Seems like an interesting idea ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp372d37gxgo
- Andy.
Seems like an interesting idea ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp372d37gxgo
- Andy.
I'm wondering how the subsidy and support arrangements will work?
Currently in GB, windfarms bid into the Contract for Difference (CfD) auctions to secure an inflation-linked, fixed price contract for their generation, paid for by GB consumers, on the basis that all the power is flowing into GB, benefitting GB consumers.
Of course if that wind farm is now connected to two or more countries, with the power potentially flowing to different countries, varying continuously depending on wholesale prices, that's a much more complex question of how to determine where the power should flow, how that power should be valued and how the subsidy costs should be apportioned between the different countries and their consumers.
Nothing to do with net zero. It's a stupid auction system set by the government and never fixed. If it's a windy day, wind energy is dirt cheap. If it's not windy, we don't have wind energy.
Under our auction system, every half hour energy providers bid a price that they are prepared to supply at. It will actually take many providers to cover the country's needs, so the grid keeps adding energy providers, starting at the cheapest, until they have enough. Then the price for all the electricity we get is set at the highest price they accepted.
Since we don't have enough wind farms or nuclear to supply the country, we always end up requiring at least some gas. So the poor consumer gets no benefit at all from cheap wind energy. The wind farm operators get all the money.
If the energy system worked for the benefit of the consumer, then electricity would be cheap on a windy day and more expensive when it isn't. Instead, it's expensive all the time.
The whole "it's the fault of net zero" is fossil fuel propaganda. They hate the idea that we might one day stop buying their products, and try to poison the debate to prevent it happening. If they can stop wind farms, we have to burn fossil fuels whatever they cost.
Since we don't have enough wind farms or nuclear to supply the country, we always end up requiring at least some gas. So the poor consumer gets no benefit at all from cheap wind energy. The wind farm operators get all the money
If the wind farm is contracted into the CfD scheme, which most of the recent and new ones are, then this is incorrect, the wind farm operator does not get all the money, they pay the excess above the CfD price back into the scheme, which then goes back to the consumer through lower CfD levy costs.
The system is complex, but you need to understand that detail to get the full picture of what is actually going on, in terms of prices, cash flows and cost to the consumer.
is difficult (impossible?) to store leccy in the required quantities?
This conflates lots and lots of factors.
There's the "inertia" falsehood [3-10 seconds of generation], there's the 'half hour' prediction guarantee gaps (wind lasting extra periods), there's hourly load shifting (see home batteries cooking dinner/tea instead of the grid), there's diurnal variations, seasonal variations, extreme wind droughts. The quantities are different in each case with various different fallbacks. Pumped storage may not be the 100% answer (Burgess P.) but will be part of the mix, along with a range of other techniques.
It reminds me of the majority of "Heat pump" problems which are often based on misusing grannies living practices (drying clothes on radiators, draughty homes, switching off radiators when not in the room, etc.). The same problem style is happening with the leccy generation system, doing things the way grandad did (had such stories from mine).
At least nowhere needs any backup generators because the regular leccy is so reliable...
the wind farm operator does not get all the money, they pay the excess above the CfD price back into the scheme,
The bit I haven't quite grasped is: for such a wind generator, with a CfD price, how do they determine their bid price for a half hour slot (assuming they do such bidding, rather than simply stating available/unavailable) ?
Clearly (after a moment thought) it's generally in a generators best interest to keep their costs low (lower) to get maximum margin relative to either their CfD price (if they have one), or the current margin price [without underbidding their costs]. But how that distinction is made isn't that clear.
The bit I haven't quite grasped is: for such a wind generator, with a CfD price, how do they determine their bid price for a half hour slot (assuming they do such bidding, rather than simply stating available/unavailable) ?
It's the day-ahead hourly auction, the electricity auctions are 'pay as clear' with all sellers receiving the same auction price, likewise all buyers paying the same price, with that price determined by the supply and demand curves of the sellers and buyers, with the clearing price (where the curves meet) setting the price.
So for example, if you were a wind generator, you know your CfD contract will top-up your payments to your CfD agreement price, so you can offer your generation into the auction at £0/MWh reserve knowing that you will receive the auction price and the CfD will then top-up your price up to your CfD agreement price (there's some extra complexity around the contracts and the T&Cs, some will even go negative, some limited to slightly above zero).
That's why when there's lots of wind, the auction prices can fall to zero or even go negative, the renewables marginal costs are very low, close to zero so they can offer at zero. But while marginal costs are very low, average costs are not - no renewables generator can afford to invest hundreds of millions or billions building and maintaining these hugely expensive off-shore wind farms to then operate profitable at very low prices. Which is why they all seek these subsidy agreements to guarantee their prices and protect themselves against swings in wholesale prices, pushing the risk onto the consumer.
You can have too much wind energy up in the North Sea and not enough on the south coast, but unlike domestic solar, you cannot store it locally and then use it gradually when the wind is not blowing (or sun shining). Unlike fossil fuels, you cannot put it in a ship and take it to the user.
Surely, "net-zero" is driving solar and wind generation and the Government uses this as a reason to commit to the large infrastructure projects.
As I see it, at some stage fossil fuels will be reserved for aviation and military purposes - imagine an electrically powered main battle tank!
imagine an electrically powered main battle tank!
What makes you think its not being considered , right now ?
There are already hybrid tanks as proof of concept with electric drive and the ability to run for a modest time in all-electric mode as there is electric reactive armour, both exist and are being run around test tracks with not too much fanfare.
Not all of these ideas will be practical of course, and maybe we need to keep some vegetable oil back for the more extreme applications, but the sums seem to say 'difficult' not 'impossible' .
Mike.
What makes you think its not being considered , right now ?
I am not in the least bit surprised, but finding an EVCP on a battlefield might be challenging.
In fact, I am not sure that main battle tanks will survive: news reports from Ukraine seem to be all about drones and missiles.
you cannot store it locally
you cannot put it in a ship
I'm sure that they'll soon commission a battery ship equivalent to Floating Storage and Offloading (FSO) unit that can do the storage for later delivery. It took Oil & Gas long enough to try it but its normal tech now. Plus the battery tech doesn't have to be the Li-Ion style as it's not 'mobile', so can use the slightly heavier but less fire risk chemistries.
Aside: Ukraine has shown that the old classic MBT tactics aren't as effective as they once were. Then there's all the Laser-Fire technologies needing their electric.
There have been serious discussions not just about offshore batteries, which may well be less risky than the same storage capacity on land, but also around floating hydrogen and electrolysis rigs. These sort of things are big but easily floated out to where there is an excess generation without waiting for long cables to be laid.
Then you can either tow the gas ashore or burn it there to generate.power.
Again none of these ideas are a simple one hit solution, but a kit of parts allowing different things in different places.
Mike.
There have been serious discussions not just about offshore batteries, which may well be less risky than the same storage capacity on land, but also around floating hydrogen and electrolysis rigs. These sort of things are big but easily floated out to where there is an excess generation without waiting for long cables to be laid.
Then you can either tow the gas ashore or burn it there to generate.power.
Again none of these ideas are a simple one hit solution, but a kit of parts allowing different things in different places.
Mike.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site