Unfortunately wind and solar will always be parasitic generation. Yes they will replace some conventionally generated MWh but the conventional generation will always be required. There are always technical ‘tweaks’ possible such as generation of VARs but they will never be enough. An interesting article from E&T showing a rather more realistic viewpoint:

“A UK energy supply regime that ensures security of supply at the same time as working towards net zero targets and coping with increasing input from renewables will need less input from politicians and more from experienced professional engineers.”

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2022/10/how-do-we-stop-renewables-failing-us-again/

Another problem on the horizon for wind and solar:

“Government plans cap on renewable energy revenues”

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63224014

Maybe the end of the gravy train for the offshore wind people who were offering a low strike price in the hope that the market price remained higher.

Reading that BBC article, it looks like renewables are too profitable, and people want to nobble them.

Makes a change from being told that renewables make no financial sense, as they will always need subsidies.

Perhaps we should use some of that profit to build energy storage systems, which is the way forward we should be following.

Isn't VAR a massive help when using intermittent generation because of the potential for supply dips?

I did a bit of looking at it recently and don't get me wrong some of it I don't 100% follow, but it looks like they're using the generation in some instances to provide reactive power during times of low usage to negate the need to force those intermittent generation areas from needing to switch off. 

from a simple perspective it seems like a great way forward which doesn't need a great deal of extra infrastructure and actually provides more of a bonus in grid resilience than we have now?

Yeah I saw the how do we stop renewables post, but what's confused me with that post is the other E&T article saying something rather contradictory?

engx.theiet.org/.../global-rise-in-electricity-demand-met-entirely-with-renewables-report-finds

Aaron,

You can ease some of the confusion by looking in more detail at the two apparently contradictory articles.

The ‘How do we stop renewables failing us’ article is written by a professional engineer and most of the points he makes are referenced to the sources.

The ‘Rise in demand met by renewables’ article is written by E&T editorial staff and contains no references, not even to the ‘Ember’ paper referred to. An internet search bought up this:

https://ember-climate.org/

“We are an independent energy think tank that uses data-driven insights to shift the world from coal to clean electricity.”

Looking their Mid-Year Insight the 4% figure is there but there is also this statement:

“Power sector emissions may yet set a new record high in 2022

Despite the halt in fossil generation in the first half of 2022, coal and gas generation increased in July and August, as shown in the graph below. This happened because China’s hydro surplus early in 2022 turned into deficit by August as a severe drought hit the hydro-rich province of Sichuan, and heatwaves struck across the world, pushing up electricity demand. Nuclear generation is still down considerably in Europe, due to outages in France and German closures.

Our latest year-to-date estimates for January to August show a 1% (+63 TWh) rise in coal power and a 1.6% (+63 TWh) rise in gas power as well as a rise of oil generation of 14% (+57 TWh) compared to the same period last year. This rise in fossil generation led to global power sector CO2 emissions increasing by 1.7% (133 million tonnes) during January to August, compared to the same period last year. Consequently, it is hanging in the balance whether fossil generation – and total power sector CO2 emissions – will rise to set a new record this year.”

https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/global-electricity-mid-year-insights-2022/

The E&T ‘Rise in demand met by renewables’ is strictly true, but only tells part of the story.

Simon,

There are several problems here, mostly due to the dysfunctional electricity market. As the electricity price has been tied to the price of gas any increase in the price of gas, like at present, increases the wholesale market price for electricity. If you can generate your electricity by not using gas your generation costs will not increase but you sale price will increase magnificently, hence more profits paid for by the consumer.

The renewable generators set a ‘strike price’ at capacity auctions which is the minimum price they will get for their electricity which is a form of subsidy. If the market price is higher than the strike price they sell it for what they can get, a sound business practice but not nice for the consumer.

This system allows the renewable generators to gamble on the electricity price. They can set a ‘strike price’ below their cost of production and hope that the wholesale price rises. Currently they are doing very nicely on this. The oft quoted cost of offshore wind of less than £50/MWh may not be real. This Norwegian article suggests that is the case.

“World's largest offshore wind farm 'unprofitable' for Equinor, say government-funded researchers”

www.upstreamonline.com/.../2-1-1098012

Hang on, something seems fishy about that. 

"The study was submitted this month to Norway’s Petroleum & Energy Ministry, which financed it as part of wider research into potential energy transition opportunities for the country."

Is there a risk of bias in their approach?

And is there also a risk of scale during production, if you think this has likely been in development for several years at the very least, I'm pretty sure I recall hearing of that site during my tenure at GE in 2016, at which time any prices they were hanging onto in terms of construction may have fallen heavily due to competition and a lower price point of renewables. 

Wouldn't it stand to reason they've made money through just building them. 

It's like buying a car, if the seller could make money AFTER the sale, they would do, admittedly i know it's not a like for like scenario. 

So what we're saying is global emissions have risen on account of changing weather conditions? 

That's what has restricted the hydro surplus at the very least. 

I suppose we would expect that in areas like this there would be a bit of too and fro in terms of generation from fossil fuel and renewable sources as demand is balanced between both sides?

Aaron,

A good challenge of the Norwegian document so lets look at some numbers. This is all taken from the official Dogger Bank website:

https://doggerbank.com/press-releases/dogger-bank-wind-farm-a-and-b-reaches-financial-close/

The project is designed in three similar phases but I will just look at one phase.

Installed capacity 1.2 GW

Expected annual output 6 TWh

Cost £3 Billion

Strike price £40 per MWh.

Expected Service life not mentioned.

Nameplate output 1.2 x 8760 GWh per year =  10 512 GWh per year = 10.5 TWh per year.

An expected annual output of 6 TWh gives a capacity factor of 57%. Is this realistic?

What will they earn at the strike  price?

6 TWh at £40 per MWh  = £240 Million per year.

Straight payback of £3 Billion in 12.5 years.

So with no costs for maintenance, no interest or dividends paid and a very optimistic capacity factor there is a 12.5 year payback on an asset with a 20-25 year lifespan (no one really knows).

I think that the Norwegian paper is probably valid. To be financially viable the strike price probably needs to be doubled, which takes it into Hinkley Point C territory.

 Please check my numbers, I am very good at dropping a factor of 10 here and there.

Honestly, I don't know. 

But I view it in comparison to a coal, gas or oil field as a more promising solution and I think ultimately that's where the market is heading. 

I did find this though in terms of returns:

"This analysis reviews and synthesizes the literature on the net energy return for electric power generation by wind turbines. Energy return on investment (EROI) is the ratio of energy delivered to energy costs. We examine 119 wind turbines from 50 different analyses, ranging in publication date from 1977 to 2007. We extend on previous work by including additional and more recent analyses, distinguishing between important assumptions about system boundaries and methodological approaches, and viewing the EROI as function of power rating. Our survey shows an average EROI for all studies (operational and conceptual) of 25.2 (n = 114; std. dev = 22.3). The average EROI for just the operational studies is 19.8 (n = 60; std. dev = 13.7). This places wind in a favorable position relative to fossil fuels, nuclear, and solar power generation technologies in terms of EROI."

Meta-analysis of net energy return for wind power systems - ScienceDirect

It's probably worth noting how long the turbines last too in terms of maintenance and performance, found some data on that here. 

Wind Turbine Performance Decline with Age. - EBSCO

"The definition of ageing has fleeting borders because the performance decline is observed to impact differently the various wind turbines: Most wind turbines are observed to have a decline rate, which is almost negligible and few turbines (with hydraulic pitch control, as far as the results in the literature at present support) are observed to have remarkable losses with respect to the ideal yield. "