navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Who's a bad loser then?  (Read 1619 times)
stannn
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4556



« on: October 09, 2017, 04:53:44 PM »

http://renews.biz/108738/uk-offshore-cost-claims-challenged/
Logged

2.45 kWp PV (Navitron supply), 40 evacuated tubes (Navitron supply), Clearview 650 log burner with back-boiler heating cottage and water, 2 off 50W border collies, 1 off 35W cat, 1 off 25W cat.
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4770



« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2017, 05:31:01 PM »

Lol.  hysteria
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
biff
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11401


An unpaid Navitron volunteer who lives off-grid.


« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2017, 06:23:40 PM »

  He looks so sincere as well, Shocked
                              Biff
Logged

An unpaid Navitron volunteer,who has been living off-grid,powered by wind and solar,each year better than the last one.
todthedog
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4009



« Reply #3 on: October 09, 2017, 07:28:58 PM »

 flyingpig Grin Grin
Logged
desperate
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3388


Backache stuff!!


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 09, 2017, 08:01:39 PM »

  GWPF,  Is that the Global  Plankers and Wonkers Forum??  I wonder if the swear filter is gonna freak out at that spoonerism??   whistlie

Desp
Logged

www.jandhbuilders.co.uk

still a crazy old duffer!
oliver90owner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724


« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2017, 05:22:27 AM »

I'm not so sure that what they are complaing about is actually correct or otherwise. Lawyers are supposedly grouped with estate agents in the popularity ranking of the most hated professions, by some.

They are,  it seems,  complaining of the whole fleet, not the current cost of recent and forthcoming developments. 

In the words of a long dead writer, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.  Cherry pick the correct wording and they may well be correct.

The word I noted was 'paid'.  Older off-shore units are still being paid at far higher rates than the upcoming units.

Doesn't make them any less wonkers and plankers, but their actual legal complaint may be correct in that what is currently being paid, for the whole fleet,  has not actually fallen by 50%.  (Probably works out as about only a 45% reduction!)  Their come-uppance will eventually be proven, I expect, but they may force some wording to be altererd.  They will then claim they won and were completely correct in their complaint and then put an entirely different spin on the outcome.  Yes, plankers and wonkers!!
Logged
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4770



« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2017, 06:48:13 AM »

If you really want to upset these folks then do what I did yesterday on the Guardian and compare capacity deployment of off-shore wind v's HPC based on the same amount of subsidy, it even shocked me.

Taking a future wholesale price from the NAO of about £50/MWh away from the relative CfD's of £57.50 & £92.50, and also taking the term lengths of 15yrs and 35yrs into account, then applying cf's of 50% and 92% and I got a shock:-

3.2GW x (0.92cf / 0.50cf) x (35yrs / 15yrs) x (£42.50/£7.50) = 77.9GW

That's a lot of wind! It almost seemed too cruel to post it ....... but I did.  whistlie

[I should say that I've assumed that after the 15yr CfD and perhaps 20-25yr life of the wind farms, their replacements won't need a subsidy, and therefore the 35-60yr life of HPC will be matched.]
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
stannn
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4556



« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2017, 07:25:15 AM »

Don't think for a minute that Lawson was shy about being economical with the truth when he pretended to be some kind of expert. I can't see him owning to the environmental/health problems from fossil fuel plant.
Stan
Logged

2.45 kWp PV (Navitron supply), 40 evacuated tubes (Navitron supply), Clearview 650 log burner with back-boiler heating cottage and water, 2 off 50W border collies, 1 off 35W cat, 1 off 25W cat.
brackwell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2700


« Reply #8 on: October 10, 2017, 08:34:04 AM »

Mart,

Good morning,
 
What is NAO ?

You are becoming so knowledgeable in this area that i think there is a danger that many will be missing what you are correctly saying.

A statement like  "The subsidies for the 35yrs life of the now being built Hinckley Point C 3.2GW nuclear power station would be the same as for 78GW of offshore wind" might help.

This way newer readers to this topic could grasp your conclusion without understanding cfd  and CF etc.

I would like to read you Guardian response.

Ken
Logged
A.L.
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 859


« Reply #9 on: October 10, 2017, 09:49:07 AM »

Mart,

as brackwell (+1), took me a couple of minutes to work out what you could be saying and then to confirm it!  signofcross
Logged
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4770



« Reply #10 on: October 10, 2017, 11:46:07 AM »

Mart,
 
What is NAO ?

A statement like  "The subsidies for the 35yrs life of the now being built Hinckley Point C 3.2GW nuclear power station would be the same as for 78GW of offshore wind" might help.

Ken

You are absolutely correct, sometimes when I've 'gone off on one' for days elsewhere, I forget that nobody knows what the hell I'm saying when I post a massively condensed version on here.

I think your statement nails it, when we take the CfD of £92.50/MWh (2012 monies, now about £97) and deduct what the NAO - National Audit Office suggest the wholesale price of leccy will be in the mid 20's onward, of about £50/MWh*, we see that the subsidy element is about £42.50 (£92.50 - £50/MWh).

From there, and taking all other aspects into account the total subsidy payment (not the cost of the leccy, just the subsidy part) you get about £50bn*, which is roughly the amount needed to pay the subsidy element on 78GW of off-shore wind generation at the latest £57.50/MWh CfD contract (also 2012 monies, so about £60/MWh today).

When I started working it out I was expecting to find something like 10x the capacity and 5x the generation, so I was very shocked to get to 78GW.

I'll find the posts and pop em on here, but the background argument was that nuclear generation is lower carbon than wind generation per MWh. But my point was that we aren't comparing 1MWh of nuclear gen to 1MWh of wind gen, if the same amount of subsidy gets you 13x more generation - at that point you are comparing CO2 displaced by RE.

I don't think these are petty arguments, they are mind blowing when you consider HPC didn't look 'too bad' back in 2012.

* The NAO estimates of future wholesale prices keep falling. As the price falls, the subsidy for HPC (and other RE too) increases as the subsidy element of the strike price gets bigger. HPC was originally estimated to get a subsidy of £6bn, that was revised up in 2016 to £30bn, but is now nearly £50bn as the latest NAO predictions of wholesale prices have been downgraded again, see page 39. Estimates of prices peaking in the low £80's (2012 prediction) are now peaking in the £50's before dropping towards £40 by 2035.

Hinkley Point C
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
pdf27
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1625


« Reply #11 on: October 10, 2017, 11:59:03 AM »

One thing to be wary of here - are there suitable sites for 78GW of wind using current technology, and the infrastructure to build it in a reasonable timeframe? If not then you need to adjust the cost to allow for the non-optimal sites having higher costs and the additional infrastructure (jack-up ships, etc.) required.
Realistically most costs like this are on a hockey-stick type curve - the first X GW are really cheap, the next Y GW a bit more expensive then after that it gets painful. What the wind industry has been really good at is moving the whole curve downwards - but this does nothing to address the limit on how much they can build. At some point HPC will be cheaper than the next 4GW of wind - the interesting question is when this crossover occurs.
Logged
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4770



« Reply #12 on: October 10, 2017, 12:00:58 PM »

Here is the exchange, it's the usual waste of time sparring, but my intention is to show a counter argument against the nuclear hijacking of all renewable or storage news item. This item was - How green is Britainís record on renewable energy supply? - looking at the growth in renewables over the years.

I jumped in as the poster OTF was using the usual 'abusive' terms that nuclear-at-any-cost advocates always do to try to suggest the other poster doesn't know what they are saying. I use the term nuclear-at-any-cost as they don't represent the more reasonable nuclear supporters who realise that HPC rates are not viable going forward.

His comment was:-

Quote
You lie about your own previous positions, and you lie about other people's positions.
It's your only form of argument. There's an unstoppable quality about it.

Checking back, and whilst I appreciate this isn't a popularity contest, it's nice to see that the attacked post has been recommended 15 times, whilst OTF's response has received 0 (zero) so perhaps the tide has turned now on the Guardian and RE fans are fighting back.

These are my posts which start with the quotes I'm replying to:-

Quote
OTF - We have the findings of the IPCC on one hand, and we have an article in the Ecologist on the other. The Guardian energy threads have their little band of conspiracist pseudoscience crackpots propping each other up.

Mazter (me!) -If that little tirade was supposed to make nuclear-at-any-cost advocates look reasonable and rational, then 'epic fail'.
As to you 'having' the findings of the IPCC on one hand, can you provide a link where they support nuclear rollout at twice the cost of RE? Or in 10yrs time 3x the cost of RE or 2x the cost of RE + storage?

You have used my phrase "nuclear-at-any-cost brigade", yet completely failed to understand it, there are still those that support the role of nuclear going forward, but it has to be economically viable v's the competition. Those that stick up for HPC or SC do not seem to understand that that nuclear option, is no longer a nuclear option, it's priced itself out of the game.

So by all means point to £60/MWh nuclear at 15yr CfDs, if you can, but stop suggesting current UK nuclear options have any future in the world.

The HPC subsidyfor 3.2GW of capacity would pay for about 78GW* of off-shore wind (assuming a 50% cf).

* £7.50/MWh for 15yrs v's £42.50/MWh for 35yrs x 2.94GW (3.2GW@92%cf)


Quote
OTF - No, I post scientifically accurate information. You're more likely to find it in the IPCC reports than in the Ecologist.

Mazter - As to you 'having' the findings of the IPCC on one hand, can you provide a link where they support nuclear rollout at twice the cost of RE?


Quote
OTF - You've misunderstood the point. There's an argument about the CO2 emissions of nuclear power. The anti-nuclear commenters prefer the Ecologist to the IPCC. It's just a stream of pseudoscience mixed in with paranoid conspiracism.

Mazter - Fine then, show me a link where the IPCC say that HPC will reduce CO2 emissions by more than 78GW of UK off-shore wind capacity?


Quote
OTF - The IPCC don't pick out individual projects - they state the CO2 emissions for each technology as a whole.

Mazter - So .... that's a no then?
How about you personally, do you think 3.2GW of HPC will displace more or less CO2 than 78GW of UK off-shore wind?

How about the amount of subsidy, is nearly £50bn of subsidies good value for HPC?


Quote
OTF - Well of course it's a "no". The IPCC doesn't analyse individual power stations.
Dear god do you think you've got a point there?

Yes, the point is simple, you want to hide behind the IPCC to argue that nuclear emits less CO2 than off-shore wind, but they don't seem to be a very good shield when cost is brought into the argument and instead of deploying 3.2GW of nuclear you could deploy 78GW of off-shore wind.

So, if the IPCC is not an answer for all your CO2 excuses, then why hide behind them in the first place.

PS, you didn't answer my questions
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4770



« Reply #13 on: October 10, 2017, 12:08:42 PM »

One thing to be wary of here - are there suitable sites for 78GW of wind using current technology, and the infrastructure to build it in a reasonable timeframe? If not then you need to adjust the cost to allow for the non-optimal sites having higher costs and the additional infrastructure (jack-up ships, etc.) required.
Realistically most costs like this are on a hockey-stick type curve - the first X GW are really cheap, the next Y GW a bit more expensive then after that it gets painful. What the wind industry has been really good at is moving the whole curve downwards - but this does nothing to address the limit on how much they can build. At some point HPC will be cheaper than the next 4GW of wind - the interesting question is when this crossover occurs.

True, but it's more a thought exercise. The subsidies would buy even more generation (vastly more capacity) from on-shore wind and PV, and costs will most likely fall even further, maybe subsidy free. Perhaps just match HPC with about 6GW of extra off-shore wind, at £10/MWh for 15yrs (using 2017 prices) that's about £4bn v's the near £50bn for HPC.

I suppose this is also a push back against other posters on the Guardian who say spending on nuclear doesn't impact renewables, but since all the subsidy is supposed to come from the levy, then how can £50bn to HPC, not effect the amount of subsidy available for RE. Of course the counter argument is that paying £500/MWh for early PV subsidies will reduce funding for nuclear, but hopefully the relatively small volume of subsidies for early PV and wind have been validated by the subsequent reduction(s) in cost for later deployments, whereas nuclear subsidies over the last 60yrs haven't exactly brought us cheap nuclear in the 2010's /20's.
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
pdf27
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1625


« Reply #14 on: October 10, 2017, 12:39:18 PM »

True, but it's more a thought exercise. The subsidies would buy even more generation (vastly more capacity) from on-shore wind and PV, and costs will most likely fall even further, maybe subsidy free. Perhaps just match HPC with about 6GW of extra off-shore wind, at £10/MWh for 15yrs (using 2017 prices) that's about £4bn v's the near £50bn for HPC.
Agreed, and it's a useful exercise - just don't get too carried away. For what it's worth I'm a fan of nuclear but not of the EPR design nor of the way the contract is structured - essentially it's a giant wedge of money being given to the capital markets in exchange for hiding the cost of building it from the government balance sheets.

I suppose this is also a push back against other posters on the Guardian who say spending on nuclear doesn't impact renewables, but since all the subsidy is supposed to come from the levy, then how can £50bn to HPC, not effect the amount of subsidy available for RE. Of course the counter argument is that paying £500/MWh for early PV subsidies will reduce funding for nuclear, but hopefully the relatively small volume of subsidies for early PV and wind have been validated by the subsequent reduction(s) in cost for later deployments, whereas nuclear subsidies over the last 60yrs haven't exactly brought us cheap nuclear in the 2010's /20's.
Maybe they could have done, but the nuclear build programme has been monumentally fouled up - we appear to be managing negative levels of learning between projects. That's another discussion though.
I'm of the camp that thinks we need as much wind as we can build, as much PV as we can build (with a preference for building integrated over farms since that appears to reduce consumption rather than just increase generation), as much nuclear as we can build, etc.
People tend to focus on decarbonising the grid, but that's only a small fraction of total energy consumption and we're only just scratching the surface of the rest of it. Ultimately that really means addressing insulation, consumption, transport, etc. in an integrated package - maybe putting a capital value on a tonne of CO2 equivalent saved over the lifetime of a project to decide whether it gets funding? Unfortunately many of the schemes to deal with this like insulation, etc. don't lend themselves to a subsidy per MWh of generation.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!