You should give it a rewatch keeping in mind that it was financed by Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. The message of the film comes across a bit differently in that light; much more libertarian/anti-government. Enjoyable film nonetheless!
Finding economically viable uses for intermittently cheap energy has proven to be quite difficult. Most energy intensive industries require high capacity factors to cover capital costs.
£90 wind energy does not make for a low cost energy environment. And if spot prices dropped substantially the UK government is going to be taking a massive loss on these contracts.
I’m coming across as very negative in this thread, but I do really want renewable energy to succeed. I just work in the industry so I’m very aware of how challenging it is to make the economics stack up, so I find these puff pieces a bit exasperating.
You very well may be correct, but it’s really not about how much it displaces at demand peaks (BESS is more likely to displace gas peaking). It matters how much it displaces over years and how often the additional output is surplus to demand. Long past uneconomical wind expansion you’d expect to still be running CCGTs over winter.
Absolutely, as long as a the energy of a wind farm displaces enough MWh of gas to cover its capital costs (incl. network costs) at the marginal price of gas it should reduce system costs. But wind energy output across an area the size of the UK is so highly correlated that additional wind capacity has diminishing returns. I suspect that the UK is already beyond the point by which additional wind is economically beneficial, but I’m not certain about that.
Also, if gas utilization falls dramatically capital costs will come to dominate. It’s not just the turbines, the gas network is costly.
This is an extremely misleading way to report the cost of energy. It’s almost meaningless to compare the cost of wind to the cost of gas because more wind does not reduce the need for gas plant. It may reduce gas utilization, but it will increase the cost of gas on a MWh basis by increasing capacity prices.
Yes, more wind will reduce emissions, but these prices don’t mean they will reduce total system cost.
This is actually very regressive policy because it only rewards people who 1) own their own home and 2) can afford a significant capital investment. And under current retail rate structures it shifts the burden of maintaining the grid onto those who can't afford to make these investments and who will end up seeing there rates rise unless the cost of grid connectivity is increased.
It's also economically questionable because it's simply much cheaper to build and manage a smaller number of large batteries then thousands of home batteries.
I understand why these schemes are politically attractive; people like to own their own stuff. But there is a very real chance this increases the cost of energy here.