UK Wind Farms Are Overstating Their Output(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
UK Wind Farms Are Overstating Their Output
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-uk-wind-farms-overstate-output/
57 comments
The curtailment periods in the UK are already a problem, particularly in Scotland where there is now not enough grid capacity. There's no point building massive farms up there now without corresponding National Grid investment, which isn't happening anywhere near fast enough.
There's a huge amount of North-South capacity being built as part of the holistic network design programme which will unlock a lot of capacity and substantially reduce curtailment.
I don't remember where I saw it previously, it could have been here, but Octopus is looking to fix this.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/01/25/octopus-buil...
It does make me wonder why the National Grid can't keep up. We can all see how BT has a massive conflict of interest with OpenReach, which is why AltNets are thriving. But what's stopping National Grid?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/01/25/octopus-buil...
It does make me wonder why the National Grid can't keep up. We can all see how BT has a massive conflict of interest with OpenReach, which is why AltNets are thriving. But what's stopping National Grid?
Octopus don't have deep enough pockets to do that really. They're still making a loss despite the hype they get.
Locals hate pylons. As do Tory MPs. I guess Octopus are just willing to push harder on the planning permission system.
This is very interesting can you link somedata sources for funding and capacity ?
Your insightful comment is much appreciated.
Many thanks for sharing your research
Your insightful comment is much appreciated.
Many thanks for sharing your research
Jacob Reese Mogg is involved, you know there's a bit of back scratching going on there then.
There is not reference or context in your comment. Are you simply suggesting that someone is corrupt because you dislike their political position?
I suspect they dislike the person. JRM is the type to jump on any wedge issue like renewables that might appeal to his GB News viewers and boost his figures (crazy that politicians in the UK can have a permanent campaign platform, not even the US allows this nonsense).
It's very reasonable to take anything he says or implies with a massive grain of salt.
It's very reasonable to take anything he says or implies with a massive grain of salt.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is a very strange politician.
Here's a short documentary about him[0]. Highlights include:
* Being the subject of a French television documentary when he was 12 years old[1];
* Campaigning against abortion (which itself is weird in the UK outside of Northern Ireland) while investing in abortion pills; and
* Campaigning for election in one of the most deprived areas of the UK, while accompanied by his nanny (as in, the person employed by his parents to raise him when he was a child) so that she could iron his shirts.
He has been described as a 'real life Dickensian villain' and a 'haunted Victorian pencil', and is frequently referred to on Reddit as 'the honourable member for the nineteenth century' (prior centuries are often substituted). He is also responsible for the first recorded use of the word 'floccinaucinihilipilification' in Hansard (the official transcript of Parliamentary proceedings).
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzfaC0tMFDM
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bp0Szk19J8
Here's a short documentary about him[0]. Highlights include:
* Being the subject of a French television documentary when he was 12 years old[1];
* Campaigning against abortion (which itself is weird in the UK outside of Northern Ireland) while investing in abortion pills; and
* Campaigning for election in one of the most deprived areas of the UK, while accompanied by his nanny (as in, the person employed by his parents to raise him when he was a child) so that she could iron his shirts.
He has been described as a 'real life Dickensian villain' and a 'haunted Victorian pencil', and is frequently referred to on Reddit as 'the honourable member for the nineteenth century' (prior centuries are often substituted). He is also responsible for the first recorded use of the word 'floccinaucinihilipilification' in Hansard (the official transcript of Parliamentary proceedings).
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzfaC0tMFDM
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bp0Szk19J8
> is frequently referred to on Reddit as 'the honourable member for the nineteenth century' (prior centuries are often substituted).
Also on UK broadcast satire, though I can't remember off the top of my head if I'm thinking of Have I Got News For You or The News Quiz. (Possibly both?)
Also on UK broadcast satire, though I can't remember off the top of my head if I'm thinking of Have I Got News For You or The News Quiz. (Possibly both?)
The nickname actually originated in Westminster circles (where the formula "the honourable member for" is common currency), all comedians just picked it up and ran with it.
> Bloomberg News analyzed 30 million records from 2018 through June 2023
> Former UK Energy Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg said [...]
JRM was Energy Secretary for 2 months in 2022. I'm not sure that justifies this comment. Is there a greater link that the article doesn't express?
> Former UK Energy Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg said [...]
JRM was Energy Secretary for 2 months in 2022. I'm not sure that justifies this comment. Is there a greater link that the article doesn't express?
Mogg's brief tenure as energy secretary was notable mainly for him proposing a cap on the profits of renewable and nuclear energy providers specifically, having previously been opposed to government intervention in energy markets when oil and gas company profits spiked.
That obviously doesn't mean there's any substantive link between his politics and the Bloomberg study (and he denies being a climate-change denier and supported other policies aimed at encouraging the expansion of renewables anyway) but the context might be helpful to people who don't know who Mogg is
That obviously doesn't mean there's any substantive link between his politics and the Bloomberg study (and he denies being a climate-change denier and supported other policies aimed at encouraging the expansion of renewables anyway) but the context might be helpful to people who don't know who Mogg is
I think the UK by 2030 (or so) is actually going to have a really major problem with too much renewable capacity at times - not just not enough transmission capacity, just too much full stop.
There's currently 30GW of wind in the UK (offshore + onshore), plus an ambition to get another 35GW of offshore installed in the next 6 years. I'm not sure whether that will be met, but I would project at least another 20GW of offshore wind will come online based on in construction/approved projects by 2030.
At that point we'll have 55GW of wind, plus a huge amount of solar (probably 25GW minimum, potentially a lot lot more).
UK electricity consumption is very low per capita and it is falling rapidly with not much sign of this changing.
I think we are going to be in a position where we have (way) too much power at least 50% of the year.
Some will be able to be used for storage, and some potentially exported via HVDC, but I fear the generation on windy + sunny days will be pretty enormous.
This would all get sorted out by 'the market' but CfD contracts basically pay to keep producing whatever the price (I believe some of the contracts may have changed slightly on this). Which really distorts the market.
There's currently 30GW of wind in the UK (offshore + onshore), plus an ambition to get another 35GW of offshore installed in the next 6 years. I'm not sure whether that will be met, but I would project at least another 20GW of offshore wind will come online based on in construction/approved projects by 2030.
At that point we'll have 55GW of wind, plus a huge amount of solar (probably 25GW minimum, potentially a lot lot more).
UK electricity consumption is very low per capita and it is falling rapidly with not much sign of this changing.
I think we are going to be in a position where we have (way) too much power at least 50% of the year.
Some will be able to be used for storage, and some potentially exported via HVDC, but I fear the generation on windy + sunny days will be pretty enormous.
This would all get sorted out by 'the market' but CfD contracts basically pay to keep producing whatever the price (I believe some of the contracts may have changed slightly on this). Which really distorts the market.
Scope for the increase in electric use between electric cars (244b vehicle miles, or 60TWh) and moving from gas to heatpumps (250TWh of domestic gas usage, so 80TWh), that adds a constant load 24/7 of 15GW (if it were evenly spread through the year)
SME industrial production. Business electricity is/can be significantly more expensive than domestic electricity prices. It's a significant variable cost.
Consider a small CNC routing enterprise running 4 machines. Each machine averages 25kW, with extraction, air supply etc contributing another 50kw. Heating the space in winter (CNC routers lock out if the ambient temperature drops below 18c) is incredibly inefficient, because when the extractors are running you're emptying the workshop of air (that you paid to heat) multiple times an hour.
Pre-covid the hourly electricity run rate would be in the region of £45/hr (0.27p / kWh)
At the worst of the energy price crises, the run rate was > £180/hr (I know of one shop that was paying 111p/kWh for a period).
Now we're paying 0.38p / kWh or £70/hr. That's a baseline increase of >£10k a year...
SME workshops have died because their pricing model just couldn't flex to accommodate that.
STABLE energy pricing is equally important as CHEAP energy pricing.
Consider a small CNC routing enterprise running 4 machines. Each machine averages 25kW, with extraction, air supply etc contributing another 50kw. Heating the space in winter (CNC routers lock out if the ambient temperature drops below 18c) is incredibly inefficient, because when the extractors are running you're emptying the workshop of air (that you paid to heat) multiple times an hour.
Pre-covid the hourly electricity run rate would be in the region of £45/hr (0.27p / kWh)
At the worst of the energy price crises, the run rate was > £180/hr (I know of one shop that was paying 111p/kWh for a period).
Now we're paying 0.38p / kWh or £70/hr. That's a baseline increase of >£10k a year...
SME workshops have died because their pricing model just couldn't flex to accommodate that.
STABLE energy pricing is equally important as CHEAP energy pricing.
SME workshops made an assumption they would be able to get cheap electricity for the entire time. The reason prices went upto 111p/kWh was because of the price of gas and oil skyrocketting as demand ballooned post covid, sanctions hit, and fears of war skyrocketed. That's nothing to do with renewables.
If variation is a significant and long term then grid sized storage will buy low and sell high.
If variation is a significant and long term then grid sized storage will buy low and sell high.
You can fix for 24 months at 21p/kWh now with octopus business.
I think half the problem of this is people signing terrible business energy deals and not switching aggressively enough.
I think half the problem of this is people signing terrible business energy deals and not switching aggressively enough.
Yes I get that, but even adding 15GW to current demand doesn't really move the needle as much as you'd think. I'm also not sure it will be soaked up entirely, EVs yes but heat pumps I'm not as sure about.
Depends on policy, but if policy pushes domestic gas out then heating comes form either heatpumps or resistive heating (which would be far more)
With the shift to electric vehicles and heat pumps, I doubt it. But if we reach the point where we're regularly overproducing electricity, there are some steel producers who would be happy to solve that problem for us.
That's interesting, and looking at per-capita use graphs over the years...seems predictable. Are there any major sectors of "use" that would shift if electricity were cheap enough? Like, for example...in the UK, is any significant part of building/home heating, or industrial production still gas or fuel oil?
The majority of existing homes and hot water supplies use natural gas
As long as it’s actually cheap that’s not an issue. Swapping to a resistance heater when electricity rates cost less than natural gas is a cheap and straightforward way to suck up excess electricity in the winter. Unfortunately, UK fees may prevent ultra low retail rates even if wholesale power is cheap.
A more elaborate system can use predicted rates and thermal mass with heat pumps to dramatically reduce energy costs while also shifting demand to peak production periods.
A more elaborate system can use predicted rates and thermal mass with heat pumps to dramatically reduce energy costs while also shifting demand to peak production periods.
Wouldn’t we just use more electricity?
I know I cut back on my electric because it costs 28p per kwh, which is crazy high.
I know I cut back on my electric because it costs 28p per kwh, which is crazy high.
And only like 6.7p/kWh is the actual cost of the electricity. All the rest is government taxes, fees, eco incentive schemes, smart meter rollout schemes, etc.
Considering how critical the cost of energy is to the economic success of a country, it was a really dumb move to let anyone bolt compulsory extra charges onto the cost of energy.
Considering how critical the cost of energy is to the economic success of a country, it was a really dumb move to let anyone bolt compulsory extra charges onto the cost of energy.
[deleted]
Yep, and start using electricity when it is cheaper. Already some of my friends have their car chargers hooked up to octopus agile.
I'm thinking of hooking my house up to it to take advantage of those periods of crazy cheap electricity.
I think we're so used to electricity being the same price all the time because we all emerged from the coal world that it blinds us to the options available to shift demand.
I'm thinking of hooking my house up to it to take advantage of those periods of crazy cheap electricity.
I think we're so used to electricity being the same price all the time because we all emerged from the coal world that it blinds us to the options available to shift demand.
Who do you get energy from? Octopus Tracker is currently 15p, and not been over 19p for months. A few days in December it was down to 7p.
Really?! I’m on ‘Flexible Octopus’ — the only alternative they’re offering me is Octopus Fixed which is 26p per kwh for 12 months
Edit; Oh, I see, I need a smart meter to get Tracker. I’m a renter so not sure about the process for getting a smart meter there
Edit; Oh, I see, I need a smart meter to get Tracker. I’m a renter so not sure about the process for getting a smart meter there
Yes this is the best kept 'secret' in the UK power market right now. It's basically half price. I was expecting prices to spike over the winter a bit and reduce the savings but they haven't.
Paying approx 15p/kWh for electricity and 4p/kWh for gas, which is about half of the price cap rates.
Paying approx 15p/kWh for electricity and 4p/kWh for gas, which is about half of the price cap rates.
Thanks for the info.I need to sort my smart meter. My gas at the moment is 7.3p per kwh
> I think we are going to be in a position where we have (way) too much power at least 50% of the year.
This seems ridiculous to cite as a problem, at a time when people are facing record high bills, but perhaps some time between now and then the subsidy can be tapered a bit.
This seems ridiculous to cite as a problem, at a time when people are facing record high bills, but perhaps some time between now and then the subsidy can be tapered a bit.
The problem is that having too much power massively increases bills for end users (that is the more abstract point of the article), as we need to pay wind farm operators to shut them down.
If we have guaranteed a £50/MWh CfD to a wind or solar producer, and we have too much power on the grid , then you need to pay them ~£50/MWh to shut off (otherwise they'd just keep producing).
If we had for example 20GW surplus capacity on the grid at any one time paying £50/MWh for curtailment costs £1m/hr which then billpayers have to pay. This is highly simplified but hopefully gets the point I'm trying to make across.
If we have guaranteed a £50/MWh CfD to a wind or solar producer, and we have too much power on the grid , then you need to pay them ~£50/MWh to shut off (otherwise they'd just keep producing).
If we had for example 20GW surplus capacity on the grid at any one time paying £50/MWh for curtailment costs £1m/hr which then billpayers have to pay. This is highly simplified but hopefully gets the point I'm trying to make across.
It's probably time to phase out curtailment payments. If renewable is to be the default form of generation it can't have special treatment forever. And it would be an incentive to deploy battery systems on the wind farm side of the grid connection to smooth peaks.
(The whole "overstating your forecast" thing sounds a lot like LIBOR)
(The whole "overstating your forecast" thing sounds a lot like LIBOR)
> It's probably time to phase out curtailment payments. If renewable is to be the default form of generation it can't have special treatment forever.
Curtailment payments are an incentive for the grid operators to build out transport capacity and for grid consumers to invest into dynamic load control.
Curtailment payments are an incentive for the grid operators to build out transport capacity and for grid consumers to invest into dynamic load control.
Do like Sweden or Norway and split the grid at bottlenecks like the Scottish border and it will be solved by itself by having lower prices in Scotland. It is a political problem, not technical.
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
This is a naive question, but would batteries to offset actual (and predicted) excess be too costly?
Why is there so much less tidal power.
The tides are constant, unlike wind and sun.
The UK has a lot of coast and a lot of tides.
The tides are constant, unlike wind and sun.
The UK has a lot of coast and a lot of tides.
Tidal power involves machinery below the water, which then becomes as expensive as a boat to maintain. Wind power has just ridden the cost reduction curve so much better.
fwiw wind power also requires a generous amount of maintenance
But a salt water environment is nasty to equipment in a way that just being outdoors is not.
And even offshore wind turbines have most of their complexity 300 feet above the water line. The air might be salty up there, but that's nothing compared to being submerged in salt water, in a strong current that drags along seaweed or abrasive sand.
The tides are not constant but they are predictable.
The majority of tidal flow is during relative short periods of only a few hours. In order to harvest tidal energy, truly enormous volumes of reinforced marine concrete have to be deployed. The environmental consequences are massive.
The majority of tidal flow is during relative short periods of only a few hours. In order to harvest tidal energy, truly enormous volumes of reinforced marine concrete have to be deployed. The environmental consequences are massive.
Tidal power involves harnessing the power of corrosive sea water.
Once we work out how to do that in a cost effective way the UK is in a brilliant position. But until then it is an active area of research.
Once we work out how to do that in a cost effective way the UK is in a brilliant position. But until then it is an active area of research.
It's really hard to build good tidal power plants beyond the demonstrator stage. Most are difficult to build, expensive to maintain, and require a lot of maintenance.
https://www.orbitalmarine.com/ is one company working on it. As another comment states, working offshore unbelievably challenging (corrosion++, weather, position etc). Orbital's innovation is that the rotors move to a position where they can be serviced from the surface, rather than requiring any underwater activity, so it's a lot cheaper.
There are plans for big tidal barrage projects, especially in the Severn Estuary. Apart from creating power they'd also protect cities from rising sea levels.
They always run into Nimbys who don't understand that sea birds etc are far more threatened by the direct effects of climate change than by projects that affect their habitats in a designed way.
They always run into Nimbys who don't understand that sea birds etc are far more threatened by the direct effects of climate change than by projects that affect their habitats in a designed way.
> They always run into Nimbys who don't understand that sea birds etc are far more threatened by the direct effects of climate change than by projects that affect their habitats in a designed way.
That's incredibly dismissive of genuine environmental concerns about immediate effects on coastal ecology
That's incredibly dismissive of genuine environmental concerns about immediate effects on coastal ecology
Can you elaborate on where the parent comment is erring? Sounds reasonable that planned interventions like tidal power plants are more controllable than global climate change
If I bulldoze a corner of you house for a planned turbine and say it's less damaging than a potential hurricane from climate change, it isn't going to make you feel better.
That does not mean they are less damaging. They are definitely more damaging at a local level, and it is not clear that they are better at a global level.
Tidal power is very, very expensive. It's more expensive even than nuclear power.
Sounds like good, old-fashioned British capitalism to me - lying is made extremely lucrative for big companies, while regulation & enforcement are only for the little people.