What, No Offshore Wind?
By Paul Homewood
I was going to wait till the actual results tomorrow, but I’ll be in the middle of Rutland on my bike!
No new offshore wind farms are expected to have been bid for in a government auction this week, in a significant blow to the government’s clean energy ambitions.
Ministers are scheduled to announce tomorrow the winners in their annual auction of financial support contracts for renewable energy projects.
A number of sources have told The Times they understood the auction had failed to procure any big new offshore wind farms, after the government ignored repeated industry warnings that support on offer was too low to reflect soaring inflation.
Such an outcome would jeopardise the government’s ambitious target of more than tripling offshore wind capacity to 50 gigawatts by 2030 — more than enough to power every home, and up from less than 14 gigawatts today.
Five offshore wind projects with about 5 gigawatts combined capacity are believed to have been eligible for this year’s auction — enough to power more than 5 million homes. However, their developers — Vattenfall, ScottishPower and SSE — have all sounded the alarm over cost inflation.
Full story
A few first thoughts:
1) The inflation argument is a bit of a bogus one, because the strike prices are index linked anyway.
The govt’s price cap is £44/MWh at 2012 prices, something like £55/MWh at current prices, and £65/MWh by the time they start generating.
2) The wind industry has been hoisted on its own petard, consistently low balling the true costs in order to influence govts.
This also applies to the turbine manufacturers, who appear to have woefully underestimated the costs and problems of building large turbines for operation offshore.
3) According to Sky, a recent auction in Ireland set a price of Eu 150/MWh, about £125/MWh.
4) WSJ report that:
According to George Bilicic, global head of power, energy and infrastructure at Lazard, building a U.S. offshore wind farm can cost $4,000
That’s £3000, and compares with the BEIS levelised cost estimates, which are based on £1500 (at 2018 prices)
BEIS figures came out at £54/MWh
At £3000, we are looking at something like £100/MWh.
I’ll do a fuller analysis once the full auction results are announced.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Not much wind, anyway, yesterday and today in the south-east of England.
Not a blade was moving today from Dumfries to Tynemouth and back.
A Long term study of most of the UK wind generators , hour by hour , shows that for over half of the year they are only producing les than 20% of their rated capacity .http://www.iesisenergy.org/agp/Aris-Wind-paper.pdf.
So , despite the fantasy that the wind is always blowing somewhere , most of the time they are hardly producing much at all.
True again this morning, getting more from coal than wind and solar combined
The Labour Party proposed in June to decarbonise our electricity by 2030 by quadrupling offshore wind, doubling onshore wind and trebling solar. This may produce sufficient energy over a year but there are times when the power deficit is as much as 41 GW! If anyone is interested in viewing the calculations, together with some costings, based upon the demand, wind and solar data for 2022 downloaded from Gridwatch into an Excel file, then please email me at jbxcagwnz@gmail.com.
There’s a notion that we’ll all charge our e cars at night, “while you sleep, the power’s cheap”. Except it won’t be if we’re getting all our power from wind and solar. These last few nights there has been barely any wind power, obviously no solar. When we do go completely electric that’s a 10GW draw on the grid from e car’s alone or roughly 30GW total.
The entire concept of only recharging the less practical EVs at specific times of day is strange. In the real world, you recharge when you have no range left or are getting very close to that. That could and does happen at any time of day.
With normal, practical, ICE cars, you only need to refill once (maximum ten minutes even from empty to refill petrol and diesel) to get the same actual use as recharging an EV three or four times.
>>There’s a notion that we’ll all charge our e cars at night
This is a good worldwide graphic showing windspeeds. Click anywhere to see estimated speeds. Cut in speed of most wind turbinesis 15km/h but they need about 45km/h to reach max rated power output.
Pretty dire Europe wide right now.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=-15.33,70.18,548/loc=-76.017,40.406
That’s a very informative site Ray, hours of fun to be had.
Have you played with the CO2 mapping, it is very interesting indeed to compare the levels at different locations, for example:
41.26° N, 65.33° W 398 ppm
50.07° N, 3.21° W 455 ppm
A “well-mixed gas”…
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=6.94,38.13,566/loc=-3.212,50.067
Yes Cat I’ve noticed that sort of thing in the past. Another interesting one is this https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
Switch over to “production” and France is generating its electricity at 38g CO2 equivalent whilst their German neighbours are a mere 13.5 times greater at 513g. Real cosmic intellects these German Greens, shutting down good nuclear plants to import the same stuff from France at a higher price. YCMIU except they did.
Is it any wonder that Poland (over 1kg per kWh) are pushing for nuclear.
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Polish-government-approves-first-nuclear-power-pla
If only we had a company that has already built numerous nuclear reactors and has a decent design for a modular production line unit we could make a fortune in exports…oh wait…..what do you mean we already do?
“The end of cheap energy” was a headline I read this week. Ain’t that the truth.
More like “The End of Being Able to Pretend Wind is Cheap Energy.”
Gas is way down from its peak and us still pretty cheap.
This morning your headline could equally well have read “What, hardly any wind at all” as Gridwatch showed just 3% of our electricity coming from wind, onshore & offshore. A million wind turbines wouldn’t meet our needs in the centre of an anticyclone.
The last time our 40GW of wind generated more than 10GW for a hour or more was August 19th.
We’re going to need a very very big battery.
What’s more over the last 28 days under 6GW of mostly geriatric nuclear at 5 small sites has generated almost as much as all this brand new shiny stuff.
https://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-28-days/
And how long will it take to recharge the very very big batteries once the wind does start blowing again? We’ll need another bunch of wind turbines to recharge the batteries before the next wind drought.
Given the long and deep lulls, you’d also need a huge amount of over-capacity when the wind does blow to charge the batteries.
This government minister is boasting that we got 40% of our electricity from renewables last year.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2023-09-05a.179.1&s=climate+change
Gareth Davies The Exchequer Secretary:
“The Treasury’s 2021 net zero review noted that unmitigated climate change damage has been estimated to be the equivalent of losing between 5% and 20% of global GDP each year. The costs of global inaction significantly outweigh the costs of action, and McKinsey estimates that there is a global market opportunity for British businesses worth £1 trillion.
The data that I look at shows that last year 40% of our electricity was generated from renewables. That is an amazing achievement, but we are alive and present when it comes to decarbonising our economy. We have great plans and we are building on our great track record. We will continue to do that.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tighter-limit-on-industrial-power-and-aviation-emissions-as-uk-leads-the-way-to-net-zero
“UK power and industrial sectors to trailblaze the way to decarbonisation, as a tighter cap confirmed for emissions from selected high energy industries that will set a path to the country’s ambitious climate goals.”
Dennis, if the Treasury seriously believes the impact if climate change could be 5% of global GDP each year, they should be sacked. These figures come from the Stern Review of 2006 which has been criticised for its wholly inappropriate use of costs, notably disasters. The IPCC figures are far below thee sorts of lunacy.
I read somewhere the other day that if we were to turn the Isle of Wight into one big battery 50 feet high (I think that was the figure) in the current state of technology it might store enough electricity to power London for half an hour.
Can’t answer for the figures but I suspect the point is fairly well made.
Does nobody who genuinely understands these things ever talk to government ministers? I cannot believe that our representatives are so dim they cannot understand facts when they are presented with them by people who really do know what they are talking about.
Update = early this morning (Friday) wind was producing under 1% of electricity, even good old coal doing better.
Much later at 11:00 BST it’s at 0.3%. I think that’s known as b*gg*r all in the trade.
We’re getting more from the interconnectors than solar and wind combined. Is this Warm Dunkelflaute? Whatever Germany have got it as well, 3.3GW of wind, so much for wind always blows somewhere
This graphic I posted upthread indicates that Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic is completely becalmed. This is not actually that unusual especially in winter.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=-15.33,70.18,548/loc=-76.017,40.406
Dennis, GDP is a very vague figure and even for a developed country like the UK, it is revised two or three times for any given quarter or year.
Excellent – save the whales.
These renewables companies have got the Government exactly where they want them. Fed on the false promises of renewables, the Government had pinned it colours to the mast in a big way and there’s no way out without losing massive face and credibility. They’ve swallowed everything they were told as Gospel and it’s probably not dawned on them yet that they’ve been had, but it will.
Five offshore wind projects with about 5 gigawatts combined capacity are believed to have been eligible for this year’s auction — enough to power more than 5 million homes.
When will the Government notice that the 5 million homes figure is a nonsense that only applies when it’s seriously windy?
The 1kW average home is the usual lie in any case, 2.5kW including heat and EVs is nearer the mark. Project Fortress (ex Cleve Hill) claimed it would power 100,000 homes, nine times the realistic number. They’ve started building, let’s see if they ever finish.
Mad Mike,
I agree with your assessment but it should not be like that, they should be diligent and do accurate research and know what such as wind can and cannot do and at an accurate cost.
Essentially the more involved our government are in almost anything (True in other countries also?) the worse the outcome!
I’m sure the unreliables companies do their research. Enough to know that the government will shower them in subsidies and without them their business case is a non-starter. The ‘unacceptable face of capitalism’?
What nobody seems to have understood is that if you make energy more expensive via some renewables, the next lot of renewables will cost more to build. This is the opposite of the CCC’s claims about Green technology but the CCC are simply fanatics. Green is less efficient and less productive so everything becomes more and more expensive to manufacture and install – we get poorer. It is inevitable no matter how many people really, really wish it weren’t so.
“And it’s probably not dawned on them yet that they’ve been had, but it will”
Maybe it’s beginning:
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23769798.vattenfall-reportedly-talks-sell-norfolk-windfarm/
Tip: You’ll need to disable Javascript if you want to see the actual story without incurring loads of pop-ups. The EDP (like virtually all the local press) is in financial doo-doo, and are desperate for any income they can get…
Disagree about the credibility, Mad Mike. One of the reasons I had hopes for Truss is that she struck me as someone who didn’t care much for whether she saved face or not. Keegan seems to be the same. The job is bigger than the minister.
It pains me to say it but this “credibility” business (a bit like “leaving a legacy”) is very much a ‘man’ thing.
Thatcher never worried about losing face if she was doing what she believed was right in the interests of the country. (Which is not to say I agree with everything she did!) But as we have seen over the last 15 years some officials (most notably in the Home Office) do definitely NOT like working for a woman. Smith, May, Patel, Rudd … all have been undermined from within. They can’t ALL have been rubbish!!
Meanwhile in Germany Â
Well Paul, I hope you take your water-wings, because last time I was there, in the middle of Rutland was Rutland Water. One thing is certain, Emily Gosden still hasn’t a clue!
It’s L in the middle of Rutland!
Basil Brush would be proud of that one.
No, MM, I really believe there are many MPs’ families and (cough) acquaintances who have fingers in many wind/solar projects. The last thing they want is for the gravy-train to stop.
I’m with you on this, many snouts in troughs and the Crown land is a major beneficiary.
If a miracle happens and the long overdue repeal of the Climate Change Act actually happens, what happens if our current climate alarmist king refuses to give royal assent?
>>Crown lands
We will enter uncharted waters.
Time to dip the torches in tar and get the pitchforks out!
Realist: He can’t. But it won’t happen. Too many MPs have been – a lovely old word – suborned.
Just like the PPE (personal protection equipment) contracts given out to Tory friends and donors.
Stupid conspiracy theories. Yes, companies that donate to political parties often bid for government contracts. Since some do, all do. So some donors get government contracts. This is news to who?
Now do a video about all the donors that didn’t get PPE – oh look, survivor bias.
Phoenix44. Facts are not conspiracy theories. Look at Michelle Mone and the PPE Medpro contracts and Matt Hancock’s pub landlord getting government PPE contracts.
Motor or pedal?
ITV 6.30 news weather report yesterday stated that more people died from heat than cold although every article I have read states the opposite. I had to rewind to check the comment.
They are probably using this utterly scurrilous bit of propaganda from the once-august and respectable “Lancet”.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1urEAbakAACHqI?format=jpg&name=medium
I don’t see it. Wasn’t June the hottest evah? Yet we just have the ongoing excess deaths that no-one wants to talk about.
Was January boiling hot?
I would think the ‘died suddenlys’ – he was fine yesterday and stone cold this morning – are totally swamping the few people who might succumb to the heat.
I would much rather see investment in _reliable_ sources of electricity generation such as coal, gas and nuclear. Exploring for gas could have the bonus of also finding oil for the thousands of products made from it and what is still left as transport fuels.
We could have had more nuclear generation if it hadn’t been for Nick Clegg, then part of the Con/Lib coalition 10 years ago, stopping any development of nuclear generation as he said the it would take 10 years to build. Would that we had one or more now, particularly SMRs.
Clegg was an idiot 10 years ago
I see no evidence that he has advanced his mental faculties since then.
I firmly believe the whole Net Zero rubbish is a moral corruption forced upon us by politicians, big global corporations and other nefarious organisations. They seek to brainwash the more gullible in society whilst they reap vast profits from subsidies funded by the populace. Their unshakable belief in the ridiculous policies brokers no dissent.
I couldn’t agree more
But unfortunately the claim it takes 10 years to build was wildly optimistic. I very much doubt we’d have broken ground yet if Clegg had authorised 5 new nuclear plants 10 years ago.
‘tripling offshore wind capacity to 50 gigawatts by 2030 — more than enough to power every home’
‘enough to power more than 5 million homes’
Demand examples of homes being powered by wind. Like 1. Show use ONE home powered by wind.
There aren’t ANY. DOUBLE-OUGHT ZERO.
Even a moron knows a home can’t be powered by wind. Ministers don’t. Cos they say EVERYONE can be.
“Stuck on stupid.” — LTG Russel Honoré
More than enough to power every home – if the wind is blowing not too strong, or not blowing at all.
Not been round to my place, when I have a bad attack of what the Americans call ‘gas’ and I’m not refering to road vehicle fuels, there.
Oh dear…what. pity…never mind!
O/T I know, but the BBC are now glamourising physical assault. What sort of disgusting spin allows alleged “climate protestors” to physically assault someone and does not condemn them? What would they say if Michael O’Leary had respondedby decking them both as he was perfectly within his rights to? Oh no you are not allowed to fight back against these vile twats apparantly. Were they arrested? The BBC certainly don’t want to find out.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-66741245
Just saw a joke that summarizes the issue in a single concise sentence.
“Windmills are like strippers, they stop working when you stop throwing money at them.”
Or . . .
“Windmills are great, til you run out of other sources of power.”
H/T arn
Excellent comment
Excellent joke and true.
“Such an outcome would jeopardise the government’s ambitious target of more than tripling offshore wind capacity to 50 gigawatts by 2030 — more than enough to power every home, and up from less than 14 gigawatts today.”
“Five offshore wind projects with about 5 gigawatts combined capacity are believed to have been eligible for this year’s auction — enough to power more than 5 million homes.”
Wind power cannot POWER any homes. They may be able to produce sufficient ENERGY over a year for these claims but there is no way they can provide dispatchable POWER as claimed because of intermittency. As I write the 28 GW of wind power is generating just 2.5 GW (up from 1.5 GW earlier today) and solar is 0.12 GW.
Both the Government and the renewables industry have been deliberately confusing the MSM/public between energy and power in order to push the acceptance of renewables.
There is no non-fossil fuel plan, even by 2050, for storage because it is so hideously expensive and hence the long-term plan, when they have explosively demolished all our gas and coal generating plants and closed own our nuclear, is for us to accept intermittent supplies of expensive energy using saving the planet as the excuse.
“Live life intermittently.”
John,
except they can’t blow up the gas generating plants as that would shut down the grid. They do know that we must have gas generation to support renewables for technical reasons on top of covering intermittency. Simply, no gas, no power.
Quite why they still keep on about the impossible net zero I don’t understand?
Reminds me of a couple of quotes from Prof Dieter Helm
Each new wind farm comes with a press release about “enough to power x number of homes.” There has never been a press release which adds the caveat “when the wind blows”
“The UK has built a lot of intermittent wind capacity without thinking through how to manage the intermittency”
http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/energy/energy-policy
Yup, accept unreliable power on pain of imprisonment it seems. UK already at Pollock limit so additional wind capacity will achieve almost nothing without ruinously expensive storage as you say. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/11/the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renewable-energy/
Some debate about the actual Pollock limits for each system but the diminishing returns are steep and obvious.
I ran calculations on how things might look for the UK long before the Pollock limit idea was pushed. In reality, it is a soft limit as this chart chows
Start by looking at the position with zero wind: nuclear accounts for about 17% of generation and is of course zero carbon. In this simplified example it continues at that level as wind is added, but CCGT capacity is also maintained because it has to cover for Dunkelflaute that renders wind useless on a cold winter day when demand is at maximum. Gas accounts for the other 83% of generation. Its average capacity utilisation is 50%, because it provides all the flex needed to accommodate demand peaks. If there were no nuclear, it would be at 61% which is the underlying ratio between average and peak demand.
As we add wind initially it displaces gas generation, pushing up the system cost because of lower utilisation of CCGT and the need for extra grid capacity (including extra stabilisation measures) to deliver wind generation to consumers. If we add these costs they progressively increase the costs of adding more wind.
Then we reach an inflexion point: at 20- 25GW of wind capacity there are occasions when the whole wind fleet is producing more than low overnight demand having allowed for the nuclear generation (also kept to help with grid stabilisation). We start having to curtail wind, absent storage. As more capacity is added the size of these occasional surpluses during low demand grows. But also there are more hours where high winds start generating surpluses that must be curtailed, because generation exceeds an intermediate level of demand. Furthermore, hours of low demand move into curtailment surplus at lower wind speeds. So we see curtailment (red line) rising roughly quadratically in this phase.
Curtailed output does nothing to reduce CCGT generation, and the small increases of wind output from extra capacity on less windy days also do rather less to reduce CCGT generation, so the rate at which gas generation is supplanted reduces. CCGT is still needed to cover Dunkelflaute and other smaller wind shortfalls.
If we calculate the curtailment needed as we add a small extra tranche of wind capacity we find that a sharply rising proportion of the extra output has to be curtailed (cyan line) – the marginal rate of curtailment soars. Of course, it is ultimately limited by approaching quite close to 100% curtailment of incremental capacity – at which point it is surely quite pointless. In this example, based on real GB demand and real wind generation data scaled up for the stated capacity, by the time you have installed 50GW of wind marginal curtailment is about 63%, leaving the new capacity trying to earn its cost from just 37% of its output. That means it needs its output to sell for 100/37ths (a factor of 2.7) of the price needed to cover the cost of building wind farms before curtailment started to become a factor. Yet wind plus nuclear still only accounts for 70% of generation.
Press on to 90GW of wind, and the marginal curtailment is 85%, with the effective cost (before the other extras, which by now are less important because of the curtailment – you don’t need grid capacity to transmit curtailed power, and the useful output will be on days that are less windy and already accommodated by existing grid capacity) now 100/15 times the number first thought of – 6.666 times as costly. Overall curtailment of ~150TWh/a is now about half of demand. And still almost 20% of demand is being met by CCGT.
It doesn’t add up,
CCGT does most of the grid stabilisation, simply by being online giving inertia and reactive power even when generating at low levels of output. It also, of course, does the supply and demand balancing. It does more than just cover intermittency.
It is never valid to consider nuke as “zero carbon” or “carbon neutral”, a bit like wind generation or electric (steam-powered) cars.
Idau: thanks for that insight into where things are headed.
A small query….when you say “That means it needs its output to sell for 100/37ths (a factor of 2.7) of the price needed to cover the cost of building wind farms before curtailment started to become a factor”, surely the windfarms in question will receive compensation for being curtailed? Presumably that will be equivalent to their projected production if not curtailed?
So the output will sell at their contract price but the consumer will also pay the curtailment charges which will rachet up the overall cost by the ratios you mention.
Mikehig
Same difference. You either pay a premium for the power that is actually used to cover their costs (which is how the AR5 CFDs were meant to work as they offer no payment any time prices go negative, but as my chart shows it was going to become a big problem that has been ignored – I have submitted this chart to OFGEM and to the Select Committee enquiry on zero carbon generation by 2035 that has failed to report). Or you pay curtailment compensation. Whichever way you do it you end up with the same high cost on your bill.
Ian Reid
Indeed CCGT is currently used along with nuclear to provide inertia stabilisation and short circuit handling (e.g. from lightning strikes). In a high wind penetration scenario maintaining that is very important. Batteries are increasingly being used to stabilise grid frequency and they are actually quite good at that, even managing to handle GW sized trips of interconnectors. But they are useless as backup for when the wind doesn’t blow. Eirgrid have been wrestling with how to push up the renewables element in Ireland and have politely warned ministers that their targets are infeasible with current technology.
I pointed out the role of demand balancing by comparing peak and average demand. In a real world system you actually get a slightly higher average utilisation for CCGT by having the peak lopping capacity as OCGT, pumped storage/hydro etc., while nuclear is run as baseload. The chart is to keep things simple and focus on the implications of rising curtailment.
Typos alert, Paul:
“According to George Bilicic, global head of power, energy and infrastructure at Lazard, building a U.S. offshore wind farm can cost $4,000
That’s £3000, and compares with the BEIS levelised cost estimates, which are based on £1500 (at 2018 prices)”
What are the units?
The capital costs are per kW of nominal capacity. I usually think in terms of £m per MW (which scales more easily for the cost of an individual turbine) or £bn per GW (ditto for a whole wind farm – but of course the numbers are the same, since the units are multiplied and divided by a factor of 1,000 that cancels).
On levelised cost, see Kathryn Porter’s recent post debunking Lazard.
Thanks IDAU.
Net Zero Watch says Government “hopelessly divided” over climate issues
Monday 4th September 2023
Net Zero Watch says that the Government is incapable of a coherent climate policy.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/government-divided-over-climate-issues/
It’s all turning to you-know-what for the Westminster net zero fantasists.
Nice to see coal been running a 1GW last two nights. Soak it whilst we can wont be there soon and what is going to be the alternative?
Wind at effectively 0% most of the day…so that can’t be it.
I think the Sky report is wrong about Ireland. They ran an auction which had an average price of €86.05/MWh (about £75/MWh, both in current money), but they set their ceiling price at €150/MWh, which was enough to suck the punters in. All explained here:
https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/f2ac5-minister-ryan-welcomes-hugely-positive-provisional-results-of-first-offshore-wind-auction/
When I submitted my criticisms of the government plans to find back door subsidies for CFDs to try to preserve the fiction that offshore wind is cheap, I suggested they should take a look at the design of the successful Irish auction, including its generous ceiling price, indexation tied to cost elements such as steel, real world pricing instead of 2012 funny money etc.
Meanwhile I see that the Guardian has swallowed the renewables industry line that consumers lose out because wind is so much cheaper than gas, forgetting that there is no cheap wind in the future anymore, and we are paying through the nose on the wind that is operating already, quite aside from all the extra costs it causes…
And The Guardian’s claims are not a proper counter-factual. We do not and cannot know the gas price had we not pursued these renewables fantasies.
” more than enough to power every home, and up from less than 14 gigawatts today. ”
Provided the right kind of wind blows, one wonders why this is never added?
I rise at 0730 todsy to hear the BBC blathering on about offshore wind failure on R4 while gridwatch.templar shows 0.13 GIGAWATTS! In practical terms no electricity at all. Why don’t they know this?
Because they are far too lazy to look at the real. world
I wonder whether the BBC and other media will give the story the massive coverage that it deserves.!
BBC news friday 8th 10.50 interview with some lady rep from wind energy industry. “It’s because the subsidies aren’t big enough even though offshore wind is by far the cheapest energy” etc etc yawn and repeat ad nauseam . Surprisingly BBC person asked “why are subsidies necessary if it is cheapest” but didnt query the bullsh*t reply
The inflation argument isn’t necessarily bogus. You can’t assume the basket of consumer goods used to calculate official inflation applies to the costs of manufacturing. Those costs are specific and factual. If energy is up say 25%, many of their non-labour inputs will be up by somewhere between 2% and 25%. If steel is up 30%, steel costs are 30% higher.
It’s largely bogus. And they will also benefit from indexation after construction.
The simple fact is that these low prices were never viable
The head of SSE wind division was on Radio 4 this morning saying that wind is now way cheaper than gas and the next generation of wind offshore will be half the current price. The presenter just let him get away with this crap and didn’t even ask, if thats the case, why are you failing to take up licences at the auction?
Or ‘why do you need £billions in subsidy every year?’
And there’s Drax, iamkate reckons they have had 6billion to date.
Also looking for more: https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/axedrax-campaign/#drax
“Drax’s current biomass subsidies are due to end in 2027. In order to continue operating its power station, Drax needs a guaranteed market price for its electricity regardless of any future drops in energy prices.
Drax hopes to succeed in getting such subsidies by re-framing its UK strategy in order to fit within the government’s 2021 Net Zero Strategy. That strategy includes a highly ambitious target for “greenhouse gas removals”, with BECCS as a supposed key technology.
In May 2022, Drax submitted a planning application to install carbon capture equipment at two of its biomass units. As of April 2023, the application was still being examined by the planning inspectorate. The final decision will eventually be made by the Secretary of State.
However, there are strong reasons to doubt that Drax will be able to capture significant amounts of CO2 any time soon:
Drax’s proposal to capture 8 million tonnes of CO2 is based on a small trial of a new type of amine solvent during which the company captured just 27 tonnes of CO2.”
The BBC employs proven liars to verify “facts”. You shouldn’t be surprised if they spring another lie on you.
Just taken a screenshot of the grid stats. Lowest wind I’ve seen, at 0.29%!
15:25 Gridwatch is showing the combined might of the UK’s 11,000 on and offshore metered windfarm fleet is producing all of 0.16 GW, or 0.48% of UK electricity demand!
Less than half a percent!
Don’t worry by 4.05pm wind had trebled to 1.6% 🙂
https://grid.iamkate.com
“offshore metered windfarm fleet is producing all of 0.16 GW, or 0.48% of UK electricity demand! ”
Is the input power data for wind turbines easily available in the current conditions? That’s the “housekeeping” power requirements for low wind conditions e.g. “motoring” the shaft, control systems, lubrication etc
Wind Farms somehow get away with only reporting gross output and own consumption seems not to be recorded. Poster IDAU did some of his usual excellent investigative research into this a while back and arrived at a likely consumption figure when idle. I can’t remember or find his figures but I would be very confident that at the low gross output figures reported recently actually represent a net consumption figure. If IDAUpicks up on this he may be able to help clarify.
‘a significant blow to the government’s clean energy ambitions’
When I was a kid, government was concerned with the people’s ambitions.
When most of us were kids, governments wanted (or at least claimed to) to make things better, not worse. But all European politicians these days actively hate ordinary people. Look at all the bans, invented and increased taxes and regulations on many things in normal life (even before the “climate” hysterics started).
Firmly believe the WEF is behind all of this and Sunak and Hunt are true disciples.
Sunak and Chunt are but two weak minded individuals. How do we explain the 650 MPs nodding their heads in concert?
A RenewableUK press release dated 04/07/2023 said that they and 2 other trade associations had written to the Government to say that the offshore wind industry needed the CfD prices to be two and half times higher than its current level to obtain bids for AR5. I cannot provide a link to this press release but it can still be found by going to RenewableUK -> News -> Press Releases – > 04/07/2023.
So how can the head of SSE’s wind division say that wind is cheapwer than gas and the next generation of wind will be half the current price?
“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” — Barrack Hussein Obama
“If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.” — Barrack Hussein Obama
The powerful can say anything they want, because the government and the press will back them up. No matter how absurd.
They can’t we know it but the media are just so stupid they don’t challenge it. What we have to see from her is whether the govt push up AR6 pot again to seduce offshore wind or is this the first crack in rowing back from net zero and the even more daft 50GW offshore wind target by 2030 (no hope) and net zero power generation in 2035 (unachievable and always has been).
Wouldn’t it be great if the course ‘professors’ stood up and put their beaks on the line?
From Aberdeen Uni, a lecturer in ‘Climate Change and the Law’,