No bids for offshore wind in government auction

[Deleted User]

Another energy story in the news today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66749344

Is this good news or bad news?

la531983

Hanging their hat on wind power when a) on a day today wind isnt even generating 1% of the UKs needs (coal is currently producing three times more), and b) on a day when there is far too much wind power generated, there is no real way of storing the excess and consumers on certain tariffs are paid to use electric.

QrizB

[Deleted User] said:

Another energy story in the news today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66749344

Is this good news or bad news?

In the short term, it's bad news. We get fewer fixed-price offshore wind projects funded, which means a slower transition away from fossil fuels and (potentially) more volatile energy prices towards the end of this decade.

In the longer term, it flags up the need for changes to the auction reference prices. If these are implemented in time for next year's auction, we will hopefullly see a return to the situation where the auctions are fully-subscribed.

mongoose2009

all the cheap moneys gone

no cheap money = no subsidy

no subsidy = no green

Scot_39

This should be taken as a good oppertunity to review the current hideous imbalances in the uk energy generation policy caused by the rush to renewables without adequate storage "on the cheap" and uk energy security policies.

But our politicians have shown they are likely to fail us once again - as they have done for decades.

We don't currently need more unreliable wind capacity - we need serious investment in grid in real time and storage to better utilise - to deliver to market and store excess when it occurs -  the c45GW planned installed capacity by 2027 after last 2 auction rounds.

If - and its an if - the last 2 auctions worth of schemes are implemented the uk will have 45GW installed commercial renewables. 

5GW domestic solar, small scale office and industrial etc. - many more of which reportedly stalled due to no grid connection availability for years has a complex mix of benefits and problems too for grid.

Yet with the c30 GW already installed  - mostly wind at the commercial level (although round 4 did include c2.2GW commercial solar) - wind managed to deliver just 1GW average over last 24 hours - and yesterday afternoon less than 0.35 GW of power.

And that solar will of course be largely useless for more than half the day come winter  (it only provided meaningful output for 12 hours yesterday).

It is not the solution for reliable power - it never has been and never will be at the current false headline levels - like the CfD auction rates - possible all in costs not even at a cost effective level vs carbon capture fossils or vs others like nuclear.  

And unless we committ to back firms to build 100s GWh if not in fact by some estimates several 1000s of GWh of genuinely long term storage to cover hours of non delivery from solar - or weeks of non delivery by wind - we will be stuck with paying for both - building or maintaining both conventional (fossil - with green emissions controls - so carbon capture or storage tech, nuclear etc) and renewables.

And that storage just isnt happening at scale in UK to match renewables theoretical capacity.

And the costs of the storage and the grid network costs to integrate and adapt management systems to cope with it are non trivial.  As reflected in our daily and future bills.

And only add to the costs of maintaining and upgrading the grid - the pylons and the cables on them and its now aging regulation systems.

We are building battery farms that store - say recent example one of Europes largest on line to date - near Luton - 100 MWh, that's enough energy to replace a nuclear plant like Hinkley Cs 3.2 GW design output for  less than 2mins.  Cost estimates vary - but c£30m.

We may even yet build Coire Glas pumped hydro - 30GW storage 1.5 GW max power - at an original c£1bn at planning stage  - already now £1.5bn - completion ?. The entrance tunnel test bore has recently been given board approval (with aid of £100m UK taxpayer's money). We would need over 2 of those to replace Hinkley C 3.2 GW Output for 20 hours. Let alone the supposed average from 45GW of renewables by 2027.

And it's nowhere near enough or likely to happen quick enough.  From
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-65015217
However, Prof Bell injected a note of caution, saying: "We need a lot more energy storage capacity to get rid of fossil fuels completely... probably 10 to 50 times greater even than the capacity of Coire Glas."

And as above the cheap money market rates are gone (for now, possibly for ever) and UK govt in debt up to it's eyeballs - having squandered its extended BofE QE credit line - e.g. On mishandling Covid.

Wind and solar without backup storage - is a green solution - worse yet a politically greenwashed solution for decades - not a reliable energy solution.

And increasing renewables capacity under current contracts is just going to add £100s millions / billions more to amount paid annually to generators not to generate.

Especially as grid capacity additions needed to transport some of the existing let alone GW of the 15GW sold in last two auction rounds - is running years behind the as/as licensed install dates. 

All this overcapacity has been great for people on tariffs like agile and tracker on a windy day in the short term - but just another increasing hidden green expense for those on predictable or secured supply basis Ofgem regulated and fixed deal contract.

I would love to see a minimum storage requirement built into all future supply auctions - say to smooth out solar over a day - and wind maybe over 1 week minimum - but fear our greenwashing politicians - would not want that cost so easily available for others to see.

There is a real ground swell against green energy policy costs.  Just wait until they do prevent replacement gas boilers impacting c 24 million homes.
Harvie et al already trying to push to reduce time scales in Scotland - it's not exactly being greeted with widespread support.  As average temperatures make the often weak tech ashp sold widely  in uk too inefficient.  And especially as c40% homes in Scotland are flats - across a wide range of income groups - where ashp ofen just not an option.

[Deleted User]

From today’s Telegraph which has a number of interesting commentaries on this issue:

‘The lie of cheap offshore wind has been exposed. If we want the true picture, then Net Zero Watch have estimated real costs around £125/MWh by reviewing developer accounts, whereas the CEO of developer SSE pointed to Ireland’s strike price of €150 (£129)/MWh as a signal of what would persuade him to invest again. ‘

The Department of Energy was hoping for a strike price of £44/MWh!

GingerTim

I'm not sure 'Net Zero Watch' of Tufton Street are impartial observers in this!

Scot_39

I am definitely sure most commentators from the green lobby and renewables suppliers are not impartial either.

And they frequently get far more media coverage - often without attempting any such "all costs" analysis to back their repeated "cheap" claims.

Or greewashed "good news" headlines.

How many reported about the low CfD pricing ?

How many of them reported yesterday's 0.35GW style lows compared to how many crowing about the 21GW highs - albeit for just 1 1/2 hr slot in Nov then Dec ?

How many report on the fact that now gas prices more reasonable cf crisis highs - old renewables post 2012 cfd introduction -- despite a low average share of UK generation mix - under CfD pricing -  is once again costing us all money directly ?

At tdcv cap - currently £10, next month cap it rises to £15.

And a substantial chunk of the network costs are to integrate that existing and newly auctioned renewables supply into the grid.

You can accept the greening costs - but it really is about time we were given an accurate true cost.

Something we cannot even rely on our green agenda driven leaders to provide honestly.

And not have to rely on dubious groups at either end of the green agenda lobby with a clear self interest in their reporting.

markin

They could have named their price? But headline like 'new wind 2x more expensive than HPC' would not be good for future business.

born_again

Perhaps instead of investing billions in building these massive projects. They turn to the buildings we already have & use these where suitable to invest in solar or small wind for more direct local usage.

spot1034

Scot_39 said:

I am definitely sure most commentators from the green lobby and renewables suppliers are not impartial either.

And they frequently get far more media coverage - often without attempting any such "all costs" analysis to back their repeated "cheap" claims.

Or greewashed "good news" headlines.

How many reported about the low CfD pricing ?

How many of them reported yesterday's 0.35GW style lows compared to how many crowing about the 21GW highs - albeit for just 1 1/2 hr slot in Nov then Dec ?

How many report on the fact that now gas prices more reasonable cf crisis highs - old renewables post 2012 cfd introduction -- despite a low average share of UK generation mix - under CfD pricing -  is once again costing us all money directly ?

At tdcv cap - currently £10, next month cap it rises to £15.

And a substantial chunk of the network costs are to integrate that existing and newly auctioned renewables supply into the grid.

You can accept the greening costs - but it really is about time we were given an accurate true cost.

Something we cannot even rely on our green agenda driven leaders to provide honestly.

And not have to rely on dubious groups at either end of the green agenda lobby with a clear self interest in their reporting.

I've just heard a news report giving today's 'record' temperature as measured at Heathrow Airport. Given that airports are heat islands with lots of concrete and big buildings absorbing and storing heat, and you then have the jet engines contributing extra blasts of hot air I can't help but wonder whether the temperature in a field in open countryside a few miles away from the airport might be a more sensible comparison with historic data.