Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • Replies 13 replies
  • Subscribers 20 subscribers
  • Views 4575 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

Is the Myth that Wind Power is Cheap Being Exposed?

Roger B

In the UK there were no takers for Offshore Wind Power at £44/MWh.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/08/biggest-clean-energy-disaster-in-years-uk-auction-secures-no-offshore-windfarms

The suppliers are suggesting a 70% increase in the strike price is required.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/25/electricity-prices-rise-70pc-pay-wind-farms-energy/

In the USA Wind Power Contracts are being cancelled/abandoned unless the price is very significantly increased.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/30/orsted-shares-fall-troubles-us-business-wind-power

All the Wind Turbine manufacturers are in trouble.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/27/is-crisis-at-siemens-energy-symptom-of-a-wider-wind-power-problem

The workable strike price for new Offshore Wind is now similar to that for new Nuclear, noting that Nuclear does not require additional subsides to deal with intermittency. 

As the quantities of basic raw materials, concrete, steel, etc. for 3GW of nuclear appear to be less than required for 3GW of wind with a 30% capacity factor nuclear seems the sensible option. New design nuclear has a design life of 60-80 years rather than 20 – 30 years for wind (but no one really knows).

Why are we still wasting money on wind power?

  • And more Slight frown

    Ørsted cancels two US offshore windfarm projects at £3.3bn cost | Wind power | The Guardian

  • Take care with the comparisons.

    Nuclear has not been below £50 per megawatt-hour since well before 2010, Sizewell C is predicated on a strike price of  £89.50 at 2013 prices and Hinkley C if and when it finished is inflation linked to something like £92.5 at 2012 prices, whatever that would be today, probably well over £120.

     also note that the production cost of gas fired power stations  is bouncing a  lot but in winter is a few hundred quid per MWH, but with occasional eyewatering peaks https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/09/national-grid-pays-high-price-for-gas-generated-power-during-uk-cold-snap.

    Or looking further back..

    And there is one certainty, fossil fuels will eventually run out, as we are using them many orders of magnitude faster than they were initially created.

    So maybe the strike price  bar for wind generation should be raised a little too to nearer the typical price rather than just a fraction of it ?

    Also it is quite fun to see which countries are clearly in gas production decline, and which are still discovering more reserves . Right now the planet as a whole is more or less on a bumpy plateau with about 50 years of gas left at current burn rate - which will not happen, the price will rise until demand destruction occurs once output starts to seriously decline so probably the last gas to come out will be very valuable and be eked out to be used very slowly.

    https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2021-natural-gas.pdf

    Within the lifetime of current and new wind turbines (20-30 years depends who you believe), I expect the global gas picture to change quite dramatically.

    Mike

  • Interesting debate Roger

    Most renewable energies are better for the environment than burning fossil fuels. (Primarily smoke and pollution emissions) I would also include nuclear fuels power in this group to a certain exstent.  There are however a lot of caveats.

    Nuclear power stations are normally run at 100% and can not be increased or decreased as quick as needed to keep the National Grid stable at 240v @ 50 Hz or there about.  Although as we were once part of the EU should we not be putting out 230V nominal?  

    Fossil fuels give the NG the flexibility to ramp up or down production of power as is required.  To certain extend so does Solar PV and Wind, again with caveat Sun and Wind are needed to be present at that time.  Tidal power is more constant but also has fluctuations.

    There are several things that I see surround Nuclear Power.
    The Life cycle.  How many years after it shutdown does the facility still need to run to be made safe?
    The inherent dangers should something go wrong internally or by external influences.  Eg Fukushima 2011, Chernobyl 1986
    The Germans seem to be closing down some of their nuclear reactors recently for the above reasons.

    I think long term we need to make more power and learn to store it better and also make all our electricity consumption more efficient. As an example we have a lot of wind turbines in the North around Scotland but they are just wind power.  They could have a collar put around them that could harness the tidal power and feed it down the existing power lines to shore.  On shore they need to build more large capacity battery storage for when there is a large amount of wind but a lack of customer usage.  There will also be days that there is not enough wind and on those days the Nation Grid power will need to come from other sources. 

    It is also worth mentioning that if we as a nation completly move away from oil to produce power we will still drill for oil.  A lot of people are not aware how many everyday items are made from PetroChemicals.

Community Rules & Guidelines