The Wider System Costs Of Renewable Energy
By Paul Homewood
Willis Eschenbach wrote a piece over at WUWT last week, about the widespread use of Levelized Costs of Energy, and their failure to deal with the wider system costs of different sources of generation.
He mentioned this OECD study, which attempted to measure those wider system costs:
https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/nuclear-energy/nuclear-energy-and-renewables_9789264188617-en#page1
The study was based on data from six countries, so I though I would focus on the UK.
First I should point out that the study was published in 2010, so current costs will be higher, maybe by about 50%. But I believe that the costs are every bit as real now as they were back then.
The report explains:
Here is the table for the UK:
So at a penetration of 30%, wider system costs would add $45.39/MWh to the cost of generation itself. Something around £50/MWh at today’s prices.
The National Grid’s Future Energy Scenarios suggest that wind and solar power will supply four fifths of electricity by 2035, about 450 TWh, most of which will be offshore wind.
Leaving aside the question of whether such a high penetration is even practicable, at a cost of £50/MWh the wider system costs will amount to £22 billion, over £800 per household.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/07/25/fes-2022-more-wishful-thinking/
These costs certainly give the lie to the claim that offshore wind power is cheap!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Hi Paul, for some reason everything I now post goes into “awaiting moderation”
Am I on the naughty step?
Not deliberately!!
It’s remarkable that the “levelized costs” did not include the costs of transportation…gasoline and the renewable biofuels that depend on gasoline. No renewable energy sources can be implemented without using vehicles that run on fossil fuels. That not only adds to the cost, it adds to the CO2 in the atmosphere. It cannot be avoided.
And the more anyone suggests that eventually transportation will be covered by wind/solar generation the faster we will get back to what used to be called “taking in each other’s washing”!
It’s a sort of hypothetical perpetual-motion machine.
The JP Morgan 2022 Energy Review also cast doubts on the use of levelized cost of energy (LCOE)
You can get it here https://irp.cdn-website.com/0bdd390b/files/uploaded/JPMorganElephants-in-the-room.pdf
Page 4 on LCOE:
“levelized costs” comparing wind and solar power to fossil fuels are misleading barometers of the pace of change. Levelized cost estimates rarely include actual costs that high renewable grid penetration requires:
(a) investment in transmission to create larger renewable coverage areas,
(b) backup thermal power required for times when renewable generation is low, and
(c) capital costs and maintenance of utility-scale battery storage. I am amazed at how much time is spent on this frankly questionable levelized cost statistic. ”
—-
Missing from the JP Morgan review is the escalating cost of surplus curtailment or hare brained schemes like green hydrogen to pretend it isn’t as bad as it is. Shapps hasn’t said how he plans to finance the £180 hike in bills he was planning to subsidise the initial hydrogen cluster (f***) that he has now cancelled. That is for puny amounts of hydrogen.
Way past time this NetZero nonsense was blown out of the water, this country (producing next to no CO2) appears to follow the dogma to the nth degree while other nations ignore or merely pay lip service?
Whe are we going to get a Government with the cojones to destroy the myth of man-made nonsense and blame our star, the one we owe our existence to, The Sun?
Popeye: the simple answer is not in our lifetimes. The forces driving net zero and ESG are far greater than anything that Paul and the tiny minority that follow him can muster.
Vernon E. I hate to have to agree with you. It seems possible that it will lead to the end of western civilisation. Western civilisation in the 20 th century and Eastern civilisation in the 21st. And we were never consulted. Shame on all western politicians
Vernon, science and technology will not be held back by political ideology for long. As just one example a satellite launch in a few days time could (or equally not) turn our understanding of branches of physics upside down.
“Quantised Inertia” may mean nothing to most people but DARPA ( https://www.darpa.mil ) were willing to fund Dr Mike McCulloch at Plymouth University for four years to assess it.
This makes for astonishing reading:
https://www.universetoday.com/160516/the-first-all-electrical-thruster-the-ivo-quantum-drive-is-headed-to-space/
The further applications of this – if proved correct – are quite mind blowing. Of course it could all prove wrong but it represents just one example of potential new technologies under development.
Supporting this type of development is highlighted here.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com
Tomes: we are on the same page. My prognosis is that the key issues will worsen under this government and Starmer will win the election next year. Within a year thereafter it will be clear to all
that Labour haven’t a clue how to resolve any of these but their ridiculous policies are rapidly making things worse. Before the end of their second year (2026) there will be a political upheaval of some form, maybe revolution, I don’t know. But for sure, “the world as we know it” will end.
In the 13 years since publication, we are still pushing the false idea that carbon dioxide levels in the atmos. need to be reduced, whereas the exact opposite is the most beneficial outcome in almost all ways. Such is the standard of education in our socialist paradise ?
He, he, he. Beginning in a couple of years the UK is planning on dumping its excess wind into the EU where they, too, plan on having excess wind.
We’re already seeing that happen with solar. The recent nice weather has seen solar surpluses across much of Europe and negative prices to match, with the Netherlands being the latest major culprit thanks to their net metering scheme for domestic solar. That means homes are paid at the full retail price for excess solar output that has a negative value. On May 29th, National Grid is reported to have paid up to £550/MWh to reduce imports on BritNed.
The fun comes when there is an energy shortage and nobody has any to spare.
The OECD make it hard for you to download a copy of the original report, even though it permits you to read it online from their site.
I found an alternative location that has the report available for download as a PDF, here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319316042_Nuclear_Energy_and_Renewables_System_Effects_in_Low-carbon_Electricity_Systems/link/59a42cb90f7e9b4f7df367fb/download
Why the OECD should want to make download difficult I have no idea.
PS The copyright date of the report is 2012.
All these sorts of desktop exercises are irrelevant due to the complete lack of understanding of Transmission and Distribution networks by the authors who are frankly not competent to discuss the issue. Electricity T & D is expressly NOT just about numbers of apparent power. The issue is very complex (naturally) and simply playing numbers in a computer game gets you nowhere.
What (for just one tiny example) is the difference in SCL between a wind farm and a gas turbine? Does it matter? Have any on these authors even heard of SCL let alone considered it? how do you accommodate for the wind farm’s low SCL?
What are the issues of Reactive power supply and/or absorption relative to Transmission connected or Embedded levels of generation? What levels of synchronicity and frequency control are allocated in these joke world computer models?
There is so much ignored, omitted, not accounted for or just plainly not understood (erm…what does synchronous 3000r.p.m. really mean!) that makes these projections completely risible.
Sorry but that’s standard engineer nonsense. These costs are real and can be shown to be relatively accurate. It’s not a model of how to do it but a model that illustrates the large scale costs.
It’s a model that ignores the realities that Ray S mentions. Not much use to man or beast.
“Sorry but that’s standard engineer nonsense.”
If so, what corroborative evidence can you provide to substantiate that assertion? Perhaps of greater relevance is to enquire as to what scientific qualifications you have that gives you the authority to challenge Ray Sanders eminently informative post?
Hi Phoenix, I can understand your disdain for my comment, however, it is my experience that many involved in these issues are not actually very conversant with the subject in the detail required to make such projections. . I have posted about this on here before, but I once met a senior NG manager who queried why a colleague and I were discussing football. We were actually discussing VAR at a substation. At first we thought he was joking until we sadly realised (and he somewhat embarrassedly had to admit) he did not know what we were talking about. That is an example of how bad the reality is.
Interesting to note that you have not responded to my post made at 10.53am. I rather think that your failure to do so speaks volumes for the intellectual paucity of your assertion. ’nuff said, methinks.
Fear not, Ray, batteries will save us:
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/04/22/weekend-read-pathfinders-for-grid-stability/
If I understood this, then we will have paid £323m to solve a problem that wasn’t even a problem and happened for free before we started mucking about with windmills. But that’s OK because…
“We believe this is the first time in the world where grid forming inverters have been used in multiple locations across a region to provide a system-wide solution to short circuit level and inertia,” said National Grid Head of Networks Julian Leslie. “These zero-carbon, stability-improving devices will enable more green electricity to run, are cheaper for consumers, and will allow the market to deliver as much wind generation as possible.”
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
It is a mistake to introduce logic into the cost of Net Zero debate.
No logic is evident.
I don’t understand the National Grid’s thinking? 80% from wind and solar, by 2035.
Yet wind has been quite weak for the last four or so weeks with the occasional strong day and solar is very peaky and doesn’t suit grid demand.
What cunning plan have they to cover such regular lulls in output (Winter ones will be worse), especially as they must be in the firing line when it fails?
Can anyone explain?
As in the USSR, saying “it won’t work” just gets you fired these days. We must have Net Zero so everyone must produce Net Zero plans. I’m sure many people in many positions hope that reality hits before they have to do what they say they will do – they are just waiting for the nonsense to fall over.
“What cunning plan have they…?”
The cleverer ‘they’ of the present institutions hope to scarper with their pensions and not be in the firing line. It is probably not a perfect plan as the pensions will be about as sound as the future economy.
National Grid actually get payments for making “interventions” to balance the system and keep it operating satisfactorily. Bizarrely it is in their financial interests to be operating a rickety system as they make much more money for doing so. If the grid ran on large fuelled coal, oil, gas, and nuclear plants there would be little requirement for interventions aside from using pumped storage hydro. NG love a crap system as it is so profitable to them.
Precisely Ray. The private sector exists to make money.
My comment doesn’t mean the public sector is better or worse. It means they are both crappy for different reasons, and only as good as the regulations in place to control them.
So it’s going to be “more government” whichever we choose. A case of Churchill’s “the worst, except for all the rest”
In other news, the administrators of the Toucan solar utility business is holding a fire sale of its bankrupt assets that left Thurrock Council with £692m of non performing debt.
The lies and pretexts appealed to for the violence of law to ban nuclear energy are the same as the ones invented for the force of law to ban LSD. Your babies will have 3 eyes and flippers. That’s the problem with lying. For every initiation of fraud there is unequal yet apposite reprisal fraud. It’s what you are seeing now. I am against both appeals to ignorant fear.
“…unequal yet apposite…”
Sounds like something out of a (not too useful) physics textbook!