £280 - thats already £23 per month - already not easy to find on benefits - even on min wage or basic state pension levels of income.

And so here we are looking at nearer £25 per month total at TDCV.

As arguably are large parts of the balancing costs - like curtailment payments being part of the contracts for generators - balancing costs that reportedly are now forecast to grow to £8bn by 2030 (which is if correct a couple of billion more than the old NG ESO forecast I got the £3bn grid thermal contstraint peak from last year)

QrizB

Scot_39 said:

.And the poor who cannot afford £2000 for a battery standby - that wont last an evening for those on all electric let alone a day let alone several days(*) or weeks.

That's a straw man argument if ever I've seen one.

The question from mmmikey was:

mmmmikey said:

If you had to choose between what we have now (which for most people is very few power cuts) at the prices we pay now, or losing power for a few hours a couple of times a year but at half the price, what would you choose?

No mention of a day, several days or weeks. You've invented that part to let you make an argument against it. A textbook straw man. Honestly, I expect a better standard of debate on this forum.

And what about "those on all electric"? Well, unless they're living in a tent then over the quoted period of "a few hours" the temperatures in their homes might fall by a degree or two. Then, when the power comes back on, it will warm up again over a similar period.

This is all academic as I don't see any real likelihood of Ofgem saying to the industry "You know what, we're going to meddle in the market and cap the wholesale price of electricity. If no-one chooses to supply customers at the capped price, we'll run rolling blackouts."

Chrysalis

xflare said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2kym1pvn4o

"The bill for expanding the Warm Home Discount will be paid by energy companies and could be passed on through the Standing Charge, so it is possible all customers will see a slight increase in bills in the autumn to cover this announcement."      could?? lol

We are all about to get whacked by another big increase in standing charges lol

If it makes you feel better, the original plan was also to increase it to £500, so whatever the cost is on the SC, its about 1/3 of what it originally would have cost.  This is also likely cheaper than an actual social tariff.

mmmmikey

Scot_39 said:

MikeJXE said:

A switch off a couple of times a year to save half the bill  is a no brainer 

For some maybe.

For millions of others - especially in winter - not.

For those with medical kit in the home.

Or the vulnerable with only electric - who need constant heat in winter.

And remember if the greens have their way the 10s millions on cheap gas will - within 20 years max (the Scottish Green plans was far more aggressive - especially for landlords and new movers - who had to scrap gas within few yrs at one stage ) - all too soon be all electric. 

And the poor who cannot afford £2000 for a battery standby - that wont last an evening for those on all electric - let alone a day let alone several days(*) or weeks.

Or those who need their cars - with the greens marching us all towards EVs - for work or medical appointments etc

Yes it could be (hope no anti-smart folk reading) - switched off on a per meter disconnect signal basis - but the logistics - would you trust many power companies to get it right across 29 m homes ?

(From posts here some dont even know which of their customers are on RTS meters).

But get rid of too much more core CO2 emitting - so fossil - now mainly gas (their used to be diesel generator farms - 100s MW of  them - peak standby plants) and wood - generation - and apart from grid stability issues - we may not potentially be talking hours - but days - (*) as locked in still periods (atmospheric blocks) have just in last few years lasted 7-10 days - summer and winter - across UK and N / W Europe.

And even if Scotlands second major pump storage plan this decade (Earba, Coire Glas further  along) gets the financing terms it's proposers wants (it has iirc planning approval but not the pricing agreed) there combined 70 GWh wont last that long - just a day at max output - and they can only deliver 3GW of power - less than a 10ths summer peak demand.  

Still to be fair to them - thats actually significantly more than the 2GW wind has managed over last 24 hours (in fact its just dropped below 2 at 4:05 update)

Right now well at 3:15pm timestamp on the page - grid.iamkate says UK demand 33.6 GW - were importing 5.6GW - so 1/6th of that demand - and wind is supplying just 3.7GW - just over a 10th.

Thats not energy security - thats insecurity.

The last 24 hours average - wind an even lower 2GW - 7% of demand - and fossil gas / biomass -  over 42%. Even higher if not for interconnects - carrying another 18% of demand.

Until last spring our last remaining coal plant could have delivered that 2GW - emitted less CO2 and other gases per MWh than Drax wood power - and that and a few more like it - saved us £100s of billion on net zero costs - at least on our energy bills - now and in future.

That 2GW ave - from over 30GW theoretical installed capacity - a capacity that is costing us £bns pa in grid uprade financing past work already (remember existing network costs drove the recent doubling in standing charges and Ofgem have consistently warned us they will be an increasing share of our bills) in future coming to a standing charge and unit rate near you.

And just to add insult to injury last year paying the same generators - who often arent the ones paying for the grid infrastructure - over £1bn in curtailment to not generate. 

If they want to earn from generation - why arent they paying the 3 TNOs directly for the infrastructure to deliver it - all of it - at least to local 132 / 33 kV DNO level distribution handover at matching capacity demand points (largely for now in England for most of Scotland's wind capacity). 

Were about to hear I suspect a lot of greenwashed hurrah about being able to run the grid gas free for 1 single 1/2 hr period - as they have announced plans to try to do so - but the reality is days like today are not rare - and a significant number of weeks where wind struggles to deliver even a fifth to a quarter of demand -  at the end of April into early May this year - same last July.  

And for all they hype about installed capacity and the promises of energy security and lower pricing. 

It is the lows that risk our energy security - the lows that will force our EII to shutdown production where possible - another blow to UK economic performance, productivity and yes even many jobs - and if thats not enough - utlimately risk supplies to homes.

Blimey - in response to a comment @chrysalis made, all I asked in a very general way was if you could reduce your bill by accepting a reduction in service, would you? I seem to have touched a nerve

To put it another way, at the moment we pay Rolls Royce prices and so of course we expect a Rolls Royce service to be delivered. But my question is do you actually want a Rolls Royce service at Rolls Royce prices, or would you prefer Mini service at Mini prices? Some would, some wouldn't - like many things in life there are always choices. 

JKenH

mmmmikey said:

Chrysalis said:

mmmmikey said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

UK gas plants in line for large windfall payments to keep lights on this winter

More UK gas plants will be in line for windfall payments to help keep the lights on this winter after generators received multimillion-pound payouts last winter.

Britain’s energy system operator expects the UK’s winter power supplies to reach their highest level in five years, in part due to a rising number of gas plants willing to generate electricity during the colder months.

Gas plants are typically called on to generate electricity when wind and solar power are in short supply. During still winter periods when freezing temperatures drive demand for energy higher, they can often request large fees to fire up their generators.

In early January this year, two gas power plants in Hertfordshire and Flintshire, north Wales, were paid a total of £17.8m to run their gas turbines between 4pm and 7pm when demand for electricity was forecast to reach its peak.

UK gas plants in line for large windfall payments to keep lights on this winter | Energy | The Guardian

You have to look at the bigger picture to make sense of this. On the face of it, it can be much more expensive per mile to use a taxi instead of a car. But if you only do a few journeys per year it can be much cheaper to take a taxi. And if you're a 2 car family, is it better to have 1 car and use a taxi when needed, or have 2 cars? The answer is, it depends - there's no easy answer.

Fairly obviously, if you only use gas to generate electricity when prices are at their highest then the profits during those periods will increase. Which they need to in order to compensate for the loss making times when solar and wind power output is at it's highest.

This article is just daft stirring designed to sell newspapers.

If I understand your analogy right you are saying this is cheaper than having some state owned infrastructure that has a fixed run cost regardless of time of day, and especially cheaper if it was just running all day without the burst emergency style charging (as then we would be paying for production that isnt used).
I get your point I think, but I think it is right this reported as there has to be a better solution than this, I actually think power cuts is preferable, but of course I know I will be a tiny minority on that.
I do understand why they charging a premium, as they not making money for all the time they turned off and its privately owned infrastructure.

So here's a question for others to ponder:

If you had to choose between what we have now (which for most people is very few power cuts) at the prices we pay now, or losing power for a few hours a couple of times a year but at half the price, what would you choose?

Why in a first world country should this ever be considered an option? We have had reliable electricity generation for decades. Do we really want the electricity grid of a third world country?