UK CCC Claim Offshore Wind Will Cost £25/MWh!

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

The CCC’s Sixth Carbon Budget also includes this gem:

Do they really believe that offshore wind costs will drop to £25/MWh, well below even the cost of onshore wind at the moment?

It is only by this chicanery that the CCC were able to keep the costs of Net Zero down to just an odd trillion or two.

Assuming a more realistic cost of £100/MWh, which is consistent with known construction costs, the costs of Net Zero would be £18 billion a year higher.

5 22 votes
Article Rating
78 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
January 30, 2022 6:09 am

Is that cost based on actual output, or nameplate?

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 30, 2022 6:20 am

Does it really matter?

Charles Higley(@higley7)
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 30, 2022 6:41 am

No, it is myth based. The forces that are the ocean start to dismantle sea-sited wind turbines from the first hour, even during construction.

One largely unreported sea effect is that, even if they get these monstrosities up and running, in a year or two salt spray crystals remove the front edge of the blades, greatly decreasing their aerodynamics and efficiency.

In other words, just like the output of solar panels decreases over time (also not mentioned at all), wind turbines have a relatively short half-life just like solar panels.

That said, small wind turbines or solar panels at the end user are quite useful, but they simply do not cut it at the industrial/power grid level. They are simply not reliable as well as too expensive.

If one calculated the cost of their cell phone battery and extrapolated to a grid, it would be insanely expensive.

commieBob
Reply to  Charles Higley
January 30, 2022 6:50 am

This article points out:

This updated analysis found that the performance of larger offshore wind turbines decreased an average of 4.5% per year for turbines installed after 2011. In other words, after 10 years, the average output of these newer offshore wind turbines was just over half the initial output.

link

You tell why that the offshore windmills degrade, which the above linked article does not. Thank you for that.

DHR
Reply to  commieBob
January 30, 2022 8:01 am

The fundamental cause is that “salt eats the s… out of everything” as any maritime engineer deals with day to day and can tell you at any time anyone asks.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  commieBob
January 30, 2022 9:54 am

It’s erosion damage off the blades that kills them.
The hardest working part of the blades, the part that collects the most energy, is the outer ‘half’ of the blades. Despite being the thinnest part.

The outer half of the blades move fast, the tips are doing over 200mph.
Yet they are made of plastic and being hit by whatever the ocean throws at them – even ‘just’ droplets of water at that speed pack a hefty punch and damages their surface coating.
A hailstone storm would be near fatal for them

In that situation, their aerodynamic efficiency falls off a cliff – so that instead of being the most productive part of the machine, erosion means that the blade tips start becoming a drag – sucking energy out of the machine.
And that erosion, that drag, gradually works its way down each blade until at some point the machine simply becomes uneconomic.

Onshore turbines last longer because they are not constantly being blasted by water droplets – maybe 15 years – by which time power output can never be more than 50% of nameplate

They are all the same blades- they all use glass-fibre (possibly carbon fibre) blades but that makes no difference.
It’s what the surface finish is made of that determines everything and when it ceases to be smooth, shiny and polished, that’s it. Kaput

Also, when the blade ceases to be smooth and shiny, water droplets stick to it and, again, bang goes your aerodynamic efficiency.
How long does a new coat of wax polish on your car last?

Thing is surely Shirley – why not ‘pause’ the things for a while now and again, get up there in a huge ‘cherry picker’ and slap on a new coat of paint.
Or fibre-glass resin or whatever they had originally.
Or Turtle Wax polish = very popular, and famous, stuff among UK car care enthusiasts.

(I learned about this from the now disappeared renewable energy forum I used to watch. The Head Moderator there lived, completely off-grid, near the west coast of Ireland and swore by stuff he called ‘Gravit’
Every time one of his wind-turbines needed servicing, he checked the blades for damage and painted that stuff on as needed, to repair splits, cracks and surface damage.
Not dissimilar to why you polish your car I suppose….)

Last edited 3 months ago by Peta of Newark
DaveR
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 30, 2022 9:41 pm

Ah, a 1990 Audi 80E with a 2-litre petrol back then. Not a shifter but built across a great fwd chassis with balance you could (and inevitably did) stick into corners and have ‘fun’ with…

AndyHce
Reply to  commieBob
January 30, 2022 12:28 pm

Not being an engineer, I have to go by what I read. Another significant reason for decreasing wind output over time is deterioration of internal moving parts. The frequent wind speed variations that occur about everywhere mean frequent accelerations and decelerations of rotation, often abruptly. This is not kind to bearings supporting heavy loads. Bad things add up over time.

Additionally, these fast moving blades have a significant pressure difference between the front and rear surfaces. When they go past the pylon (rather often) a sudden major pressure pulse (that has been measured as far as 20km away) is produced, I don’t know if taking a hammer to the bearings every time this happens is an apt analogy but some energy of that pulse slams the moving internals of the generator every time (and slams people, cows, whomever is within range). Metal fatigue is real and living tissue changes are also observable.

MarkW
Reply to  Charles Higley
January 30, 2022 7:22 am

Small scale wind and solar is only useful if you aren’t connected to the grid.
For anyone already connected to the grid they are a complete waste.

commieBob
Reply to  MarkW
January 30, 2022 7:46 am

WRT living off the grid:

It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it

link

Our ancestors lived completely without electricity. They also had to toil from sunrise to sunset, and lived their shorter lives in misery.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  commieBob
January 30, 2022 7:06 pm

You just described the perfect life
According to the gospel of Suzuki

Subsistence farming, that is exactly what he sees for you and i

AndyHce
Reply to  MarkW
January 30, 2022 4:31 pm

Depends on how much the state is paying you to do it.

John Edmondson
Reply to  Charles Higley
January 31, 2022 8:52 am

Another issue is the foundations. The turbine is designed to run perpendicular to sea level I assume. The point being it won’t take long for this to change, with storms, tides and waves pushing the whole structure away from vertical. Once this happens the load on all the bearings will cause untold damage to the “capacity”.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Charles Higley
January 31, 2022 12:20 pm

I worked in the helicopter industry for years. We always put abrasion strips on the leading edge of the outer half of the rotor blades. The strips could be removed and replaced in the field. I guess that lessons learned in one industry don’t transfer to another industry, even when building the same sort of equipment. Or did the wind-turbine folks figure that there was nothing to learn from the guys with 50+ more years of experience?

Toerag
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 1, 2022 4:20 pm

Helicopters are continually stirring up debris from the ground though, it’s no surprise the blades need wear strips. Modern offshore turbine blades are more than 100ft up at their lowest point.

In The Real World
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 30, 2022 8:13 am

That costing is just based on total lies .
Most UK offshore wind generation is costing around £180 per MWh , and the price is continuing to rise .https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/370-offshore-wind-subsidies-per-mwh-generated-continue-to-rise

Without the subsidies , none of the wind or solar generation would exist , but there has been major increases in the cost , [ taxes ] , of reliable generation to try to cover up the insane price of unreliable generation .

griff
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 30, 2022 8:19 am

It is the price agreed at which they get paid for output.

If, as now, the electricity price goes over that rate they have to pay back the excess.

With gas driving up costs, renewables are busy paying back the excess money which will knock £27 of the average bill this quarter

Ebor
Reply to  griff
January 30, 2022 10:00 am

Lovely little shell game you have going there, Griff. “Where’s the real cost…is it under this shell?…or maybe, this one?…”

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  griff
January 30, 2022 10:14 am

I don’t think so. The refund from CFDs that will be paid was announced by the Low Carbon Contracts Company to be the grand sum of £39m. Divide by 28 million households, and that’s a fantastic £1.39 per home. And it completely ignores the vast windfall profits being made by windfarms not in the CFD scheme, mostly heavily topped up by subsidies. I estimate that in December, Hywind, the floating offshore wind farm near Aberdeen was raking in £417/MWh on average, with over £200 of that being subsidies.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
January 30, 2022 10:43 am

They are getting the subsidized, many times higher rate that they agreed to. How generous of them.

Reply to  griff
January 30, 2022 12:01 pm

Oh dear griff, you have been taken in.

That is the price they may get paid for output, yes, but it does not include the carbon credits and renewable obligation certificates they generate, which are worth far far more…

John Edmondson
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2022 8:54 am

Serious question Griff, are you taking drugs?

In The Real World
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 30, 2022 11:05 am

A few years ago in the UK the price paid for unreliables generation was changed to a system called Contracts for Difference , [ possible to fool ignorant people like Griff ].
But it meant that the initial ” Strike Price ” , was nothing like the final price paid for generation .
An example could be ” Hornsea 1 “, the biggest offshore wind farm in the world when it was built . Strike price has been quoted as low as £25 per MWh . But the price paid is now £164 per MWh , and keeps rising every year .

And all of the others are like that , so even if the loonies quote a very low listed ” Strike Price “, with the subsidies added on , most of the offshore wind is being paid £160 to £190 per MWh as a final cost .

These are not going to get cheaper , but costs go up every year .

Gregory Woods
January 30, 2022 6:19 am

Net Zero? Forget about it….Net Stupidity: Evident, every day of the week and twice on Sunday….

Paul C
January 30, 2022 6:27 am

Isn’t this why they have to make the cost of electricity from reliable generators appear so much higher? Unreliable producers would never be competitive without forcing the price of fossil fuel produced electricity to appear much higher than it actually is. Even then, only subsidies and mandates can force the unreliable electricity onto the general public.

James Snook
January 30, 2022 6:32 am

The Climate Clowns Committee lost the plot, to hand waving idealism, as soon as it was formed.

RLu
January 30, 2022 6:38 am

That is the cost in the middle of the Irish Sea, right?
Not including transport costs to London, Paris and Düsseldorf. Also, more interconnectors won’t help in the long term. When Britain has too much or too little wind, then Denmark also has the same weather.

commieBob
January 30, 2022 6:40 am

In the interest of being fair, I thought maybe offshore wind would be less intermittent. That could importantly reduce the cost of backup. I have as little experience with the oceans as possible but there is a place where it is similarly windy, the Great Plains, with which I have a lot of experience.

Here’s an article that says Saskatchewan (where it’s never cloudy and the wind always blows) can become a renewable energy super power. All it would cost is a mere 8 billion a year for twenty years. The province has a population around 1 million, so that’s $8,000 per year for every man, woman, and child.

Oh, yes, in spite of the fact that the wind always blows in Saskatchewan, the above linked article still has to take intermittency into account.

The above linked article proposes flooding a large portion of Saskatchewan for pumped hydro. I wonder how that would work if there were another decade long drought like the Dirty Thirties. I also wonder what else it doesn’t take into account.

Last edited 3 months ago by commieBob
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  commieBob
January 30, 2022 10:00 am

“I also wonder what else it doesn’t take into account.”

batteries?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  commieBob
January 30, 2022 6:56 pm

Sask is flat, not much hydro possible

Sask is no windier than southern Alberta, if anything we get a lot more wind in SW Alberta closer to the mountains, you can tell because the trees grow at a steep angle, leaning east.

Even so we usually rarely exceed 50% nameplate and Sask gets the same winter highs with -35 and no wind for a week

At the same time as AB

And like you said, only $8k per person forever
But SK has a large percentage of populations are native and many don’t work so it’s more like $25k per taxpayer per year forever
In other words never.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  commieBob
January 30, 2022 7:03 pm

Read the article
This guy is a cheerleader and makes money off subsidies, sorry renewables

And he says it s great for solar? Barely get above 10% in the winter no matter how clear it is, because the sun is too low
Solar is a joke, closely followed by wind

Iain Reid
Reply to  commieBob
January 31, 2022 1:33 am

Bob,

it is not a case of wind or no wind. Output from wind genertaors is a cube law to output so small wind speed variation creates much larger output variation. It’s quite noticeable on our Gridwatch Templar web site that wind generated power varies in steps rather than smoothly or gradual differences. Of course the balancing generators (Mostly gas in the U.K.) have to work harder to keep demand and supply in check which reduces their efficiency and raises CO2 emissions from them.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  commieBob
January 31, 2022 12:25 pm

Reality?

Reply to  commieBob
February 1, 2022 3:26 pm

The above linked article proposes flooding a large portion of Saskatchewan for pumped hydro. I wonder how that would work if there were another decade long drought like the Dirty Thirties. I also wonder what else it doesn’t take into account.”

Obviously, planned by the leaders of climate alarmism. All daft ideas, no engineers or other right brain users.

From where to where do they plan to ‘pump’ this hydro?
Especially, after Saskatchewan freezes solid in winter?

Old Retired Guy
January 30, 2022 6:48 am

Just came across this new article. This is my summation.

Highlights the implications of replacing O&G with wind and solar. 

There aren’t enough known reserves for many of the minerals. 
Would take years to open most of the new mine sites. Too late to meet the politicians’ timeliness.
Many of the mines are in problematic areas, politically or environmentally. 
Cost of most of the key minerals will likely start going up in price, offsetting recent manufacturing gains for turbines and solar as the materials costs equal or exceed the fabrication costs. 
Mining equipment demand has to skyrocket. (Caterpillar’s purchase of Bucyrus might finally pay off!)
And with all that, all the realistic plans that would actually replace O&G end with “and then a miracle occurs”.

https://issues.org/environmental-economic-costs-minerals-solar-wind-batteries-mills/#.YfaazCYQICQ.link

Bill Rocks
Reply to  Old Retired Guy
January 30, 2022 7:14 am

Good one. Should be required reading for our “leaders”.

Andy Pattullo
January 30, 2022 7:33 am

Innumeracy is a strict requirement for government advisers and policy makers these days. It would not be possible to be “productive” if one was constrained by math or facts.

DHR
January 30, 2022 7:58 am

And what is the projected cost of backup sources when the wind is not blowing. Such costs should be included with the offshore-wind tally since they are an inevitable part of it.

griff
January 30, 2022 8:17 am

There is another 42GW of offshore/floating wind which is in the planning process…

Prices actually agreed in contract for difference bidding include

Price of £57.5/MWh in second contract round…

Price of £39.65/MWh in third…

fourth round launched in December 2021 and you’d expect it to be lower – so YES, absolutely it will be £25/MWh range.

(Note £100 has already been beaten twice by projects in active development.)

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  griff
January 30, 2022 10:41 am

Let’s see whether they actually honour those contracts. My bet would be no, they won’t. Turbine manufacturers are going to be putting up prices: they can’t survive otherwise. Wind farms will have to put up prices too. Or go bankrupt.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  griff
January 30, 2022 12:50 pm

Note that your £39.65 is in 2012 money, and is now worth £47.20. We will see soon whether Triton Knoll actually commences its CFD (currently worth £88.59/MWh with a REGO bonus of another £6+/MWh, or whether it prefers to take higher market prices along with the REGOs that it is currently enjoying while it undergoes extended “commissioning”. It can see that the government is offering further backdoor subsidy through carbon taxes that will set a high floor on market prices. Failure to commence its CFD would immediately render other low price bids as being quite meaningless. The only penalty for failing to commence a CFD on time is that it is not extended beyond 15days from the so-called longstop date, and perhaps it might get terminated – which is what no commencing it effectively is anyway. The government is about to shut down desperately needed capacity when they’ve just asked for another 5.361GW to cover next winter and promised to pay £75/kW for it: pity they blew up so much coal that could have provided the cover at much lower cost.

Iain Reid
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2022 1:40 am

Griff,

that is illogical as at those prices the companies will be bankrupt, which benefits no one, least of all the poor suffering taxpayer who ultimately pays the price.
Then factor in the cost of dispatchable generation required to keep the up and down output in check and provide sufficient capacity to cover when wind out put is near zero as it was yesterday morning. (To add insult and cost they have to pay carbon taxes) . We can’t run without gas and or coal but we can run without wind and we should. It would benefit all except the wind farm owners and those that lease their land to those companies.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  griff
February 1, 2022 11:12 am

How much copper goes into those arrays?

Toerag
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 1, 2022 4:24 pm

It doesn’t matter, it’s not like it isn’t recyclable.

ResourceGuy
January 30, 2022 8:17 am

Rule number 1 is to not talk about costs. Rule number 2 is lie with low numbers when forced to mention costs as estimates. Rule number 3 is the most important – – it is to secure the money before admitting mistakes on the back end of the con. Rule number 4 is to live it up at the beach resorts and make sure to reward the political enablers.

Chaswarnertoo
January 30, 2022 9:16 am

One assumes they will subsidise any consumer costs above this out of their own pockets?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
January 30, 2022 10:19 am

“they” should mean all the climate “scientists” in the 97% consensus- and their online lapdogs

Rod Evans
January 30, 2022 9:49 am

Easy option to solve the debate about cost and risk when talking about wind generated electricity.
If the view of the “experts” is a strike price of £25.MWh is what they believe will make them a profit, then they can have no complaint about the grid paying them just £25/MWh for all the hours of electricity they provide.
Let us see how many of these offshore turbine contractors would accept the £25/MWh price they claim is realistically achievable?

Jamaica
January 30, 2022 10:07 am

an extra 18B$? That’s nothing, add a zero and maybe someone would notice.

Peta of Newark
January 30, 2022 10:10 am

You’re not reading the words right.

The CCC say that ‘Technology Costs‘ will be £25 per MWh – NOT electricity costs.

Those turbine lumps cost up to £500,000 per year JUST for maintenance = for somebody to visit them, climb up inside the tower and take a look around inside the nacelle.
If he finds anything wrong, sky’s the limit for repair costs.

Then there are finance costs, shareholders, profits margins and I don’t imagine the folks owning all the wires and inter-connectors give anything away

The General Rule of Thumb would be to add all those things up, double what you get and charge the Utility Company that.
But, the Utility Company has to maintain all its wires and infrastructure, pay itself and its shareholders and so double it again for what they finally charge the consumer.
Even then, that’s not the end. Government will add tax to it – in the UK called Value Added Tax at minimum 5%

What is interesting and really really worrying is the confidence they put in ‘Inter-connectors from the continent.
How what why and where <the F-expletive> is any or all the electricity to come from for those connectors?

You really do get the impression that those muppets think that inter-connectors ‘make electricity

France is the only place with any spare electricity but its all nuclear, getting old and unreliable. Being in the same time zone as the UK, France will have the same morning and evening Peak Demands.

Its no good saying ‘get electric from the connectors to Belgium or Holland‘ – that electric came from either French or German nukes
And there’s only So Much hydro in Norway and when UK turbines in the North Sea are becalmed, so are all the Danish and German turbines.

The folks who wrote that document are completely La La.

Last edited 3 months ago by Peta of Newark
Rick C
January 30, 2022 10:30 am

Here is how I expect the future of renewable energy to unfold.

  1. Vast financial and physical resources expended to build massive renewable energy capacity.
  2. Intermittency results in frequent system failures that are not tolerable resulting in urgent construction of primarily gas fired backup generation.
  3. Over time installed renewable sources degrade and fail. This leads to increasing reliance on reliable gas back-up generation.
  4. It becomes apparent that repair or replacement of failing renewables is not economically viable.
  5. New reliable modular nuclear generation is demonstrated as economically feasible and begins to come on-line to provide primary base load.
  6. Between gas and nuclear all electricity demand is met making wind and solar facilities that are failing anyway obsolete.
  7. Wind and solar companies go broke and abandon their facilities leaving it to the tax payers to foot the bill for dismantling and disposal.
  8. By this time it has become apparent that the global warming scare was bogus and the climate is no different than is ever was. Coal makes a come back in areas where gas is expensive or unavailable and cheaper than nukes.
  9. None of the politicians of climate scientist still alive recall ever supporting the idea of “Net Zero” or 100% renewable energy.
Last edited 3 months ago by Rick C
Bill Rocks
Reply to  Rick C
January 30, 2022 11:56 am

Very good points but you failed to mention all of the people who will die during 2. and the vast wealth of nations wasted during 1. The latter may result in severed and prolonged financial crises, inflation, and conflict.

Toerag
Reply to  Rick C
February 1, 2022 4:31 pm

Maths obviously isn’t your strong point. A 10MW offshore turbine running at 55% capacity factor will generate 48 GWH a year, or a revenue of £1.2million @£25MWH They payback their build & install cost within 3 years, and anythign after that is pure profit. No modern windfarm operator is going to go bust.

Chris Morris
Reply to  Toerag
February 1, 2022 6:47 pm

It isn’t your strong point either – costs are about GBP 3.2M /MW (REF report) so on your figures about $30 years to recoup capital assuming no O&M costs. Pity their life expectency is only 15-18 years

M Courtney
January 30, 2022 11:48 am

In related news, the Guardian reports record output from wind farms in a recent storm.

UK windfarms generate record amount of electricity during Storm Malik | Wind power | The Guardian

A storm that took place on the weekend and which knocked out a lot of the grid.
So that’s actually record money spent of wind that we couldn’t use and didn’t need.

Reply to  M Courtney
January 30, 2022 12:04 pm

Renewable energy in Scotland.
None when the wind doesn’t blow. None when the wind does blow!

griff
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 31, 2022 12:49 am

Scotland has hydro, pumped storage, tidal and solar too.

Reply to  griff
January 31, 2022 12:58 am

Scotland has rodent wheels too, griff.

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 31, 2022 7:18 am

Not after PETA finds out.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2022 7:17 am

So what if they have it, unless they have it in sufficient volume it doesn’t do any good.
Solar doesn’t work at night.
Tidal. Tidal? Really??

Toerag
Reply to  MarkW
February 1, 2022 4:32 pm

They have tidal in development. It’s selling to the grid in Orkney.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  M Courtney
January 31, 2022 3:42 am

Looking at the day ahead forecast and reported actual generation it seems there was curtailment of about 3.4GW on average on the 29th. We’ll get a better idea when REF update their website with the latest constraint payments. To 23 January they are showing £23,746,632 and 402,098 MWh for the month.

January 30, 2022 11:59 am

Pure fantasy. Fraud.

The overall cost is between £150 at low levels of penetration to over £1000 when the proprtion of grid energy rises.

The renewable cabal is so desperate now that huge porkies are simply normal practice.

When they go down, I hope its with long gaol sentences.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 30, 2022 1:12 pm

Climate change POLICY crimes against humanity trials.

Start making it explicit that once it’s irrefutable that CO2 does not control temps and people knew it all along, the tens of trillions $$ wasted has to come with real penalties.

People need to start betting their lives on this. They always say they do, it needs to be made explicit.

To paraphrase Hans Gruber: “you can’t just steal $100 trillion, we will find you, unless you are already dead”.

Same for the geo-engineering types who want to conduct massive experiments with the atmosphere to “see what happens”.
Make it explicit that if it goes wrong, before the rest of us die they will get the full William Wallace treatment.

People need to start thinking of consequences if we want to speed the transition to reality.

It doesn't add up...
January 30, 2022 12:26 pm

Here’s some real prices on UK renewables in production under the CFD regime. Even the onshore wind is now getting close to £100/MWh, while the offshore wind is averaging close to £160/MWh. To get from there to £25/MWh is a reduction in realms of fantasy. Please note that this is for is for wind farms that are actually in production, starting up in 2017 or later, so it excludes earlier ones that were supposedly more costly. It also excludes Triton Knoll, which is currently operating outside the CFD regime getting full market prices of around £200/MWh while it indulges in some extended “commissioning”.

CFD Average Actual Strike Prices.png
menace
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
January 30, 2022 8:57 pm

Does this factor in the effects of spot price spikes when wind stops blowing or does that all get shifted to the fossil fuels that come to the rescue?

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  menace
January 31, 2022 3:18 am

It factors in the actual production hour by hour from each wind farm, and the price for that hour. The costs of dealing with lack of wind and lack of alternative capacity come under a separate heading – grid balancing costs. See this chart for recent trends

Grid balancing costs to jan 21.png
It doesn't add up...
Reply to  menace
January 31, 2022 12:07 pm

Here’s a look at the relationship between generation sources and prices based on hourly data over December. It includes some low demand periods over the holidays when it was also unseasonably warm, so we actually saw a few negative prices with wind surpluses. But whenever supply was really tight, the grid depended on gas and wind contributed very little. There are a few more extreme points to the right of the chart that were excluded to make the X slopes easier to spot. Bear in mind that demand varies over the 24 hours and weekends/holidays, and gas gets turned down to a minimum when demand is low and there is plenty of other generation. Wind generation does not include any element of curtailed production, which only really happens at higher levels of wind output – but it cuts in at different levels depending on demand at the time, with low demand leading to more curtailment.

Gas v Wind Price Dec 21.png
griff
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
January 31, 2022 12:48 am

You are looking at an average including older cfd deals which will run out shortly. Go look at the prices in rounds 2 and 3 of cfd for offshore wind.

‘Developers are paid a flat (indexed) rate for the electricity they produce over a 15-year period; the difference between the ‘strike price’ (a price for electricity reflecting the cost of investing in a particular low carbon technology) and the ‘reference price’ (a measure of the average market price for electricity in the GB market).’

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2022 3:07 am

Nonsense. None of the 15 year deals expire before 2032, and that’s just the earliest deals that started in 2017.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
January 31, 2022 7:19 am

In other words, they are still being paid based on their costs, not based on market prices.

In griff’s world, a small drop in subsidies is proof that there are no subsidies.

Last edited 3 months ago by MarkW
Pat from kerbob
January 30, 2022 1:05 pm

If they weren’t lying they wouldn’t be green

willem post
January 30, 2022 1:29 pm

The UK CCC claim is off-the-charts blarney.
Statements without proof and documentary back-up.

Here are the ALL-IN costs for wind and solar in New England, which used to be a colony of the UK. See URL and Appendix.

BIDEN 30,000 MW OFFSHORE WIND SYSTEMS BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY  
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy

Neville
January 30, 2022 2:25 pm

Here’s the transcript of Mark Mill’s factual S & W video and takes about 5 minutes to watch. Please wake up to these TOXIC RUINABLES and their short 20 year life. SO WHAT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT????
https://www.prageru.com/video/whats-wrong-with-wind-and-solar?playlist=fact-checkers

Have you ever heard of “unobtanium”?
It’s the magical energy mineral found on the planet Pandora in the movie, Avatar. It’s a fantasy in a science fiction script. But environmentalists think they’ve found it here on earth in the form of wind and solar power.
They think all the energy we need can be supplied by building enough wind and solar farms; and enough batteries.
The simple truth is that we can’t. Nor should we want to—not if our goal is to be good stewards of the planet.
To understand why, consider some simple physics realities that aren’t being talked about.
All sources of energy have limits that can’t be exceeded. The maximum rate at which the sun’s photons can be converted to electrons is about 33%. Our best solar technology is at 26% efficiency. For wind, the maximum capture is 60%. Our best machines are at 45%.
So, we’re pretty close to wind and solar limits. Despite PR claims about big gains coming, there just aren’t any possible. And wind and solar only work when the wind blows and the sun shines. But we need energy all the time. The solution we’re told is to use batteries. Again, physics and chemistry make this very hard to do.
Consider the world’s biggest battery factory, the one Tesla built in Nevada. It would take 500 years for that factory to make enough batteries to store just one day’s worth of America’s electricity needs. This helps explain why wind and solar currently still supply less than 3% of the world’s energy, after 20 years and billions of dollars in subsidies. 
Putting aside the economics, if your motive is to protect the environment, you might want to rethink wind, solar, and batteries because, like all machines, they’re built from nonrenewable materials. 
Consider some sobering numbers: 
A single electric-car battery weighs about half a ton. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving, and processing more than 250 tons of earth somewhere on the planet. 
Building a single 100 Megawatt wind farm, which can power 75,000 homes requires some 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete, as well as 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for the huge blades. To get the same power from solar, the amount of cement, steel, and glass needed is 150% greater. 
Then there are the other minerals needed, including elements known as rare earth metals. With current plans, the world will need an incredible 200 to 2,000 percent increase in mining for elements such as cobalt, lithium, and dysprosium, to name just a few. 
Where’s all this stuff going to come from? Massive new mining operations. Almost none of it in America, some imported from places hostile to America, and some in places we all want to protect. 
Australia’s Institute for a Sustainable Future cautions that a global “gold” rush for energy materials will take miners into “…remote wilderness areas [that] have maintained high biodiversity because they haven’t yet been disturbed.”
And who is doing the mining? Let’s just say that they’re not all going to be union workers with union protections.  
Amnesty International paints a disturbing picture: “The… marketing of state-of-the-art technologies are a stark contrast to the children carrying bags of rocks.”
And then the mining itself requires massive amounts of conventional energy, as do the energy-intensive industrial processes needed to refine the materials and then build the wind, solar, and battery hardware.
Then there’s the waste. Wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries have a relatively short life; about twenty years. Conventional energy machines, like gas turbines, last twice as long.
With current plans, the International Renewable Energy Agency calculates that by 2050, the disposal of worn-out solar panels will constitute over double the tonnage of all of today’s global plastic waste. Worn-out wind turbines and batteries will add millions of tons more waste. It will be a whole new environmental challenge.  
Before we launch history’s biggest increase in mining, dig up millions of acres in pristine areas, encourage childhood labor, and create epic waste problems, we might want to reconsider our almost inexhaustible supply of hydrocarbons—the fuels that make our marvelous modern world possible.
And technology is making it easier to acquire and cleaner to use them every day.  
The following comparisons are typical—and instructive:
It costs about the same to drill one oil well as it does to build one giant wind turbine. And while that turbine generates the energy equivalent of about one barrel of oil per hour, the oil rig produces 10 barrels per hour. It costs less than 50 cents to store a barrel of oil or its equivalent in natural gas. But you need $200 worth of batteries to hold the energy contained in one oil barrel.
Next time someone tells you that wind, solar and batteries are the magical solution for all our energy needs ask them if they have an idea of the cost… to the environment. 
“Unobtanium” works fine in the movies. But we don’t live in movies. We live in the real world.
I’m Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, for Prager University.

Toerag
Reply to  Neville
February 1, 2022 4:59 pm

“Wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries have a relatively short life; about twenty years. Conventional energy machines, like gas turbines, last twice as long.”
Solar panels – guaranteed to last 25 years @95%+ output. Conventional energy machines don’t last twice that long as they get superseded. No-one uses 40yr old conventional power machines.

“A single electric-car battery weighs about half a ton. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving, and processing more than 250 tons of earth somewhere on the planet. ”

That battery will last at least 8 years (warrantied) and cover an average mileage of 80k miles @8k a year. A petrol ICE gets what, 40miles per UK gallon, so needs 10,000litres (~10 tonnes) of petrol to run it for that mileage. How much earth needs mining to provide the iron ore and other resources to prospect for, drill, pump, store, transport, refine, store, transport to local depot, store, transport and store those 10 tonnes of fuel again until it goes in your car? I’ll give you a hint – a lot more than 250 tonnes.

“the disposal of worn-out solar panels will constitute over double the tonnage of all of today’s global plastic waste. Worn-out wind turbines and batteries will add millions of tons more waste. It will be a whole new environmental challenge. ”
Of course solar panels will create lots of tonnage, they’re mostly glass and glass is heavy. Wind turbines can and are being recycled, as are batteries. It’s pretty rich to say there will be an environmental challenge when the environmental damage from oil production, transportation, refining and burning is way higher.

“It costs about the same to drill one oil well as it does to build one giant wind turbine.” …and how much does it cost to build an oil pipeline to shore, a crude tanker to ship to to a refinery, an oil refinery, a product tanker to ship it to a distribution port, road tankers to take it to the gas station, and the gas station itself. All that infrastructure costs way more to build and maintain than the equivalent electrical infrastructure.

“But you need $200 worth of batteries to hold the energy contained in one oil barrel.” Yeah, and that battery will hold that energy again and again and again.

lee
January 30, 2022 5:22 pm

28 years time? just in time to spend on new wind turbines. The cost rolls on.

MarkW
Reply to  lee
January 31, 2022 7:21 am

Actually, in 28 years, the second generation will be about half way through their expected lifespan.

It doesn't add up...
February 7, 2022 7:45 am

Perhaps the real question should be is it competitive at minus £60/MWh for export markets?

1 jan interconnect price.png
%d bloggers like this: