Energy being expensive and trickier to source is good news ... for renewables The International Energy Agency is revising its predictions for renewable energy growth upward by 30 percent, and reckons renewables like wind and solar will overtake coal to become the largest energy source on the planet by 2025. Renewable investments will account for 90 percent of new global electricity generation over the …
. . . the usual suspects appear with their long-winded froth-mouthed rants about the "Greens," how global warming is a Communist liberal hoax manufactured by *cough* "globalists," and how renewable energy is unsustainable, with a side helping of jabs at "Greta."
We get it, guys, give it a rest.
I'll just leave this here-
https://gridwatch.co.uk/Wind
Last Month-
minimum: 0.249 GW maximum: 16.742 GW average: 9.513 GW
Problem is still that it's not a like-for-like comparison. Coal generation can be turned up & down, wind does it's own thing. See also-
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/12/07/labour-target-net-zero-electricity-by-2030/
Labour’s bold plan for net-zero carbon emissions from power by 2030 is unachievable. It will require adding around 90 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity, building transmission lines from Scotland and the East of England (where the wind is) to southern England (where most of the demand is), and adding about 32 terawatt-hours (equivalent to the supply of about eight million homes) worth of new base load to deal with what the Germans call dunkelflaute, when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.
Wind and solar simply can't deliver 90GW consistently, reliably and especially cheaply. Also note how the units change from GW to TWh, and there's only enough base load for 8m homes. UK has around 25m, plus hospitals, schools, businesses etc. And domestic energy usage is going to increase as heating, cooking and transport is forced to electrify. The 32TWh translates to only 3GW of dependable power, and won't replace the generation we're losing as our nuclear and remaining coal power stations close down.
You see conspiracy theories. I see the engineering, economic and basic physics problems that Labour's 'bold plan' simply ignore. But then there has been a huge amount of lobbying done to convince politicians that this will work, and won't just generate even more collosal windfall profits for the lobbyists and their clients.
One simple way to demonstrate the fraud is to ask why customers on 'Renewable' tariffs have had the same massive price hikes as everyone else. If their energy is 'renewable' why has the price of gas inflated their bills so dramatically?
"minimum: 0.249 GW maximum: 16.742 GW average: 9.513 GW"
What is needed is an analysis of what is the lowest power that can be consistently delivered from a peak installation of X GW - ie installed peak power + storage requirement to be able to deliver a consistent X GW. For example looking at the gridwatch 'previous year' graph, most of the windless days are in summer where solar could fill in the gaps together with minimal storage. The biggest gap (rough eyeball) is about 2 weeks in a year* and that a wind install base of about 15GW peak/total can consistently deliver about 5GW as long as it has enough storage to cover those 2 weeks (or 336 hours) at that capacity. That's 1680 GWh (probably say 2TWh to be safe).
At that point, work out whether it's more cost-effective to fill in the gap with battery storage or gas combined-cycle. Certainly gas would seem a better bet**, but that could shift if the economies of scale make grid-scale storage cheaper and more occasional use make gas more expensive. Ultimately it's not so much a technical problem as a policy problem of how the energy markets are regulated and how incentives are followed.
*I'm pretty sure there are some advanced statistical models that can work this with more detail
**see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source , usual Wikipedia caveats apply but it's generally a good-enough source for this type of approximation.
"peak power + storage requirement"
Any storage requirements drive the costs far too high. Southern Australia found out they had to add storage to cope with replacing fossil power generation with renewable. The perfect storm hit their grid and burned it out. Once the analysis was done, it turned out that the perfect storm doesn't need to have so much perfection for that problem to occur again. Since there was no way to restart the fossil fuels plants or build replacements, the only option was a giant battery pack to balance traffic. The grid was engineered to have power input at a few discrete nodes and be transmitted to many loads. It wasn't anticipated that the grid would have many smaller inputs and need to be able to transmit the power so many different ways. Boom.
The talk in the media is mainly about government level policy which has little good trickle-down benefit to the average household user. I concentrate on being as selfish as I can. I'm slowly putting together zero-export systems so I'm insulated from whatever compromised government program gets adopted and foisted on the proles. I just finished troubleshooting a misbehaving 310W solar panel that I purchased for $25. It turns out that whatever the previous owner did, he managed to damage a pair of cells at the top of one chain. I'll have those bypassed later today and be generating power with that panel tomorrow. I won't get 310W out of it, but for $25, 100W would still be a good deal. I'll get more than 100W for sure. Knowing how to fix things is a good skill.
Yes please more unstable energy!
Another 'problem' with renewables I've recently heard of - when the wind blows then the wind doth blow. Windfarms produce 'free' energy by the bucket load. The energy markets turn round and say hey stop sending us so much energy, spot price dives (sometimes negative) so the wind farm owners get a pittance for their energy but consumers momentarily happy. Then the wind stops, prices go up, wind farm owners get a pretty penny per unit now, times almost 0 produced units.
Once again, the energy crisis isn't completely down to Putin, it's just been helped along by Putin thanks to terrible 'green' (aren't nuclear fuel rods /radioactive things often portayed as glowing green? :) decisions. Hint hint shutting down nuclear reactors early, deciding Russia's a great place to rely on for (almost?) 100% of your gas supplies.
You could say it's like you've been driving your car for 30 years and never had an accident, so why carry around the weight of seatbelts that serve no purpose. Get rid of the airbags while you're at it (explosives are dangerous afterall). You've been warned they do serve a purpose even if you don't perceive any use from them. Then unfortunately a moose (the 4 legged creature) runs out in front of you and you plow straight into her. You go splat thanks to lack of seatbelts and airbag, but if it wasn't for Mrs Moose you'd be fine!
The energy markets turn round and say hey stop sending us so much energy, spot price dives (sometimes negative) so the wind farm owners get a pittance for their energy but consumers momentarily happy.
Actually, it's worse than that. See-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_(Great_Britain)#Constraint_payments
So they get paid millions for a service that should be worth zero. If there's no demand, there should be no payment. Costs of those constraint payments are just added to our energy bills. National Grid Plc is of course a for-profit company, and not for-consumers, so there's zero incentive for it to reduce costs when it has a monopoly.
"so there's zero incentive for it to reduce costs when it has a monopoly.'
Only up to the point where it's so bad for the consumers that political action has to be taken for the current crop of politicians to continue in office. There are indications now that a crisis point has arrived. Some are not concerned that a small trader has to close up due to skyrocketing utility costs, but if that means a village doesn't have a butcher any more or the local is forced to close, people will be unhappy. They may also need to travel much further for necessities.
"when the wind blows then the wind doth blow. Windfarms produce 'free' energy by the bucket load. The energy markets turn round and say hey stop sending us so much energy, spot price dives"
True, true. What if there were a market for all of that energy at a profit? I can envision a time when EV's can be programmed to take advantage of reduced rates when they are sitting plugged in if the network can transmit pricing in real time. When there is a lot of supply, prices will drop, but that's always the case. The trick is to still be able to sell at a profit.
EV's are just one option. More thought could be put into developing processes that can tolerate starting and stopping. An Ammonia production plant built into a shipping container form factor and sat along side an Ammonia pipeline could produce or be idle depending on power pricing of if the wind turbine it's connected to is operating. Some battery buffer can allow that plant to turn on and shut down gracefully. I know that with some thought, more good ideas can be had.
EVs aren't exactly a good idea here. If you plug your car in overnight expecting it to be charged for the morning (as I expect is how the majority of EVs are used) then where do you set your minimum price? It ends up being a gamble between cheap charging and having a full battery in the morning. A gamble that's likely not what most people want to take.
Other processes that can be effectively started with little to no notice and shutdown just as fast could work well here. However I can't see anybody wanting to build a processing plant that works maybe 30-50% of the time on cheap electric and sits idle the rest of the time.
"EVs aren't exactly a good idea here. If you plug your car in overnight expecting it to be charged for the morning (as I expect is how the majority of EVs are used) then where do you set your minimum price? It ends up being a gamble between cheap charging and having a full battery in the morning. A gamble that's likely not what most people want to take."
Solve the problem. If you need X% charge in the morning, set the car to make sure it charges to that point during off-peak hours. You could also set the car to charger to X% or Y% depending on if the prices drop due to excess wind supply overnight. If you are plugged in at work and it's a nice sunny day but not hot so again, spot power prices are low, your car could take advantage if there is room to shove in a few electrons.
You won't be gambling you have enough of a charge to get you to work and back. You are leaving room to take advantage of a mark-down just like you might at the grocery store if you leave some room in the fridge/freezer. My freezer is currently stuffed solid and that worries me so I'm favoring preparing frozen items to get some space back.
What prices do you set? Hard to say until there is some information available. It should be obvious that if rates in the spring when there is good wind can drop quite low, charging during the day at a higher rate isn't that smart unless you must. If my average rate is 30p/kWh and it drops to 15p/kWh sometime during the night, I should have the car set to take advantage of that. If I wind up with more energy stored up in the car the next night than I need and there is no reduction, the car doesn't charge. All EV's can be set to charge during certain hours when at home and they can be told to start charging right away with the push of a button. My suggestions only need a bit of programming on the car's part and a grid that can send out pricing in real-time.
How much electricity do renewables provide the UK on a calm winters night ? (Hint wind zero solar zero!!)
The current UK peak electricity demand is around 50GW - hydroelectric generation can provide under 2GW of this demand and biomass can provide just over 4GW. This leaves 44GW of generation needed from other sources. On a calm winters night there is no other renewable power available so conventional generation (nuclear, gas, coal, oil) have to provide the power.
If UK governments were sensible and far sighted (pigs will fly in formation first!!), then the majority of UK generation would now be nuclear. However given the idiots in charge over the last 50 years, the UK needs enough gas fired power station capacity to make up for a worst case shortfall from wind generation. The various "green" incentives (eg the tax on carbon emissions and the preferential pricing given to wind generation) are making gas fired generation less and less profitable. The companies that operate the gas fired power stations will only continue to do so if they make a profit from them. The UK could easily find itself at the mercy of the wind if the "green" incentives make gas fired generation unprofitable.
(A note - assuming no further reductions in greenhouse emissions then by 2100 the sea level may rise by 60cm (2 feet) and the average global temperature may rise by 2C. To lessen this small change which would barely affect the UK, the UK is expected to spend 100s of billions of pounds in the various "green" measures. (The difference between the UK doing nothing and the UK doing its maximum to reduce greenhouse emissions would be less than 0.1C on the global average temperature - the UK only emits 1.1% of the worlds greenhouse gases.))
"(The difference between the UK doing nothing and the UK doing its maximum to reduce greenhouse emissions would be less than 0.1C on the global average temperature - the UK only emits 1.1% of the worlds greenhouse gases.)"
Oy that's Sweden's job to punish their citizens such that should Sweden's emissions be 0 then the overall difference to the global emissions would be lost in the error bars. Ideas like the plastic bag tax because plastic ends up in the ocean and kills the fishes. When was the last time you threw your plastic bags in the ocean? Or just threw them in the nature i.e, not in the rubbish or recycling where they don't end up in the ocean. Sounds green on paper, actual difference? 0.
The point being for Sweden or the UK to get to net zero would take a lot of effort, but the resulting effect would be negligible.
If indeed one believes we are in a climate crisis, then how is reducing a small fraction of something to zero going to have any immediate or noticeable effect? Blocking roads to stop oil use in the UK and other 'rich' nations (so no plastics then either, better start growing trees 50 years ago to replace all the new plastic things with wood) isn't worth the effort.
China needs convincing to reduce its reliance on coal - chances of that happening by blocking a road in the UK or via political pressure? More effective action would be working with and helping LEDCs in moving to a less carbonised system offering the knowledge we have gained so far.
If you have one room in your house lit with filament bulbs and one lit with CFL. Which room do you fit out first with LEDs to get the greatest reduction in energy use? Hint, not the room with CFLs...
> How much electricity do renewables provide the UK on a calm winters night ? (Hint wind zero solar zero!!)
Even on a sunny winters day solar can be at the bugger all level. Our system is able to make 8kW. Today's been as fine as a December's day gets and I'm not sure we've topped 500W, total production for the day 2.5kWh.
Saw a post on the faceache from a company claiming to be building a fence of vertical solar panels at FRA airport, so as to reduce shading and the impact to the flora and fauna. Seriously?!?! Waste the resources to build a perfectly capable solar panel, then nobble it by mounting it vertically. Why not use fewer solar panels, mounted correctly to get the same equivalent power, thus needing less panels and shading the same amount of area. Point being if you're panel isn't creating shade then it's not collecting energy.
"Saw a post on the faceache from a company claiming to be building a fence of vertical solar panels at FRA airport, so as to reduce shading and the impact to the flora and fauna.'
That is both hilarious and frightening at the same time. What politician or other person feeding at the public trough came up with that design. I'm sure any solar install company would immediately spot the problem. Not that they'd push back too hard since it should be easy money.
"Today's been as fine as a December's day gets and I'm not sure we've topped 500W, total production for the day 2.5kWh."
Do you have data that your system has produced 8kW or is that just the nameplate rating of the panels? Keep in mind that the Earth does NOT see 1kW/sqm of insolation. That throws the nameplate numbers into a cocked hat. Another factor is if your system is angled correctly for the mid-winter sun. We are only a couple of weeks away from the shortest day of the year. If your system was angled for best performance in summer or just laid down at whatever pitch your roof might be, you might not be getting the most for your investment. The weather can suck in the winter too, but you already know that. If you have a ground mounted system, you may want to look into installing a mechanism that lets you optimize the array and how much that might get you for the cost.
"The difference between the UK doing nothing and the UK doing its maximum to reduce greenhouse emissions would be less than 0.1C on the global average temperature - the UK only emits 1.1% of the worlds greenhouse gases"
So the UK shouldn't care at all then, right? The 'what can I do?' and 'They did it first / more' are exactly the shitty attitudes that have prolonged this and many other global problems. Yes, the UK and other western countries have to do more, proportionally, to most other countries an hope that other countries follow suit. Maybe we should consider it payback for the centuries of colonialism that made 'the west' the preeminent economies, and the decades where 'the west' were by far the largest polluters and the largest beneficiaries of the energy production that generated that pollution.
"So the UK shouldn't care at all then, right? The 'what can I do?' and 'They did it first / more' are exactly the shitty attitudes that have prolonged this and many other global problems."
A big problem is politicians with no background or even a nodding acquaintance with science are coming up with plans to kneecap large swaths of the population. Things should be done and there are things that can be done. The problem is doing the best things at a pace that can be tolerated. London declaring that the bounds of the "congestion" tax zone are going to grow a great deal in a short period of time gives nobody the chance to plan for the change. What if somebody just bought an ICEV a couple of months ago that isn't living someplace where an EV can be made to work? Now they could be stuck paying more taxes since the car's value took a massive hit when the paperwork was signed and keys handed over. There's no way they can turn around and sell the car. Change isn't a problem. Rate of change can be a problem. If a policy has a broad impact, there needs to be plans put into action to reduce the negative effects. The "government" buying everybody a new car is not solving the problem. It's the failed policy of all governments trying to solve a problem by throwing money at it inappropriately. They often wind up with loads of money failing to hit the mark and winding up in the bank accounts of people that are good at coming up with ways to game the system.
So the IEA thinks expensive energy is a good thing since it makes green energy more competitive. This is entirely bass ackwards. Green energy should be more competitive so it displaces fossil fuels.
More expensive energy impoverishes poor people. From heating to cooking to the food itself. Most fertilizer is produced from fossil fuels. More people will die from cold and hunger in the net zero world than from any warming. I believe the folks at the IEA think that is just dandy.
Icon for the thing that might kill more than the IEA's policies.
"More expensive energy impoverishes poor people."
This is absolutely correct.
"the IEA thinks expensive energy is a good thing since it makes green energy more competitive"
This is ass backwards, yet is the result of decades of ass-backwards policies. Hydrocarbon fuels are cheap because of decades of massive subsidies* that continue even today, and green energy is expensive because the subsidies to green energy has been proportionally far less. Cut the subsidies to oil and gas, and switch those subsidies to renewables and nuclear, and you can have plenty of renewable and nuclear energy that is not cheap per se but is cheap for poor people thanks to the subsidies. That's far better policy than paying giant oil and gas companies trillions so that poor people can have cheap energy.
*https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/subsidies-for-oil-gas-nuclear-vs-renewables
"Cut the subsidies to oil and gas, and switch those subsidies to renewables and nuclear"
Nope. Phase out the subsidies altogether. Energy underpins everything we do so there should be a way to come up with solutions where the energy companies make money with being tax supported. The alternative is nationalized utilities which could be more expensive and a much bigger disaster.
"Phase out the subsidies altogether. Energy underpins everything we do so there should be a way to come up with solutions where the energy companies make money with being tax supported. "
On the long-term I agree. On a consumer level, subsidies are supposed to make energy cheaper for everyone, but ultimately people are having to pay higher taxes to fund the subsidies instead of paying higher energy prices. But also, subsidies keep industrial energy costs low, essentially getting people to support industry through their taxes. Again, removing these subsidies could allow lower taxes and increase prices for industry, resulting in higher consumer costs. But then again consumers can balance that with the lower tax burden.
BUT... when a technology is new and will be of future strategic importance but can't get kickstarted because it's not cost-competitive against an incumbent dinosaur, there is a scope for limited-time subsidies to the new tech.
"BUT... when a technology is new and will be of future strategic importance but can't get kickstarted because it's not cost-competitive against an incumbent dinosaur, there is a scope for limited-time subsidies to the new tech."
I agree with that. What I hate to see are long term subsidies or short term subsidies that keep getting extended as the industry that they are supposed to get started come up with business plans that take the subsidies as permanent, which they often wind up being.
Government has the carrot of subsidies and the stick of bans. They also have a smaller stick in the form of regulating and taxing something to death over time. It can lose a politician their post if they support an unpopular ban too close to an election but getting behind a subsidy can buy them votes especially if there is a labor union component.
"The International Energy Agency is revising its predictions for renewable energy growth upward by 30 percent, and reckons renewables like wind and solar will overtake coal to become the largest energy source on the planet by 2025."
If you switch off coal then yes unreliables could produce more. However those coal plants to be mothballed are back online again for another winter to try and keep the lights on.
As per usual people are likely to complain about the source than the message, but it is an interesting read- https://fortuneandfreedom.com/financial-independence/the-uk-is-praying-for-a-kamikaze-to-fan-its-himmelfahrtskommando-energy-policy
"However those coal plants to be mothballed are back online again for another winter to try and keep the lights on."
and the hottest part of the summer. Maybe in the fall during harvest to help support the food processing plants. Maybe in spring too............
Baseline, predictable power is important. Intermittent sources are useful, but they need to be matched with things where not being as predictable is ok.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
