Energy bills

[Kneerly Down]

Can't help feeling there's something seriously wrong with our energy companies motivations if they're paying wind farms to be idle while still churning out energy from coal and gas. I appreciate there are some logistical issues and no easy mass energy storage solutions (??) but even so, just seems wrong to do everything except actually use those magnificent creations.

On the local grids, mostly they won't be paying for energy from coal and gas, etc when they ask wind farms to curtail their production.
As you have overproduction of electricity vs demand the price falls, and will get to the point where production from fossil fuels is not economic, so (subject to the agreements they have with the grid) they will stop production.
The windfarms will often be getting paid a standard tariff, irrespective of the market price, and their marginal cost of production is pretty close to zero, so they'll want to keep producing. They also have priority dispatch, so they are the last generators that the grid can request to stop providing power.
There's lots of grid constraints so across the whole network there'll be places where, say, wind power can't be taken (plenty of times that happens up here) as there isn't the ability to take all they would produce onto the grid whereas in other regions of the network there is still a need for e.g. gas-produced elec to be taken onto the grid.
It would be very rare (possibly unheard of) to have a position where constraint payments are being made to windfarms and coal is at the same time being burned to produce electricity.

Lots of gas plants are being paid money to have capacity on standby, and others to have quick response (battery banks for example), plus e.g. pumped hydro for storage and black start situations but that's all part of trying to have a stable grid, the issues of which are exacerbated by the proliferation of variable renewable sources of power without economic mass storage of generated (well, converted ) energy.

[Kneerly Down]

It is one of the beauties of a wind turbine that you can 'turn it off and on' very quickly (relatively) to meet demand

And therefore a bit ironic that it's just about the last form of generation the grid can ask to not provide power.
It's one of the reasons that it can so often be said that wind is (one of) the cheapest forms of generating power, as whenever it's able to make it, it can sell it, or be paid more not to make it.

Compare that to coal and gas plants that might be asked to run the plant for 3 days, then not at all for 20 days, then for 3 hours, etc, etc.

[Count Steer]

It is one of the beauties of a wind turbine that you can 'turn it off and on' very quickly (relatively) to meet demand

And therefore a bit ironic that it's just about the last form of generation the grid can ask to not provide power.
It's one of the reasons that it can so often be said that wind is (one of) the cheapest forms of generating power, as whenever it's able to make it, it can sell it, or be paid more not to make it.

Compare that to coal and gas plants that might be asked to run the plant for 3 days, then not at all for 20 days, then for 3 hours, etc, etc.

As you say, ironic. So, the problem seems to be with the high level contractual arrangements. Quite why it's such a mess, I don't know but when Government seems to be prepared to guarantee a price for energy from a new nuclear development I suspect the answer isn't hard to find.

TBH the electricity grid wasn't my specialisation, my swansong in the energy industry was stuff to do with Elexon but I picked up a bit about balancing on the way. Funny really, being so deeply involved with deregulation when I thought it was all a up of monumental proportions.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Sounds like we need more/better grid

I don't mean that facetiously BTW!

[Dodgy69]

Swapped to Octopus. Goodbye Shell.

[Count Steer]

I got an email from my supplier suggesting I might like to increase my DD recently. I binned it.

2 weeks later I got one telling me a decrease in tariff is going to reduce my annual bill by £400+.

Hmm.

[demographic]

Can't help feeling there's something seriously wrong with our energy companies motivations if they're paying wind farms to be idle while still churning out energy from coal and gas. I appreciate there are some logistical issues and no easy mass energy storage solutions (??) but even so, just seems wrong to do everything except actually use those magnificent creations.

It is one of the beauties of a wind turbine that you can 'turn it off and on' very quickly (relatively) to meet demand - if the wind is blowing. Nuclear and coal (not that there's much of that left) is very good at running steady state to meet base load. Gas is somewhere in the middle and subject to cost and security of supply issues. I thought it was mainly the gas powered facilities that were paid to be on stand-by.

I do wonder if anyone is thinking about humongous solar farms in hot places - like deserts - pumping out power into hydrogen farms. (I've read a couple of sci-fi books where that's part of the general scenario, so I'm not the only one). They could just generate electricity but getting that to where it's needed is probably more difficult than shipping hydrogen. ie cover the Negev in panels, generate hydrogen at the Red Sea and ship it from there. Same sort of thing with Egypt - the infrastructure for shipping LNG is already there and so is the sunshine.

Isn't China constructing an electrical grid that can handle over a million volts and transmit it thousands of miles.


Aye, here we are.
https://www.power-technology.com/featu ... n-lines/

[ZRX61]

The people who are going to develop off shore wind turbines here have just been given a free pass by the State & Feds on the first 20 whales they kill.

[Pirahna]

The people who are going to develop off shore wind turbines here have just been given a free pass by the State & Feds on the first 20 whales they kill.

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/02/ ... ntic-coast

[Jody]

It was to cover the cost of moving customers to new providers when all those small firms went out of business. I remember reading that the cost was approx £2billion, shared between those remaining suppliers with an agreement with Ofgem that the cost could be clawed back by increasing standing charges.

That seems daft. Competitor goes bust, you get new customers without any extra marketing, and then get to charge everone extra.
That is not how a market works.

It does seem daft, but those energy suppliers don't get to pick and choose the customers so they'll be getting lumbered with people who have debts (at a time when many people were struggling to pay their bills). There's also an admin cost involved, and those new customers were free to change providers straight away with no exit fees. The suppliers also had to honour any credit built up with the previous supplier. And because all this happened when energy prices were soaring, the suppliers had to buy in extra at those higher prices to provide the new customers with their energy, while (presumably) charging them the same as their existing customers. Prior to that, the suppliers were only covered for the admin cost.
Standing charges don't go directly to the energy suppliers, they cover the cost of running and maintaining the network so go to the network operators. The network operators had to pay the costs to the energy suppliers then recoup it from the customer through standing charges.
The alternative is for millions to be left without energy until they can find a new supplier, at a time when energy suppliers were going bust left, right and centre due to increasing costs.

You've explained that well. What gets me however is that they are putting up the standing charge to recoup what they've spent. So once they've recouped it the standing charge will come down ?? Soapy £10 says it won't!!

[ZRX61]

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/02/ ... ntic-coast

LMFAO!! I just love having my own little fact checker who runs off to google every time I post something in this forum.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/big-e ... -vehicles/

https://climatechangedispatch.com/biden ... ar-panels/

https://climatechangedispatch.com/green ... fantasies/

[Horse]

The people who are going to develop off shore wind turbines here have just been given a free pass by the State & Feds on the first 20 whales they kill.

What happens if someone can prove 21 deaths?

[Count Steer]

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/02/ ... ntic-coast

LMFAO!! I just love having my own little fact checker who runs off to google every time I post something in this forum.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/big-e ... -vehicles/

https://climatechangedispatch.com/biden ... ar-panels/

https://climatechangedispatch.com/green ... fantasies/

Oh marv. More random bold and red text from the climatechangedishcloth. A veritable empire of facts and non-political common sense. Not.

[Screwdriver]

LMFAO!! I just love having my own little fact checker who runs off to google every time I post something in this forum.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/big-e ... -vehicles/

https://climatechangedispatch.com/biden ... ar-panels/

https://climatechangedispatch.com/green ... fantasies/

Genuine question: what would it take to prove to you that particular website is entirely full of propaganda and disinformation?

Is there any possibility at all for aligning your opinion with the actual science and not this web of deceit?

[Ant]

LMFAO!! I just love having my own little fact checker who runs off to google every time I post something in this forum.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/big-e ... -vehicles/

https://climatechangedispatch.com/biden ... ar-panels/

https://climatechangedispatch.com/green ... fantasies/

Genuine question: what would it take to prove to you that particular website is entirely full of propaganda and disinformation?

Is there any possibility at all for aligning your opinion with the actual science and not this web of deceit?

Probably if you were able to refute it, rather than say it's all false.

What scientists say isn't always 100%, some of it is scientific opinion, sometimes based on financial gain.

[Screwdriver]

Genuine question: what would it take to prove to you that particular website is entirely full of propaganda and disinformation?

Is there any possibility at all for aligning your opinion with the actual science and not this web of deceit?

Probably if you were able to refute it, rather than say it's all false.

What scientists say isn't always 100%, some of it is scientific opinion, sometimes based on financial gain.

I know right, that's why I am asking what it would take.

Clearly my opinion on the matter is pretty obvious but that should not affect the question which still stands.

All that I need is a specific example (or two) which, knowing that site very well already, will be super easy to show @ZRX61 what it is they're doing with their "information" he should be wary of.

[Ant]

Genuine question: what would it take to prove to you that particular website is entirely full of propaganda and disinformation?

Is there any possibility at all for aligning your opinion with the actual science and not this web of deceit?

Probably if you were able to refute it, rather than say it's all false.

What scientists say isn't always 100%, some of it is scientific opinion, sometimes based on financial gain.

I know right, that's why I am asking what it would take.

Clearly my opinion on the matter is pretty obvious but that should not affect the question which still stands.

All that I need is a specific example (or two) which, knowing that site very well already, will be super easy to show @ZRX61 what it is they're doing with their "information" he should be wary of.

Well, the trouble with suggesting everything isn't true by asking for an example of, is that those who think otherwise cannot do so either.

We've got an average carbon level of 0.04%, we're told by 'scientists' that plant life will die if carbon levels are reduced much below that.....so that blows out all of the other things we were told previously.

5 years ago, we were told we'll be in significant bother in 5 years time, well 5 years is here now......

[Screwdriver]

Well, the trouble with suggesting everything isn't true by asking for an example of, is that those who think otherwise cannot do so either.

We've got an average carbon level of 0.04%, we're told by 'scientists' that plant life will die if carbon levels are reduced much below that.....so that blows out all of the other things we were told previously.

5 years ago, we were told we'll be in significant bother in 5 years time, well 5 years is here now......

OK. Let's start with you.

Which scientists are saying that plant life will die "much below" that?

Who was it that 5 years ago said we'll be in "significant bother"? How do you define "bother"? That could mean anything.

[mangocrazy]

He won't give a straight answer, if he even replies at all...

[Ant]

Well, the trouble with suggesting everything isn't true by asking for an example of, is that those who think otherwise cannot do so either.

We've got an average carbon level of 0.04%, we're told by 'scientists' that plant life will die if carbon levels are reduced much below that.....so that blows out all of the other things we were told previously.

5 years ago, we were told we'll be in significant bother in 5 years time, well 5 years is here now......

OK. Let's start with you.

Which scientists are saying that plant life will die "much below" that?

Who was it that 5 years ago said we'll be in "significant bother"? How do you define "bother"? That could mean anything.

No, we've already started, so we're not starting with me.

5 years ago Greta Thunburg or whoever she is said we'll be in trouble in 5 years (we all know she knows nothing anyway), her cult followers all gobble it up of course.

Studies here by some scientists show that plants will die off with low carbon levels

https://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops ... will%20die.

Now, instead of answering a question with a question, are you able to refute what was said earlier?