Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to British government ministers, the best way to shield Britons from gas price volatility is to embrace renewable energy. My question – what is the plan when the wind stops blowing, like it did last September?
Renewables auctions to be held annually in green energy push
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analystThe government has re-stated its faith in green technologies with a decision that it says will create a steady stream of renewable energy projects.
Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng says renewable power is the best way to shield the UK from volatile gas prices.
He announced that auctions to supply low-carbon electricity will now happen every year, instead of every two.
He says this will bring more certainty to firms planning to invest in wind turbines and solar panels.
The renewables industry is delighted – especially after a week that’s seen the government’s energy policy under fire from some MPs and commentators who believe the costs of the drive to eliminate carbon emissions by 2050 are too high.
Mr Kwarteng said: “We are hitting the accelerator on domestic electricity production to boost energy security, attract private investment and create jobs in our industrial heartlands.
…
Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60325908
in September 2021, Bloomberg reported that wind power in Britain failed, because the wind stopped blowing.
U.K. Power Surges to Record 400 Pounds as Wind Fails to Blow
“We are not receiving enough renewable production”: Accenture
U.K. can’t count on nuclear as five EDF units are offline
By
Rachel Morison and Anna Shiryaevskaya
13 September 2021, 21:18 GMT+10 Updated onElectricity prices soared to a record in Britain as a period of still weather is curbing wind power, exposing the U.K.’s reliance on intermittent renewables.
U.K. power for next day exceed 400 pounds ($553) a megawatt-hour at an auction on Monday, an all-time high. Wind generation is currently below normal, accounting for about 11% of all the electricity entering the grid. That’s leaving the market exposed to swings at a time five nuclear units are offline.
The U.K.’s ability to meet peak demand was already set to shrink this winter as coal and nuclear power stations close early. The outlook has worsened as low wind speeds have forced Britain to rely more on fossil fuels to produce power at a time Europe is facing a shortage of gas and coal prices are surging.
…
Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-13/u-k-power-prices-hit-record-as-outages-low-winds-cut-supply
How can anyone believe that wind and solar can fulfil Britain’s energy needs? How can anyone believe that more renewables can stabilise energy supply?
Britain has had multiple demonstrations the last few years, including last September, that renewables are too unreliable to be useful. If Kwasi Kwarteng gets his way, the energy price pain will grow.
The requirements for senior political post: obedience, adherence to dogma, lack of insight, lack of judgment and a steadfast adherence to insanity – as in keep doing the same thing while expecting a different outcome.
+50
They have broken their energy grid, and haven’t the foggiest notion how it got broken, much less how to fix it.
Renewables make gas prices more volatile.
Renewable prices are way more volatile than gas prices.
But in an all unreliable source grid, price will not be related to “volatile gas prices”.
Anyone who asserts the price of “renewable” electricity when the sun ain’t shining and/or the wind ain’t blowing will be the same as when there is sunshine on PV panels and strong breezes going through wind turbines is—in the slang of the part of the US where I grew up—buying a pig-in-a-poke.
This whole argument is absurd. If wind and solar worked the need for and price of natural gas would be meaningless and of no consequence. The solution is at hand. Smart meters should be installed at all residences and businesses. Each meter should be programmed for that customers energy source preference. If you are like me and are an all of the above customer your meter would be programmed for all available sources and my preference would be to be billed for the cheapest source. If you are a wind and solar kind of guy your meter will be programmed to deliver energy when wind and solar power is available and you will be charged for the actual cost of generating with wind and solar. I would recommend these customers purchase a gas generator because you will need it every time wind and solar can’t deliver. Every option in between will be offered, the point is you will get energy when your preference is delivering and you be be charged the actual cost of generating power with your preference.
This type of thinking helped get us into the crapfest we are in.
Wind and solar can be incredibly cheap if they only supply in the periods when wind/sun is available. But in doing so they force massive externality costs on other generators who have to pick up the slack when the wind is not blowing or no sun.
It is not the final consumer who should be the ones doing the correct costing. It should be up to the wholesale purchaser.
Generators should bid, both quantity and price, into the system over a reasonably extended period, say one or two days. Your quantity bid should not be more than 120% of your average supply over the last year.
Wind and solar generators would have to team up with reliable generators or battery systems to be able to provide power through that entire period. This would be totally different to the current prioritisation of supplier and forcing of huge costs onto other generators.
I beg to differ. My thinking would supply the energy I want when I want it. There is no reason for for fossil, nuclear or hydro to back up wind and solar. If wind and solar can’t deliver and must rely on backup then they should be made to build their own backup. Their competitors should not be forced to fill in the gaps that wind and solar by definition must have.
“ According to British government ministers, the best way to shield Britons from gas price volatility is to embrace renewable energy.”
Really?
Put it to a vote and see what the people say
Unfortunately most people are really clueless about how they get their electricity, except from a plug/switch on the wall. But unreliables have been pushed relentlessly for years as a panacea for climate change so I fear general ignorance would result in a favourable vote.
Obviously the solution to volatile gas prices is sky-high consistent pricing.
If wind power is so cheap and efficient, why does it have to wait for govt subsidised schemes every year?
Why are they not being built anyway all the time?
Good question. I think the answer is that we gave up on the idea of a free market a long time ago. Now everything must be sanctioned by the array of quangos (OFGEM, National Grid, CCC, BEIS, Crown Estate (for offshore leasing)) before it can happen. It’s a centrally planned failure, entirely Sovietised.
The plan is to continue to graft funds from energy price fixing and hidden taxes. In other words, just another form of property confiscation that is characteristic of all forms of government.
Don’t expect there to be a positive effect on the environment. Another common characteristic of governments is waste.
“They” don’t. Individuals frequently see a way to line their pockets and/or to secure their reputations using others’ productivity and property. Socialists, Oligopolists, Fascists, and Capitalists — all truly Collectivists — simply covet other peoples’ money and property, and will combine forces to take those things away with impunity.
It is impossible to keep these individuals out of political power, but this attraction is a vulnerability, that at least serves to consolidate potential targets in a small area.
Capitalism gives value for the money received; the rest don’t.
Dave F. — Emphatically agree. A free-market “capitalist”, believing and thriving in a competetive market, does exactly as you say
A monopolist does not. If one dominates, or seeks to dominate a market, or joins with a few others in a cartel in order to fix prices and limit distribution, will becomes first a corporate trust and eventually an extension (or proprietors) of government. “New World Order,” Globalist capitalists seem more like the latter sort.
We shouldn’t refer to both sorts with the same word, but we do. I was referring to the latter, who I believe are the most common variety of the genus. With energy producers jumping on the AGW hysteria bandwagon, and thereby raising prices, reducing supply, obtaining/expanding government license and strengthening market exclusivity, I think that I can show my case.
We need more of the free-market, competitive sort.
I’d be interested to hear from the engineers that provided this advice to these ministers. I’d be interested to hear the reasoning behind these claims.
Was any such advice sought by the ministers, or provided?
You can bet that no individuals with real life engineering experience gave such advice, probably because the “minister” didn’t ask them.
He just listened to the ‘advisors’ that fitted his political narrative.
It’s kind of like, if you are hitting yourself on the head with a hammer, the best way to shield yourself from the pain is to hit yourself harder and faster.
We’re fed up here in the UK getting repeatedly mugged off by the likes of Kwarteng.
And Harrabin’s a solid gold twat.
A sceptic posted a perfectly reasonable reply below Harrabin’s daft article. A green zealot replied with:
“Seriously, you should be banned from speaking in public until you get your mind right”
Yet, again, greens let the mask slip and expose themselves as absolute fascists.
Just what does “renewable” mean?
“Free energy” from the Sun and wind?
What does it take to build those devices?
Mine for rare earth elements like cobalt, lithium, etc. How much of it can, for instance, kids in Africa find before it’s gone?
Once we take them out of the ground to make these thing, what process “renews” them?
When will we reach “peak” cobalt? “Peak” lithium? “Peak” whatever else they need?
Sure, the Sun will always be there. But won’t be sunshine on the panels at night or as much if it’s cloudy or their covered by snow or bird sh … residue or just plain dust and dirt or leaves.
The wind will always be blowing somewhere. But maybe not where the pinwheels need it or to strong to use it or loose the pinwheel.
One of the ways in which they are trying to rig the markets is through CO2 emissions cap and trade. The UKA market which has replaced the EU ETS scheme since last May has already collected over £5bn in auction proceeds for the government, while the forward price has hit £90/tonne CO2e. Prices have been screwed higher by cutting the volumes offered at auction. The market in fact applies to large industrial operators and short haul aviation, not just electricity generators. But the clearing price can hit hard depending on the technology and sector. Even an aluminium smelter running on hydro power might be paying an additional £350-450/tonne of aluminium – so the production simply migrates to coal fired China instead, where the CO2 output is doubled and more. A coal fired power station will just add the UKA price to the cost of generating a MWh, while for CCGT it will add 36% of the price in baseload operation, but perhaps as much as 45% if forced to ramp up and down to keep pace with changing wind and demand.
Since CCGT tends to set market prices a lot of the time effectively the tax is adding over £30/MWh to market prices, also increasing the subsidies to renewables via a back door. the current plans call for 80.5 million allowances to be auctioned in the year, which would raise £6.4bn at £80/tonne CO2e from all industries while adding £8bn to electricity prices split about 50/50 between costs to fossil fuel generators and extra subsidies to renewables.
Another potential problem with using less and less gas is that the reduced volume still has to fund substantial fixed investment. Just because we can buy gas at $X now does not mean that this same price will apply to small quantities. This is accentuated by the need to still be able to draw on gas supply at high delivery rates. So we need to maintain significant capital equipment but use it for much less throughput.
What’s worse? That public officials spew such nonsense or that a large cohort of the public buys it?
“How can anyone believe that wind and solar can fulfil Britain’s energy needs? How can anyone believe that more renewables can stabilise energy supply?”
If you have no training in any sort of logical thinking, but instead believe in unicorns and magic puddings then believing in renewables ability to do it all is totally credible.
I wonder why none of our politicians heed the words of the late Regis Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University, author of the boof ‘Sustainable Energy – with out the hot air’ and Chief Scientific Advisor to the the Department of Energy… who said “Wind and Solar are a waste of Money for the UK”!
The UK currently has 24GW of wind capacity, which has delivered up to 19 GW of actual power (13.9 onshore, 10.4 offshore).
By 2030 this will rise to at least 62GW – 19.9 onshore, 42.4 offshore/floating.
The offshore wind will be more widely distributed than ever, in high wind capacity areas, of designs able to work also with low wind speeds.
UK maximum demand is around 48GW (evening peaks on top of that are handled usually by hydro and pumped storage, in the main).
(These are approved and building schemes – seabed allocated, CfD strike price agreed or being negotiated, etc)
Solar power will also increase by at least 6GW of large scale solar.
No need to even mention dozens of other small solutions…
The use of the 8 or more HVDC lines to 6 other countries/regions is an integral part of the supply plan, with around 10GW of capacity. Is is intended renewable power from other countries (plus cheaply dumped French nuclear capacity) is a regular part of the solution.
The idea that in 2030 the UK will not have enough power is a ludicrous one.
Your numbers are out of date, even relative to the delayed reporting standards for DUKES.
The “Extended Tables 6.1” set of data only goes up to Q3-2021 at the time of writing, but includes the following (in the “Renewable electricity capacity and generation (ET 6.1 – quarterly)” link on the following webpage).
URL : https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-6-renewables
For Q3-2021 the cumulative installed capacities for wind and solar were :
Onshore wind : 14,368 MW
Offshore wind : 11,066 MW
Solar (PV) : 13,689 MW
Note 1 : The “nominal / nameplate capacity” for all wind turbines on the GB grid was just over 25.5 GW 4 or 5 months ago.
Note 2 : 91 (days / quarter) x 24 (hours / day) x 25.5 GW ~= 55.7 TWh / quarter.
91 (days / quarter) x 24 (hours / day) x 10 GW (for reference) = 21.84 TWh / quarter.
– – – – –
The available “Quarter” numbers for “ELECTRICITY GENERATED (GWh)” since 2020 :
Year : ……………… 2020 ………………………………….. 2021
Quarter : ………… Q1 ….. Q2 ….. Q3 ….. Q4 ….. Q1 ….. Q2 ….. Q3
Onshore wind : 12,875 6,076 6,647 9,090 9,948 5,325 4,132
Offshore wind : 13,362 7,290 8,012 12,017 11,201 6,191 6,067
Solar (PV) : ……… 2,185 5,486 4,250 1,236 .. 1,726 4,839 4,173
– – – – –
For “LOAD FACTORS (%)”, however, you get :
Year : …………….. 2020 ……………………….. 2021
Quarter : ……….. Q1 .. Q2 .. Q3 .. Q4 .. Q1 .. Q2 .. Q3
Onshore wind : 42.2 19.9 21.6 29.3 32.6 17.2 13.2
Offshore wind : 61.2 32.6 34.9 52.4 49.9 26.9 25.6
Solar (PV) : …….. 7.5 18.9 14.4 .. 4.2 … 5.9 16.3 14.0
– – – – –
Additional “capacity” is useless when “as little as” 13% (onshore wind) / 25% (offshore wind) / 4% (solar PV) of that “extra theoretical power supply” shows up as “actual power”.
You do realise that according to Wind Europe nearly half of Europe’s existing wind farms will reach the end of their normal life by 2030 and need replacing. Have you factored this in to your calculations?
If you were to quadruple the number of pinwheels, when the wind isn’t blowing you still get 4 more times 0. Using racist math, 4 times bugger-all is still bugger-all.
Correction.
Your “up to 19 GW” number is up to date.
My bad …
Looking at from yet another angle, while the theoretical “capacity” of wind turbines attached to the GB grid has increased from ~15 to ~19 TWh per month over the last 4 years the actual production has yet to break into double-digits.
NB : Ironically February 2020 had only 28 days to establish the record, but its wind production has yet to be broken by any month with 30 or 31 days since then …
After I have caught myself being guilty of “lecturing / pontificating” to various other people about the differences between “the UK” (= England + Scotland + Wales + Northern Ireland + most surrounding islands) and “the island of Great Britain” (= just the main island of England + Scotland + Wales) your post confused me enough to make a couple of “silly mistakes” in my replies to you.
1) The “wind capacity” for the UK is just over 25.4 GW (not the 25.5 I stated), but it should have been “obvious” to me that after subtracting the ~1.3 GW of (onshore-only) wind capacity of Northern Ireland you were actually referring to the capacity of the GB electricity grid.
[ 25.4 – 1.3 = 24.1 … ]
2) 2020 was a leap year. February 2020 had 29 days, not 28.
Taking the time to generate a graph of daily “min/max generation from wind turbines for Great Britain” (see below), and taking a bit more time to think about its repercussions, leads me to make the following observations.
1) The GB grid’s wind turbines only generated more than 19 GW of power — averaged over a 30-minute “Settlement Period” — this year, a feat they only managed to achieve twice.
The previous record was 18.74 GW on 1/5/2021, but by my calculations they generated 19.54 GW on 29/1/2022 and 19.27 GW on 12/2/2022.
2) There was a relatively long “wind drought” for the GB electricity grid’s turbines for much of last summer (June to September 2021).
3) For the last week of November and the first half of December last year most days had a “max” value (for a single 30-minute “Settlement Period”) around 15-17 GW … and a “min” somewhere between 6-10 GW.
4) From the 16th to the 21st of December last year, i.e. for six consecutive days, the maximum “Electricity from wind turbines to the GB grid” value did not exceed 4.2 GW.
The minimum “30-minute averages” for that time period ranged from 1 to 2.4 GW.
– – – – –
As others have noted, there are major logistical / grid management issues that must be resolved when a group of turbines that can produce “up to 19 GW” of electricity can also produce “as little as 1 GW” of electricity, depending solely on the vagaries of the weather.
Who?
Well, you can safely use wind/solar reduce your consumption of gas, and hence your dependency on gas prices IF…a big IF…you provide enough gas-fired generation, with enough of it quick-starting, to handle the fluctuations and outages of the ‘renewable’ source. That means far higher capital investment than a purely gas-red system, because you are paying for a lot of gas-fired capacity that is there all the time but gets relatively low utilization, AND that is on top of the already-high capital costs of the wind and solar themselves.
And, of course, higher interest rates make capital investment more expensive.
How is it that every policy decision by this crowd is wrong & economically moronic. Energy from multiple sources should be the goal. The energy type used should reflect the most efficient & least overall total life cycle cost for the purpose needed. To deselect a host of reliable energy solutions is just downright dumb.