Wind Power may not be as cheap in the future as people would like to think.

Dolor

This analysis of the state of the wind turbine market makes interesting - and worrying - reading. The Government has hitched its cart to the belief that more wind power will lead to cheaper energy.

https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/

The thrust of the article is summed up here:

‘The rapid increases in balancing and curtailment costs indicate that the GB grid is struggling to accommodate the intermittent renewable generation it already has – it makes sense to properly digest what has already been built before hurrying to build more. It might be smarter to focus attention on investments in grid infrastructure and demand reductions rather than pushing for ever larger amounts of wind capacity, in a competitive international market. But either way, the Government needs to recognise economic reality and ensure its policies are coherent: if it wants a lot more wind capacity to be built it needs to understand that costs are rising and therefore the investment landscape needs to be made more attractive, whether this is through higher CfD strike prices, tax breaks or other incentives. Failing to think this through risks leaving UK taxpayers with the worst of all worlds.’

Siemens’ problems are covered in more depth here:

https://electrek.co/2023/06/23/siemens-gamesa-big-wind-turbine-problems/

Farway

Dolor said:

This analysis of the state of the wind turbine market makes interesting - and worrying - reading. The Government has hitched its cart to the belief that more wind power will lead to cheaper energy.

https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/

The thrust of the article is summed up here:

‘The rapid increases in balancing and curtailment costs indicate that the GB grid is struggling to accommodate the intermittent renewable generation it already has – it makes sense to properly digest what has already been built before hurrying to build more. It might be smarter to focus attention on investments in grid infrastructure and demand reductions rather than pushing for ever larger amounts of wind capacity, in a competitive international market. But either way, the Government needs to recognise economic reality and ensure its policies are coherent: if it wants a lot more wind capacity to be built it needs to understand that costs are rising and therefore the investment landscape needs to be made more attractive, whether this is through higher CfD strike prices, tax breaks or other incentives. Failing to think this through risks leaving UK taxpayers with the worst of all worlds.’

Siemens’ problems are covered in more depth here:

https://electrek.co/2023/06/23/siemens-gamesa-big-wind-turbine-problems/

Not much chance of logic, reality or coherent policies breaking out when top priority is Green washing, no fracking, no new oil, shut down power stations, etc etc

mumf

It takes fossil fuels to make,transport,maintain and replace wind turbines and solar panels. Don’t need to be particularly clever to get that. Mind you,politicians think we are stupid- just like them! 

michaels

Agree, and whilst in my remaining few of decades my life will be adversely impacted by global warming through heat waves, flooding and food shortages, I will be dead before the excrement really hits the fan so why should I care whether there are adverse impacts of using ever more fossil fuel.

No doubt someone will be along soon to say 'but in China' - perhaps look at what is happening in China first....

Qyburn

I don't think anyone seriously thought wind power was cheap. That's why it needed the huge subsidies, direct in the ROC and FIT days, and indirect now in that they have a guaranteed market for their energy even if we have to pay people to use it. And if they're ever required to shutdown they're paid for that as well.

Scot_39

Too many greenwashing articles revel in the headlines like the c3.7p (2012 indexing - more like 5p now) prices in the latest auction - or the recent record high share of generation mix - and think that's the be all and end all.

But that 3.7p literally only the wholesale price.

Forgetting the literally £billions spent on grid work needed to connect it - e.g. one example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_HVDC

Just those two DC links - £3.4bn = a big number - but over say 28-29million homes - £120 + interest over n years per household.

Nor the now estimated £1.5bn for likes of Coire Glas PS Hydro project. Or similarly the billions of pounds needed to scale other forms - like battery farms.

And yes all that ends up on our bills - in standing charges and unit rates.

And the other route we seem headed on for far too long - the overcapacity route.

To cope with winds average output of around 30-40%+ depending on who you believe.

But even that ignores the true test - to keep the lights on - for UK energy security - it's low output(*).

(*)Wind hit just 1.3GW iirc in recent cold snap in Dec - around 4.5% of installed capacity - only 3% of national demand

We are already committed to being overcapacity at rated // possibly even high oberved output hours / days even whole weeks (about 60% according to grid iamkate for a whole week).

With c29GW wind installed at end of 2022 - and over 14 GW new wind - and 2.2GW solar - auctioned for 2023-2027 delivery.

By 2027 - thats -  45GW design capacity in place

 - 45 /27 = 1.66x - current summer demand of typically 26-27 GW.

- or Strip out say 5GW of nuclear core gen - thats more like 45/21 = 2.2 x demand. 

I hate to think how much we could be paying not to use that over capacity.

Estimates vary for current costs - but they are in the £100s millions.

We certainly don't seem to have any plans to store enough.

And how much we are - and we will still be paying - for 10's of GW of gas power plants - to be ready and willing to take over - when renewables all too regularly isn't delivering.

We are even building new gas plant - to test out tech like carbon capture / storage - as generators know we are still going to be burning fossil fuels to meet demand. That net zero means net - not zero fossils.

And for god sake - lets have a far more integrated approach.

The 2022 auction target delivery dates 2025-2027 - schemes like EGL2 - to ship some of that power south - target date 2029.

A 2 year gap. Absolutely no point in building capacity that cannot be used - and then paying for it not to be used - which I am sure we contractually could be.

And for individual projects - say solar panels on an industrial building scale - their is reportedly queues of over 10 yrs to be connected - killing any chance of investment in many cases.

All future renewables decisions - should be based not only on the raw generation cost - but the total cost - extra grid distribution costs, storage costs, compensating payments etc.

Only then can it be fairly compared to conventional generation like gas and if want to avoid emissions - the whole point - nuclear.

I suspect the retail price of say nuclear is far closer to renewables - than the CfD 10p vs 3.7p pricing suggests. 

Put simply -

Build 3GW nuclear plant - you can shut down 3GW of old dirty gas or biomass.

Build 3GW wind without storage - need to green almost 3GW of gas and still use it regulary - nearly all of it occassionally - and pay the cost for both.

Build 3GW wind + storage - enough to close gas with confidence - then 3.7p isn't 3.7p anymore.

Chrysalis

Yes, this was published in the news a few months back, essentially the grid hasnt kept up with investments by industry and hasnt capacity to connect it all up.

This further fuels my thoughts that the grid is being run really inefficiently, it has billions in revenue to pay for its costs currently.  It even makes a very healthy profit as well.  Which I didnt know until just now googling to confirm their revenue.

They have 4.8 billion in profit which can be used to pay for expansion before more charges could be imposed.

CSI_Yorkshire

Scot_39 said:

Put simply -

Build 3GW nuclear plant - you can shut down 3GW of old dirty gas or biomass.

Build 3GW wind without storage - need to green almost 3GW of gas and still use it regulary - nearly all of it occassionally - and pay the cost for both.

Build 3GW wind + storage - enough to close gas with confidence - then 3.7p isn't 3.7p anymore.

Not quite right, but the general picture is true enough.

Each generation type (and interconnectors and storage) has a de-rating factor used to work out how much of its nameplate capacity can be assumed to be "firm" when working out how many power stations to build/decommission - like in the capacity market auctions.

Latest figures for CCGTs are 91.34%, with biomass at 87.99%, but nuclear only comes in at 78.25%.

Storage has a huge range, depending on its time-rating (i.e. how long it can run at full output before being empty), from 95.25% all the way to 5.95%.

Interconnector ratings depend massively on the assumptions you make about what other countries might do with their power stations.

Renewables also have a wide range, but that's between the different technology types - RoR hydro has highest availability (in the 90%s), with reservoir hydro close behind, wind next and solar PV bottom of the three (at <5%).

QrizB

Dolor said:

This analysis of the state of the wind turbine market makes interesting - and worrying - reading. The Government has hitched its cart to the belief that more wind power will lead to cheaper energy.
https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/

It's worth noting that the author of that blog has his own prejudices.

In my opinion, the article bends the truth to reach its conclusion.

He quotes GE Renewable Energy's CEO from a conference in 2022 stating that "steel is going up three times" without then noting that, as of today, steel is back down to 2019 prices (see for example https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/steel ).

He is correct that Siemens have given a profits warning, without explaining that this is down to Siemens' own QA/WC failures resulting in warranty liabilities. Yjis is specific to Siemens not to the industry as a whole.

I also pick a bone with his capex/opex claims. His argument that wind power isn't getting cheaper is based on £/MW having remained constant and ignores that newer wind farms generally have higher capacity factors (see for example https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors ) and so the £/GWh will have fallen commensurately. I would suggest that £/GWh is a more realistic comparison than £/MW.

I know I'm not going to convince many people (I'm just an anonymous poster on an internet forum) but the flaws in the article are clear if you know where to look.

Scot_39

Never really looked into grid level capacity calcs.

But used to the concept of ratings (machines, power electronics etc - and some of the myriad variations on just the simple rating plate numbers). 

doodling

Hi,

QrizB said:

Dolor said:

This analysis of the state of the wind turbine market makes interesting - and worrying - reading. The Government has hitched its cart to the belief that more wind power will lead to cheaper energy.
https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/

It's worth noting that the author of that blog has his own prejudices.

In my opinion, the article bends the truth to reach its conclusion.

He quotes GE Renewable Energy's CEO from a conference in 2022 stating that "steel is going up three times" without then noting that, as of today, steel is back down to 2019 prices (see for example https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/steel ).

He is correct that Siemens have given a profits warning, without explaining that this is down to Siemens' own QA/WC failures resulting in warranty liabilities. Yjis is specific to Siemens not to the industry as a whole.

I also pick a bone with his capex/opex claims. His argument that wind power isn't getting cheaper is based on £/MW having remained constant and ignores that newer wind farms generally have higher capacity factors (see for example https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors ) and so the £/GWh will have fallen commensurately. I would suggest that £/GWh is a more realistic comparison than £/MW.

I know I'm not going to convince many people (I'm just an anonymous poster on an internet forum) but the flaws in the article are clear if you know where to look.

The costs of wind generation on a per GW or GWh basis are meaningless unless either a) you only need to use the electricity when the wind is blowing or b) they also include the costs of the infrastructure to cover for the times when the wind isn't blowing.

Just wait till someone costs up a 2GW / 100GWh hydrogen based energy storage facility to start to see how much wind really costs.  Note that once you get the price for that  and have retaken your seat  then you need to realise that it is only a  technology demonstrator, not the solution to wind's intermittency, which would need to be much, much bigger (15x power, 100x energy).