Energy news in general

Scot_39

Nice to see one renewables generator - pointing out - even if only a fraction - of the predicted increasing costs we all face due to renewables roll out in the UK.

By 2030 remember NESO are forecasting that total balancing / (operating two generating systems) costs will be c£8bn pa.

And the former NGESO were forecasting £3bn alone due to grid thermal constraints

Lets hope the media focusses more on these - rather than going along with the greenwashing attempts at deception and past promises of universelly cheaper bills for all.

If DESNZ representatives can admit to the PAC in formal reporting that the policy is in reality failing - that renewables isn't lowering our bills cf fossil fuels - why can't our leaders be open and do the same for us.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/exclusive-government-admits-fossil-fuels-use-is-cheaper-than-net-zero-technology/ar-AA1H0xie?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds&apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1

Then we can have a real debate about whether the consequences of not acting are worth the costs.

And how we help those - like those not on £150k ministerial salaries or their highly paid cricles of advisors - actually afford the higher costs.

Inlcuding the £8bn in balancing by 2030

Including financing £55-77bn spend by 2030 by TNOs on networks

Including iirc c22bn over 25? years on CCS project development and trials.

spot1034

I appreciate that this is almost straying across the border into politics so perhaps we can't discuss it in too much detail, but this assessment of the latest round of renewable energy auctions refers to the development in the past few days that potential investors are being warned that their subsidies may not be safe under a future administration. https://www.cityam.com/investors-should-steer-clear-of-ed-milibands-clean-energy-auction/

michaels

Scot_39 said:

Nice to see one renewables generator - pointing out - even if only a fraction - of the predicted increasing costs we all face due to renewables roll out in the UK.

By 2030 remember NESO are forecasting that total balancing / (operating two generating systems) costs will be c£8bn pa.

And the former NGESO were forecasting £3bn alone due to grid thermal constraints

Lets hope the media focusses more on these - rather than going along with the greenwashing attempts at deception and past promises of universelly cheaper bills for all.

If DESNZ representatives can admit to the PAC in formal reporting that the policy is in reality failing - that renewables isn't lowering our bills cf fossil fuels - why can't our leaders be open and do the same for us.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/exclusive-government-admits-fossil-fuels-use-is-cheaper-than-net-zero-technology/ar-AA1H0xie?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds&apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1

Then we can have a real debate about whether the consequences of not acting are worth the costs.

And how we help those - like those not on £150k ministerial salaries or their highly paid cricles of advisors - actually afford the higher costs.

Inlcuding the £8bn in balancing by 2030

Including financing £55-77bn spend by 2030 by TNOs on networks

Including iirc c22bn over 25? years on CCS project development and trials.

Of course we curtail wind rather than nuclear because wind is more flexible but effectively we have too much power so the cost should be considered to also apply to whatever generation we are also using when the wind is curtailed. (Proviso this is curtailment due to overall generation not due to specific grid constraints)

Scot_39

michaels said:

Scot_39 said:

Nice to see one renewables generator - pointing out - even if only a fraction - of the predicted increasing costs we all face due to renewables roll out in the UK.

By 2030 remember NESO are forecasting that total balancing / (operating two generating systems) costs will be c£8bn pa.

And the former NGESO were forecasting £3bn alone due to grid thermal constraints

Lets hope the media focusses more on these - rather than going along with the greenwashing attempts at deception and past promises of universelly cheaper bills for all.

If DESNZ representatives can admit to the PAC in formal reporting that the policy is in reality failing - that renewables isn't lowering our bills cf fossil fuels - why can't our leaders be open and do the same for us.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/exclusive-government-admits-fossil-fuels-use-is-cheaper-than-net-zero-technology/ar-AA1H0xie?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds&apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1

Then we can have a real debate about whether the consequences of not acting are worth the costs.

And how we help those - like those not on £150k ministerial salaries or their highly paid cricles of advisors - actually afford the higher costs.

Inlcuding the £8bn in balancing by 2030

Including financing £55-77bn spend by 2030 by TNOs on networks

Including iirc c22bn over 25? years on CCS project development and trials.

Of course we curtail wind rather than nuclear because wind is more flexible but effectively we have too much power so the cost should be considered to also apply to whatever generation we are also using when the wind is curtailed. (Proviso this is curtailment due to overall generation not due to specific grid constraints)

No, its because we need the overcapacity because renewables are unreliable.

Their flexibility isn't a bonus when we have to pay regardless to access it.

If you had 2gw of coal plants and replace it with 2 gw of gas as we have on / off for decades now -  or nuclear which we havent been building much of uhtil Hinkley and now Sizewell  - thats pretty much the same level of availability.

If you take 2 GW of fossil or to some extent nuclear (and our capacity has dropped c2.5 GW actual in 2020s alone as 3 plants long after original design life taken off line / defuelling ) and replace it with 2gw of wind its not the same.

You might get 1.5GW plus in ideal conditions on a windy day - assuming you can transmit that power to market - we often cannot hence the predicted £3bn - and crucially sub 0.2 GW on a still one.

Last Jan we hit c5% this hit sub 2GW from over 30GW theoretical,  on cold winter days when demand averaging c40-45 GW.

The result being that in reality you cannot actually decommission the old fossil plant - it has to be their - for when renewables fails yet again to deliver any reasonable fraction of its rated power.

Are we really going to build say 10GW of wind, so as we can shut say 1 1 GW gas plant.

Well seems not.

And not only that we now have to replace them with new - as we are currently doing with at least 4 new plants authorised or propsed in last few years - the last in Wales reached BBC attention just 4 days ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3wnx84nx51o

But of course they will also operate at increased costs to support net zero and CCS in the distant future - if it can be made to work at scale - too.

Just one of the reasons ministers are happy to talk about renewables and nuclear relative savings in the distant future.  But the DESNZ openly admitting the failure to secure  absolute savings relative to today's fossil costs. 
Is they are the ones slavishly wedded to a failing renewables generation model - and with it driving those relative costs higher.

[British Energy budget has been reduced to iirc less than iitseven reduced c£8.3bn in manifesto as it now includes SMR nuclear as of Mar unplanned  allocation round - the cost of renewables to meet the 95% by 2030 - in the order of £200bn from private sector at old 2024 prices. 
And we know from Orsted's shelving plans Hornsea 4 2.4 GW farm that operators aren't playing ball at those rates (one estimate puts their cancellation costs north of £650m - giving a good idea of what they thought of reality vs £58/MWh at 2012 pre index pricing in ar6  - despite a near 60% increase over ar4.).
I  wonder just what public to private ratio might apply to the £22bn EM allocated to CCS over next 25 yrs.]

The green roll out isn't going to plan, and our demand isn't going up as much as predictions.

And when people see those £3bn and £8bn becone reality,  when they see standing charges go up in line with the £55-77bn on physical network spending, this is going to become I suspect a major if not the major political hot issue for many average and below income households by 2029.

debitcardmayhem

Noticed this today Tesla applying for supply license
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/tesla-energy-ventures-limited-notice-application-electricity-supply-licence

https://www.bitget.com/news/detail/12560604904336

MattMattMattUK

debitcardmayhem said:

Noticed this today Tesla applying for supply license
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/tesla-energy-ventures-limited-notice-application-electricity-supply-licence

https://www.bitget.com/news/detail/12560604904336

Their plan has been for a while not to offer tariffs to their EV, solar and Powerwall customers, it would be a smart ToU offering. Of course they will also have to offer a price cap tariff in the UK. There are also rumours that they are looking to build several Megapack sites in the South East, bring in cheap/free wind energy overnight and sell during peak periods, though that will not be under the license you link to above.

michaels

Scot_39 said:

michaels said:

Scot_39 said:

Nice to see one renewables generator - pointing out - even if only a fraction - of the predicted increasing costs we all face due to renewables roll out in the UK.

By 2030 remember NESO are forecasting that total balancing / (operating two generating systems) costs will be c£8bn pa.

And the former NGESO were forecasting £3bn alone due to grid thermal constraints

Lets hope the media focusses more on these - rather than going along with the greenwashing attempts at deception and past promises of universelly cheaper bills for all.

If DESNZ representatives can admit to the PAC in formal reporting that the policy is in reality failing - that renewables isn't lowering our bills cf fossil fuels - why can't our leaders be open and do the same for us.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/exclusive-government-admits-fossil-fuels-use-is-cheaper-than-net-zero-technology/ar-AA1H0xie?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds&apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1

Then we can have a real debate about whether the consequences of not acting are worth the costs.

And how we help those - like those not on £150k ministerial salaries or their highly paid cricles of advisors - actually afford the higher costs.

Inlcuding the £8bn in balancing by 2030

Including financing £55-77bn spend by 2030 by TNOs on networks

Including iirc c22bn over 25? years on CCS project development and trials.

Of course we curtail wind rather than nuclear because wind is more flexible but effectively we have too much power so the cost should be considered to also apply to whatever generation we are also using when the wind is curtailed. (Proviso this is curtailment due to overall generation not due to specific grid constraints)

No, its because we need the overcapacity because renewables are unreliable.

Their flexibility isn't a bonus when we have to pay regardless to access it.

If you had 2gw of coal plants and replace it with 2 gw of gas as we have on / off for decades now -  or nuclear which we havent been building much of uhtil Hinkley and now Sizewell  - thats pretty much the same level of availability.

If you take 2 GW of fossil or to some extent nuclear (and our capacity has dropped c2.5 GW actual in 2020s alone as 3 plants long after original design life taken off line / defuelling ) and replace it with 2gw of wind its not the same.

You might get 1.5GW plus in ideal conditions on a windy day - assuming you can transmit that power to market - we often cannot hence the predicted £3bn - and crucially sub 0.2 GW on a still one.

Last Jan we hit c5% this hit sub 2GW from over 30GW theoretical,  on cold winter days when demand averaging c40-45 GW.

The result being that in reality you cannot actually decommission the old fossil plant - it has to be their - for when renewables fails yet again to deliver any reasonable fraction of its rated power.

Are we really going to build say 10GW of wind, so as we can shut say 1 1 GW gas plant.

Well seems not.

And not only that we now have to replace them with new - as we are currently doing with at least 4 new plants authorised or propsed in last few years - the last in Wales reached BBC attention just 4 days ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3wnx84nx51o

But of course they will also operate at increased costs to support net zero and CCS in the distant future - if it can be made to work at scale - too.

Just one of the reasons ministers are happy to talk about renewables and nuclear relative savings in the distant future.  But the DESNZ openly admitting the failure to secure  absolute savings relative to today's fossil costs. 
Is they are the ones slavishly wedded to a failing renewables generation model - and with it driving those relative costs higher.

[British Energy budget has been reduced to iirc less than iitseven reduced c£8.3bn in manifesto as it now includes SMR nuclear as of Mar unplanned  allocation round - the cost of renewables to meet the 95% by 2030 - in the order of £200bn from private sector at old 2024 prices. 
And we know from Orsted's shelving plans Hornsea 4 2.4 GW farm that operators aren't playing ball at those rates (one estimate puts their cancellation costs north of £650m - giving a good idea of what they thought of reality vs £58/MWh at 2012 pre index pricing in ar6  - despite a near 60% increase over ar4.).
I  wonder just what public to private ratio might apply to the £22bn EM allocated to CCS over next 25 yrs.]

The green roll out isn't going to plan, and our demand isn't going up as much as predictions.

And when people see those £3bn and £8bn becone reality,  when they see standing charges go up in line with the £55-77bn on physical network spending, this is going to become I suspect a major if not the major political hot issue for many average and below income households by 2029.

Have to disagree, nuclear is not the same as demand following fossil fuel. Just like wind or solar it's output can not be modulated to reflect demand, in fact it is even less flexible in that it can't simply be switched off when there is excess capacity.  Or are you arguing our grid could cope with 100% nuclear generation.....

MattMattMattUK

michaels said:

Scot_39 said:

michaels said:

Scot_39 said:

Nice to see one renewables generator - pointing out - even if only a fraction - of the predicted increasing costs we all face due to renewables roll out in the UK.

By 2030 remember NESO are forecasting that total balancing / (operating two generating systems) costs will be c£8bn pa.

And the former NGESO were forecasting £3bn alone due to grid thermal constraints

Lets hope the media focusses more on these - rather than going along with the greenwashing attempts at deception and past promises of universelly cheaper bills for all.

If DESNZ representatives can admit to the PAC in formal reporting that the policy is in reality failing - that renewables isn't lowering our bills cf fossil fuels - why can't our leaders be open and do the same for us.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/exclusive-government-admits-fossil-fuels-use-is-cheaper-than-net-zero-technology/ar-AA1H0xie?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds&apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1

Then we can have a real debate about whether the consequences of not acting are worth the costs.

And how we help those - like those not on £150k ministerial salaries or their highly paid cricles of advisors - actually afford the higher costs.

Inlcuding the £8bn in balancing by 2030

Including financing £55-77bn spend by 2030 by TNOs on networks

Including iirc c22bn over 25? years on CCS project development and trials.

Of course we curtail wind rather than nuclear because wind is more flexible but effectively we have too much power so the cost should be considered to also apply to whatever generation we are also using when the wind is curtailed. (Proviso this is curtailment due to overall generation not due to specific grid constraints)

No, its because we need the overcapacity because renewables are unreliable.

Their flexibility isn't a bonus when we have to pay regardless to access it.

If you had 2gw of coal plants and replace it with 2 gw of gas as we have on / off for decades now -  or nuclear which we havent been building much of uhtil Hinkley and now Sizewell  - thats pretty much the same level of availability.

If you take 2 GW of fossil or to some extent nuclear (and our capacity has dropped c2.5 GW actual in 2020s alone as 3 plants long after original design life taken off line / defuelling ) and replace it with 2gw of wind its not the same.

You might get 1.5GW plus in ideal conditions on a windy day - assuming you can transmit that power to market - we often cannot hence the predicted £3bn - and crucially sub 0.2 GW on a still one.

Last Jan we hit c5% this hit sub 2GW from over 30GW theoretical,  on cold winter days when demand averaging c40-45 GW.

The result being that in reality you cannot actually decommission the old fossil plant - it has to be their - for when renewables fails yet again to deliver any reasonable fraction of its rated power.

Are we really going to build say 10GW of wind, so as we can shut say 1 1 GW gas plant.

Well seems not.

And not only that we now have to replace them with new - as we are currently doing with at least 4 new plants authorised or propsed in last few years - the last in Wales reached BBC attention just 4 days ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3wnx84nx51o

But of course they will also operate at increased costs to support net zero and CCS in the distant future - if it can be made to work at scale - too.

Just one of the reasons ministers are happy to talk about renewables and nuclear relative savings in the distant future.  But the DESNZ openly admitting the failure to secure  absolute savings relative to today's fossil costs. 
Is they are the ones slavishly wedded to a failing renewables generation model - and with it driving those relative costs higher.

[British Energy budget has been reduced to iirc less than iitseven reduced c£8.3bn in manifesto as it now includes SMR nuclear as of Mar unplanned  allocation round - the cost of renewables to meet the 95% by 2030 - in the order of £200bn from private sector at old 2024 prices. 
And we know from Orsted's shelving plans Hornsea 4 2.4 GW farm that operators aren't playing ball at those rates (one estimate puts their cancellation costs north of £650m - giving a good idea of what they thought of reality vs £58/MWh at 2012 pre index pricing in ar6  - despite a near 60% increase over ar4.).
I  wonder just what public to private ratio might apply to the £22bn EM allocated to CCS over next 25 yrs.]

The green roll out isn't going to plan, and our demand isn't going up as much as predictions.

And when people see those £3bn and £8bn becone reality,  when they see standing charges go up in line with the £55-77bn on physical network spending, this is going to become I suspect a major if not the major political hot issue for many average and below income households by 2029.

Have to disagree, nuclear is not the same as demand following fossil fuel. Just like wind or solar it's output can not be modulated to reflect demand, in fact it is even less flexible in that it can't simply be switched off when there is excess capacity.  

The French operate most of their reactors in load following, though it does make them much less efficient than they should be. There are plans to change that going forward storing excess generation rather than the limited exports, producing hydrogen from splitting water and some other ideas.

michaels said:
Or are you arguing our grid could cope with 100% nuclear generation.....

Probably not it it's current form, but it absolutely could with some additional storage for load levelling and proper ToU to throttle demand somewhat.

Scot_39

Have to disagree, nuclear is not the same as demand following fossil fuel. Just like wind or solar it's output can not be modulated to reflect demand, in fact it is even less flexible in that it can't simply be switched off when there is excess capacity.  Or are you arguing our grid could cope with 100% nuclear generation.....

Actually not that it is in any way reletive to my points regarding the fundamental weakness of our renewables generation without storage to match - unreliability - or as some greens prefer intermittency.

But Re load following nuclear - your out of date.

Although your right that does apply to most of our current (and their aging - as remember we have run many well beyond their original design life) it is not true of modern designs - with nuclear plant requirements targets / design / capability - and reactors of the EPR type referenced below actually now in service in the EU.

From admittedly a nuclear spokes group

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/advanced-nuclear-power-reactors

"Another departure is that most will be designed for load-following. European Utility Requirements (EUR) since 2001 specify that new reactor designs must be capable of load-following between 50 and 100% of capacity. While most French reactors are operated in that mode to some extent, the EPR design has better capabilities. It will be able to maintain its output at 25% and then ramp up to full output at a rate of 2.5% of rated power per minute up to 60% output and at 5% of rated output per minute up to full rated power. This means that potentially the unit can change its output from 25% to 100% in less than 30 minutes, though this may be at some expense of wear and tear"

I am not sure if the exact EPR design from the builder for the cores for Hinkley and Sizewell - have achieved that range or rate - but they are fundamentally - new demand following designs.

But the actual contract for Hinkley C (and given the price was at one stage discounted to a joint Hinkley / Sizewell discounted rate, assume both) pricing is iirc based on 100% utilisation - which of course helps keep nuclear CfDs down (sub £100/MWh now both ?) - but the contract at one stage I am sure read somewhere back in the 2010's - has an option to renogetiate to allow load following down to a level (was the % specified - not sure - if was cannot remember it now - anyone ??) should it be required.

But if at that full 25% to 100% range - than yes nuclear could in theory more than cover day to night and summer to winter (say around average of 20GW overnight recently, and winter typically in the 40-45GW daily average demand range)

Future Mix

No I am not suggesting it should all be conventional large scale nuclear.  Just purely because UK is particularly poor at delivering such projects.

But as above this really isn't about load following - it's about day to day - hour to hour ability to rely on power availability.  And the renewables lows mean we really cannot.  

Even the wind industry spokes sites admit load factors of around 30% on average - lower from onshore - around 25% - so we need 3-4x the capacity to meat demand on average - and of course with lows in the 5-10% range - 10-20x - if ever to abondon fossil or nuclear.

Wind and solar - now c50GW theoretical - and as includes solar - thats often mid day - so not peak demand in winter - c32 GW wind, c18 GW solar (that figure a few months old and includes c5.5 GW of domestic solar - some of which of course will not be consistently exported) 

And given dates in AR4,AR5,AR6 licensing - with the bulk of another 19GW to come - adding up 2025/26 onwards columns from the auction results documentation.  

Not that it will likely now all happen to schedule - as 2/3rd of the new offshore wind licensed in AR6 has already seen plans shelved - as Orsted no longer currently going ahead with their 2.4GW Hornsea 4 project. (But fully expect them to be given a higher price to do so imminently - to help meet UK's unique 95% by 2030 - 20 years ahead of 2050 in the final Paris accord target - just as they were for Hornsea 3 under the permitted reduction rules - that had c1.5GW of generation - including 1GW+ of Hornsea 3 repriced).

Against a current UK summer demand yesterday of 20-32 GW and last winter around 45 GW daily max.  

So on the rare days when wind does deliver 70% plus (the average load factor even on wind spokes sites - more like 30% - even lower for onshore) - the UK currently has GW of excess generating capacity - or would have if could transmit it all.

 

So it would be far better to start focussing more - far more - on accelerating storage than raw generating capability - especially so if we seriously want to eleminate fossil generation - and on networks from generators to store sites and from both live and stored to deliver energy nationwide.

And it really doesn't have to be expensive large scale projects like Coire Glas or many of the others awaiting approval of new financing models (like Earba last time I read the status) and many others that have been proposed - with this list adding to nearly 200 GWh of projects - if include those in progress - and they say not fully comprehensive.

https://british-hydro.org/pumped-storage-hydropower/

To put the current mess into perspective.  Take one on that list

Ben Cruachan / or technically Cruachan PSH plant that sites below it - was built (1959 to 65) largely in line with and in part (large part) to smooth out Hunterston A (built 1957-1964) - nuclear plant delivery vs demand back in the day

If only we could build nuclear plant in 7 years these days. Even the govt optimistic I suspect plan for Sizewell C is iirc "at least 10" years.

If only we took a more parallel approach to renewables location, transmission needs and costs - we might not be looking at £3bn in grid thermal constraint payments.   (And thats not all set in stone - and could be reduced simply by freezing much of that oustanding 19 GW - or not building it in to others on short term delivery in AR7 or even beyond as onshore wind and solar often only on 1-2 yr delivery basis) 

And then theirs the farce that saw us decommission nuclear power we could rely on - at the time of greatest need.  Without having built a single replacement for nearly 30 years.

The later Hunterston B (one of the last to close in UK in Jan 22 iirc for defuelling) - went ironically just ahead of Russia's invasion in Feb 22 and the resulting gas crisis began - its sister plant Hinkley Point B - was taken off line in Aug 2022 - actually during the war and near peak of our energy crisis - the Oct 22 price cap £3549 - the second highest - so Truss - for a very short time our PM - introduced the lower £2500 EPG cap to protect 10s millions of households). 

But storage doesn't have to be on that Coire Glas sort of scale.

Winter heat stores - the Scandanivians have done work on psuedo grain silo sized heat batteries for instance

Building more so called green hydrogen plant - arguably a more direct and in terms of mineral mining - greener replacement - for diesel / petrol ICE for long distance or goods vehicles etc. 

And many others to be found.

michaels

Thanks. Interesting that new nuke can start to load follow although would be interested in whether that impacts the economics?