Adventures in an all electric vehicle.

[fizzy]

Most of the current schemes are operated on a Cfd contract? Meaning the price of the commodity is fixed for the term of the contract. If the price of the generation falls below the contracted price, the difference is made up, as a subsidy, and if the price goes above the agreed rate, the generator has to forego the difference - meaning, in this case, the extra revenue goes to the government. I expect the government received some hefty income during the recent power crisis. Older arrangements are different, of course.

The current spate of off-shore wind farms planned, but not being built, is simply down to the interest rate hikes costing more to finance the building/installation. Once built and paid for, the operating costs are far better than burning fossil fuels - as the energy is free.

Construction costs have risen due to inflation. Not just interest rates. Wages. Energy costs to manufacturer. Raw materials.
I would much rather see British people employed building SMRs. Good quality engineering and welding jobs.

 

[fizzy]

Florida - the one that’s third in the list of US states for the amount of pv installed?

And the US that’s no2 in countries for pv installed?

I drove around for 2 weeks and saw nothing. Our hotel was pretty high. Didn't see anything on the rooftops. Drive along the M4 and solar farms all over the place!

 

[fizzy]

France is currently putting out 20g of CO2 per kw/h
Britain 120g
Germany 220g
France is getting 75% of its power from nuclear.
The answer is so obvious but people just can't grasp it.
Unless of course you think CO2 is meaningless and climate change a con.

Live 24/7 CO₂ emissions of electricity consumption

Electricity Maps is a live 24/7 visualization of where your electricity comes from and how much CO2 was emitted to produce it.

app.electricitymaps.com

 

[fizzy]

Anyway off to bed. Tank museum today.
No electric ones. Maybe saving the environment not a top priority when you are blowing it up

 

[daleyd]

Well they are bad, in the way that you can’t guarantee their output at any time, so you have to run gas powered stations on standby, just in case, hence pushing up the cost of supply. Sure, the Co2 emissions come down, but prices don’t. Hence it will never work. (I say this as someone who works in the energy sector, and having built getting on for 20 “embedded” hydro schemes). Hydro being the most predictable of course, but tiny in the scale of things. What could change this is a few large scale pumped hydro schemes, capable of running long enough to start up any gas or other schemes..

From what I’ve read, the “standby premium” for wind currently comes in about 12% for offshore and 16% for onshore wind, and is factored in to the levelised costs. So while there is an overhead in providing this, it’s still a cheap energy source.

The main issue still seems to be the way the energy market works, with all generators being paid the rate for the highest generator cost (or rather the cost of the last unit disconnected from the grid, which is invariably gas) , rather than the true cost - until this gets fixed then we seem to be at the mercy of gas prices.

 

[minimutly]

From what I’ve read, the “standby premium” for wind currently comes in about 12% for offshore and 16% for onshore wind, and is factored in to the levelised costs. So while there is an overhead in providing this, it’s still a cheap energy source.

The main issue still seems to be the way the energy market works, with all generators being paid the rate for the highest generator cost (or rather the cost of the last unit disconnected from the grid, which is invariably gas) , rather than the true cost - until this gets fixed then we seem to be at the mercy of gas prices.

You’re contradicting yourself there - if you pay renewables less, then the incentive to build them reduces...
And still ignoring the simple fact that sometimes, for long periods the wind just does not blow - it’s a fact, and because of this, no matter how many turbines you have, 100 times nothing is still nothing - hence you have to have an alternative. It’s so basically obvious...
So if you want to disconnect the product price from the product, what do you want to use as the pricing mechanism? Go back to my first sentence in this post for help...

 

[daleyd]

You’re contradicting yourself there - if you pay renewables less, then the incentive to build them reduces...
And still ignoring the simple fact that sometimes, for long periods the wind just does not blow - it’s a fact, and because of this, no matter how many turbines you have, 100 times nothing is still nothing - hence you have to have an alternative. It’s so basically obvious...
So if you want to disconnect the product price from the product, what do you want to use as the pricing mechanism? Go back to my first sentence in this post for help...

I don't think I've contradicted anything, as I dont think ive said what you think I have?

I don't have the answers, and fairly obviously it's not going to be easy to change, but as it stands currently this is the situation we are in.

The alternatives seem to be more nuclear (probably a good thing, and something we are doing - but a longtime to build, and has its own issues) or scrap renewables and use more gas, which doesn't seem palatable either.

 

[not done it yet]

Construction costs have risen due to inflation. Not just interest rates. Wages. Energy costs to manufacturer. Raw materials.
I would much rather see British people employed building SMRs. Good quality engineering and welding jobs.

So too, would the ‘strike price’ - however it is calculated (inflation rate, RPI, CPI, etc?) at the contract signing stage.

Let’s look at these ‘strike prices’ a bit. The ‘strike price for the hinkley c nuclear was about £92/MWh - hate to think how much that has increased to, now. That cost will be paid (and inflated) over 35 years of production? Now , what was the strike price for these wind farms? Less than £40/MWh?

And here you are telling us new nuclear generation is cheap. Your children and grandchildren will be paying for it!

These cancelled (or postponed) wind turbines will, for sure, be built at a better strike price - but still far, far lower than that for hinkley c. Do go away and work out the real differences in lifetime cost of nuclear versus the equivalent volume of wind farm electricity produced. Your calculations would shut down your claims of price comparison. Yes, we need some nuclear for a diversified generation portfolio - but it is going to cost £billions compared to renewables.

 

[fizzy]

So too, would the ‘strike price’ - however it is calculated (inflation rate, RPI, CPI, etc?) at the contract signing stage.

Let’s look at these ‘strike prices’ a bit. The ‘strike price for the hinkley c nuclear was about £92/MWh - hate to think how much that has increased to, now. That cost will be paid (and inflated) over 35 years of production? Now , what was the strike price for these wind farms? Less than £40/MWh?

And here you are telling us new nuclear generation is cheap. Your children and grandchildren will be paying for it!

These cancelled (or postponed) wind turbines will, for sure, be built at a better strike price - but still far, far lower than that for hinkley c. Do go away and work out the real differences in lifetime cost of nuclear versus the equivalent volume of wind farm electricity produced. Your calculations would shut down your claims of price comparison. Yes, we need some nuclear for a diversified generation portfolio - but it is going to cost £billions compared to renewables.

I have. Look at the prices of the Rolls Royce SMRs.
The strike prices for wind were just to grab the contracts. People knew they could never be fulfilled as has been shown by them pulling out.
Why does France have cheaper electricity than us?

 

[not done it yet]

The strike prices for wind were just to grab the contracts. People knew they could never be fulfilled as has been shown by them pulling out.

Achieved by basically a Dutch auction by tender, yes. But plenty out there that are happily operating at strike prices of only a tenner, or less, above the ones to which you are so eagerly referring (not yet constructed). A huge difference between 50 quid and 105 quid - for exactly the same item.

 

[addjunkie]

Why does France have cheaper electricity than us?

Two reasons, firstly if they didnt they would protest properly as the french do, and givernment would fix it for fear of another revolution.
An secondly they have built their power stations in days gone by, not trebbled the price of the new ones by spending at least 10 years talking through the planning stages.

 

[fizzy]

Achieved by basically a Dutch auction by tender, yes. But plenty out there that are happily operating at strike prices of only a tenner, or less, above the ones to which you are so eagerly referring (not yet constructed). A huge difference between 50 quid and 105 quid - for exactly the same item.

Does that low price include the vast amounts they are paid to stop generating when there is too much wind?
And who exactly has bid on and sticks to £10 per mw/h? Figures please?
Cheapest around is £45 per mw/h. Way off your £10! And many of these cheap deals are yet to deliver.
www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds
In fact plenty of windfarms are over £100!

 

[not done it yet]

They have realised the folly of this and are back on track

ERR no! The reason for the back-tracking is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Nothing else! They inow the reactors are close to the end of their life, but had no alternative than to restart them after the invasion actions - because the whole of Europe was affected by sanctions, gas pipelines, etc.

Pleeease, Fizzy, get real and don’t expect everyone to be hood-winked by your tunnel vision.

 

[fizzy]

ERR no! The reason for the back-tracking is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Nothing else! They inow the reactors are close to the end of their life, but had no alternative than to restart them after the invasion actions - because the whole of Europe was affected by sanctions, gas pipelines, etc.

Pleeease, Fizzy, get real and don’t expect everyone to be hood-winked by your tunnel vision.

£10 per mw/h?
And why should we be so reliant on gas?

 

[daleyd]

£10 per mw/h?
And why should we be so reliant on gas?

Seeing as any new nuclear isn’t going to be built at the wave of a hand, despite what you might think, we are where we are.

Now only 1 country I’m the entire world has gone down the nuclear route to the extent that France has, and given the upcoming pain they will be facing in terms of decommissioning costs and timescales then there’s no real surprise they are scaling back on their previous ambitions. They will still be decommissioning their first gen stuff after the current generation has been switched off. Edf are all but nationalised and crippled by cost overruns and debts. Lots of electricity costs in France are hidden by adding them to the state budget.

Why would this be? Could it that France and France alone has the right idea and every other country on the planet doesn’t? Or could it be that there’s probably some balance to be had that lies somewhere in between?

More nuclear? Of course. But let’s not pretend it isn’t actually quite difficult and actually expensive, or that it will ever be nuclear only.

 

[minimutly]

I don't think I've contradicted anything, as I dont think ive said what you think I have?

I don't have the answers, and fairly obviously it's not going to be easy to change, but as it stands currently this is the situation we are in.

The alternatives seem to be more nuclear (probably a good thing, and something we are doing - but a longtime to build, and has its own issues) or scrap renewables and use more gas, which doesn't seem palatable either.

My take was you were supporting more renewables, and you did suggest the price for renewable generation should not be based on the gas price - which infers it should be lower (by ad,iiedly an undefined amount).
So if I got that wrong then forgive me. Personally I wonder what level of on/offshore wind the renewables lobby will be happy at? Two or three times our peak demand? Clearly this will have issues in terms of standby enforcement costs (and therefore viability), but also of course that amount is not likely to be enough when the wind doesn’t blow. So it’s doomed to failure, ultimately?

 

[daleyd]

My take was you were supporting more renewables, and you did suggest the price for renewable generation should not be based on the gas price - which infers it should be lower (by ad,iiedly an undefined amount).
So if I got that wrong then forgive me. Personally I wonder what level of on/offshore wind the renewables lobby will be happy at? Two or three times our peak demand? Clearly this will have issues in terms of standby enforcement costs (and therefore viability), but also of course that amount is not likely to be enough when the wind doesn’t blow. So it’s doomed to failure, ultimately?

I don’t really know a huge amount it, and I’m not supporting renewables really - but the bits I have read suggest that the “standby premium” is already factored in.

There was a huge uptake in renewables when the gas price was much lower so presumably that price was OK?

It’s the same for any other non gas energy source, not just wind (nuclear,hydro etc). They all get higher prices despite their operating costs being static. No one complained or cared when gas prices were low.

 

[fizzy]

Seeing as any new nuclear isn’t going to be built at the wave of a hand, despite what you might think, we are where we are.

Now only 1 country I’m the entire world has gone down the nuclear route to the extent that France has, and given the upcoming pain they will be facing in terms of decommissioning costs and timescales then there’s no real surprise they are scaling back on their previous ambitions. They will still be decommissioning their first gen stuff after the current generation has been switched off. Edf are all but nationalised and crippled by cost overruns and debts. Lots of electricity costs in France are hidden by adding them to the state budget.

Why would this be? Could it that France and France alone has the right idea and every other country on the planet doesn’t? Or could it be that there’s probably some balance to be had that lies somewhere in between?

More nuclear? Of course. But let’s not pretend it isn’t actually quite difficult and actually expensive, or that it will ever be nuclear only.

I know more nuclear won't happen overnight.
Nick clegg refused to commit to new nuclear years ago saying there was no point as it wouldn't be ready until 2022
The French are now accelerating their nuclear industry.

French Parliament passes law to accelerate construction of new nuclear reactors

The law, officially adopted by the Assemblée Nationale on Tuesday, May 16, will allow preparatory work to begin at the Penly power plant site in northern France as soon as 2024.

www.lemonde.fr

I suspect the biggest problem with nuclear is our current government's of either colour only look to the short term. They don't care about the future.

 

[minimutly]

Seeing as any new nuclear isn’t going to be built at the wave of a hand, despite what you might think, we are where we are.

Now only 1 country I’m the entire world has gone down the nuclear route to the extent that France has, and given the upcoming pain they will be facing in terms of decommissioning costs and timescales then there’s no real surprise they are scaling back on their previous ambitions. They will still be decommissioning their first gen stuff after the current generation has been switched off. Edf are all but nationalised and crippled by cost overruns and debts. Lots of electricity costs in France are hidden by adding them to the state budget.

Why would this be? Could it that France and France alone has the right idea and every other country on the planet doesn’t? Or could it be that there’s probably some balance to be had that lies somewhere in between?

More nuclear? Of course. But let’s not pretend it isn’t actually quite difficult and actually expensive, or that it will ever be nuclear only.

I’m not a massive nuclear fan, just look at the build and decommissioning costs of previously built sites. However, I see little alternative for the longer term base load. Whether the “small” distributed reactors can be built quickly, run safely and efficiently, and be decommissioned cheaply remains to be seen... What are the alternatives? Where are FOE on this? In the short term there is no answer but wind and gas - plenty of this around here....

 

[daleyd]

I know more nuclear won't happen overnight.
Nick clegg refused to commit to new nuclear years ago saying there was no point as it wouldn't be ready until 2022
The French are now accelerating their nuclear industry.

French Parliament passes law to accelerate construction of new nuclear reactors

The law, officially adopted by the Assemblée Nationale on Tuesday, May 16, will allow preparatory work to begin at the Penly power plant site in northern France as soon as 2024.

www.lemonde.fr

I suspect the biggest problem with nuclear is our current government's of either colour only look to the short term. They don't care about the future.

Hardly any have been built worldwide for decades, even France haven’t built many since early 90’s, and the ones they have built recently (flammanville) have massively overrun in both time and cost.

So, just our government problem or maybe an inherent issue with nuclear itself?

We’ve probably neglected it too much, and seem to be going some way to putting that right with the 2 new build and SMR - but equally you can’t simply hand wave all the inherent issues that come with it away, or the fact that it is pretty costly.