Thanks for the explanation. Renewables do not fit the price auction model, being subsidised. They need a separate mechanism.
If you have an unreliable employee that hardly ever turns up for work, or works weekends when nobody else is working, would you hire in another person to cover that first person’s unreliable attendance, doubling your costs? Or would you sack them and hire someone you can rely on?
Given we can’t rely on it, and need 100% backup, wouldn’t we have been better not to have bothered with wind and solar at all?
All the batteries inside EVs will do a pretty good job at reducing curtailment, once they’re the majority of cars on the road, allowing wind and solar to be economically beneficial technologies up to a much higher grid %.
Unfortunately that isn't true. People need to use their EVs, not leave them on their driveways for the convenience of intermittent generation. They also will only be prepared to offer a limited capacity to V2G programmes, since they do not want to find that the grid has left them with a flat battery. Moreover, they need to be compensated for the extra wear and tear that will shorten the car's life.
A charger capable of handling V2G is a much more costly item than a one way charger because it must provide power to grid standards as well as incorporating extra metering and monitoring and remote control connection.
There has to be sufficient grid capacity to deliver the surplus to where the cars are on top of normal demand. The lack of grid capacity is already cited as the main reason for curtailment currently.
The other fundamental problem is that the volume of storage required to handle renewables surpluses is two orders of magnitude higher than anything that V2G could hope to provide. It's a 1% solution.
The result is that it will be dedicated grid batteries that provide battery storage for the most part. V2G is really just virtue signalling which would cost other bill payers a lot more in subsidies. However, grid batteries won't solve the problem either. They are far too costly to have sufficient to do more than scratch the surface of the problem. It is actually much cheaper simply to curtail surplus output and provide backup generation to cover the periods of Dunkelflaute. However, that is vastly more costly than not having to run two systems in parallel, and the costs of curtailment make installing more renewables more and more crazy.
Jaberwock has a number of excellent articles providing analysis that backs these ideas up. Peruse his archive.
Battery charging and discharging is only about 90% efficient. It takes 100 kWh of energy input to produce 90 kWh of output. Batteries use energy, they do not create energy.
90% is probably generous. I've been monitoring the performance of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia, famously installed by Elon Musk in 2017, since it started operations. There isn't a single month where they achieved 90% round trip efficiency. Their best performance came after they were forced to add capacity and replace damaged batteries after they over-egged discharge in pursuit of stratospheric prices, which knocked efficiency down to below 75% and limited their capacity.
Since then, they have started to push the envelope again, and round trip efficiencies have fallen back below 80%, which is the long term average so far. They had been making a lot of money, mainly from providing grid stabilisation services for which they had a near monopoly that they exploited. That allowed them to fund the early replacements. But now there is competition and that market is no longer very lucrative.
Nice explanation. Sadly, the entire subject is barely comprehensible to the average person, especially in the face of all the lies we get from officialdom. It’s a horrible cat’s cradle of complexity and all for nothing. Atmospheric CO2 has negligible impact on the global climate so we should never have started deploying these unmanageable, unsustainable so-called renewables in the first place, against the advice of an honest Chief Scientific Advisor. Instead of deploying more and more of them to make the grid more and more unmanageable, we should be gradually decommissioning the existing fleet. They will all be knackered after a service life of about 20 years anyway.
As an example of the lies that get told on this subject, Nigel Farage had a segment on Net Zero on GB News last night, starting at 15:42: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XktTXEhtfVk.
One of his guests was climate propogandist Donnachadh McCarthy of the Climate Media Coalition who tried to bamboozle everyone with a pack of lies. Farage is far too matey with this dishonest nuisance. It is noticeable that the establishment poodle Ofcom, who forced Mark Steyn and Neil Oliver off GB News for telling the truth, allows this charlatan to peddle his Net Zero lies with impunity on a regular basis.
The biggest lie is that renewables are cheap. They are not. Every CFD pays out the strike price, which averages about £150/MWh on a production weighted basis. Every ROC generator gets is ROCs for producing - a subsidy worth almost £100/MWh on top of market price on a production weighted average. All renewables get REGOs that were worth another £10-15/MWh last year. Even at the peak of the energy crisis the average cost of renewables exceeded the cost of gas as a monthly average. That's before we add in the extra costs that are necessary to run with renewables: more grid pylons, more grid stabilisation, grid batteries, interconnectors, etc.
The average revenue for MWh generated would fall from whatever level it had reached with inflation indexation by then. So far, indexation has roughly matched the addition of lower priced generation, leaving the overall price stable for CFD funded generation. But we must also remember that these wind farms will be first in line to curtail, since their strike prices will be below the value of an ROC paid to onshore wind, and they will get no CFD compensation whenever day ahead market prices are negative. So we will be paying out curtailment revenues on top of the CFD compensation.
If we look at Seagreen which is currently trading on market prices pending being forced into its CFD we find that its income was some £431m plus £18m for REGOs for a total of 1,632GWh of generation in the financial year ended March 2024. That's an eye watering £264/MWh of useful output, because of the enormous volume (60% of output roughly) and value of curtailment payments. Of course competition is already bringing down the value of curtailment payments per MWh, which then leads to the possibility that absent other subsidy these wind farms risk bankruptcy.
Compare with Greater Gabbard, which produced 1,832GWh for the same financial year at an average revenue of £180/MWh, of which £130/MWh would have been from its 2 ROC/MWh subsidy. So the underlying value was just £50/MWh from its market sensitive PPA. Of course we should factor in that Seagreen was undergoing commissioning until October 2023. Curtailment was minimal at GG because of its subsidy.
Thanks for the explanation. Renewables do not fit the price auction model, being subsidised. They need a separate mechanism.
If you have an unreliable employee that hardly ever turns up for work, or works weekends when nobody else is working, would you hire in another person to cover that first person’s unreliable attendance, doubling your costs? Or would you sack them and hire someone you can rely on?
Given we can’t rely on it, and need 100% backup, wouldn’t we have been better not to have bothered with wind and solar at all?
No, cause of the old global warming remember
Great analogy!
All the batteries inside EVs will do a pretty good job at reducing curtailment, once they’re the majority of cars on the road, allowing wind and solar to be economically beneficial technologies up to a much higher grid %.
Unfortunately that isn't true. People need to use their EVs, not leave them on their driveways for the convenience of intermittent generation. They also will only be prepared to offer a limited capacity to V2G programmes, since they do not want to find that the grid has left them with a flat battery. Moreover, they need to be compensated for the extra wear and tear that will shorten the car's life.
A charger capable of handling V2G is a much more costly item than a one way charger because it must provide power to grid standards as well as incorporating extra metering and monitoring and remote control connection.
There has to be sufficient grid capacity to deliver the surplus to where the cars are on top of normal demand. The lack of grid capacity is already cited as the main reason for curtailment currently.
The other fundamental problem is that the volume of storage required to handle renewables surpluses is two orders of magnitude higher than anything that V2G could hope to provide. It's a 1% solution.
The result is that it will be dedicated grid batteries that provide battery storage for the most part. V2G is really just virtue signalling which would cost other bill payers a lot more in subsidies. However, grid batteries won't solve the problem either. They are far too costly to have sufficient to do more than scratch the surface of the problem. It is actually much cheaper simply to curtail surplus output and provide backup generation to cover the periods of Dunkelflaute. However, that is vastly more costly than not having to run two systems in parallel, and the costs of curtailment make installing more renewables more and more crazy.
Jaberwock has a number of excellent articles providing analysis that backs these ideas up. Peruse his archive.
Can you explain "batteries are a net user of energy" please? I think batteries are a stupid idea, but I want to understand your statement.
Battery charging and discharging is only about 90% efficient. It takes 100 kWh of energy input to produce 90 kWh of output. Batteries use energy, they do not create energy.
90% is probably generous. I've been monitoring the performance of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia, famously installed by Elon Musk in 2017, since it started operations. There isn't a single month where they achieved 90% round trip efficiency. Their best performance came after they were forced to add capacity and replace damaged batteries after they over-egged discharge in pursuit of stratospheric prices, which knocked efficiency down to below 75% and limited their capacity.
Since then, they have started to push the envelope again, and round trip efficiencies have fallen back below 80%, which is the long term average so far. They had been making a lot of money, mainly from providing grid stabilisation services for which they had a near monopoly that they exploited. That allowed them to fund the early replacements. But now there is competition and that market is no longer very lucrative.
Thanks! They also seem to have a bit of a tendency to burst into flames, which wastes even more energy 🤣
Nice explanation. Sadly, the entire subject is barely comprehensible to the average person, especially in the face of all the lies we get from officialdom. It’s a horrible cat’s cradle of complexity and all for nothing. Atmospheric CO2 has negligible impact on the global climate so we should never have started deploying these unmanageable, unsustainable so-called renewables in the first place, against the advice of an honest Chief Scientific Advisor. Instead of deploying more and more of them to make the grid more and more unmanageable, we should be gradually decommissioning the existing fleet. They will all be knackered after a service life of about 20 years anyway.
Here’s why climate change is a hoax: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
Here’s why Net Zero will never work: https://metatron.substack.com/p/climate-change-and-the-corruption.
Here’s why Net Zero will never work, part 2 (follow-up on the conspiracy theory): https://metatron.substack.com/p/climate-change-and-the-corruption-494.
As an example of the lies that get told on this subject, Nigel Farage had a segment on Net Zero on GB News last night, starting at 15:42: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XktTXEhtfVk.
One of his guests was climate propogandist Donnachadh McCarthy of the Climate Media Coalition who tried to bamboozle everyone with a pack of lies. Farage is far too matey with this dishonest nuisance. It is noticeable that the establishment poodle Ofcom, who forced Mark Steyn and Neil Oliver off GB News for telling the truth, allows this charlatan to peddle his Net Zero lies with impunity on a regular basis.
The biggest lie is that renewables are cheap. They are not. Every CFD pays out the strike price, which averages about £150/MWh on a production weighted basis. Every ROC generator gets is ROCs for producing - a subsidy worth almost £100/MWh on top of market price on a production weighted average. All renewables get REGOs that were worth another £10-15/MWh last year. Even at the peak of the energy crisis the average cost of renewables exceeded the cost of gas as a monthly average. That's before we add in the extra costs that are necessary to run with renewables: more grid pylons, more grid stabilisation, grid batteries, interconnectors, etc.
The average CfD price will fall if the AR3/4 operators actualise their contracts but that is a couple of years away before they reach their backstops.
The average revenue for MWh generated would fall from whatever level it had reached with inflation indexation by then. So far, indexation has roughly matched the addition of lower priced generation, leaving the overall price stable for CFD funded generation. But we must also remember that these wind farms will be first in line to curtail, since their strike prices will be below the value of an ROC paid to onshore wind, and they will get no CFD compensation whenever day ahead market prices are negative. So we will be paying out curtailment revenues on top of the CFD compensation.
If we look at Seagreen which is currently trading on market prices pending being forced into its CFD we find that its income was some £431m plus £18m for REGOs for a total of 1,632GWh of generation in the financial year ended March 2024. That's an eye watering £264/MWh of useful output, because of the enormous volume (60% of output roughly) and value of curtailment payments. Of course competition is already bringing down the value of curtailment payments per MWh, which then leads to the possibility that absent other subsidy these wind farms risk bankruptcy.
Compare with Greater Gabbard, which produced 1,832GWh for the same financial year at an average revenue of £180/MWh, of which £130/MWh would have been from its 2 ROC/MWh subsidy. So the underlying value was just £50/MWh from its market sensitive PPA. Of course we should factor in that Seagreen was undergoing commissioning until October 2023. Curtailment was minimal at GG because of its subsidy.
What a complex labyrinth they have created here!
Seagreen was AR3 - are they mandatorily required to actualise from AR3 onwards?