Then there are the hidden costs, and instability, and ... friends don't let friends be fooled: using chaotic inputs to create stable environments is foolish. Fission is the answer (Thorium/Uranium: cheaper than coal) until fusion becomes the answer.
I strongly agree with your 4th point in your conclusions: BEIS’s own figures show that after hidden costs are taken into account, nuclear becomes the cheapest low-carbon, reliable source of electricity generation. Therefore, in the medium term, we should invest much more in nuclear power
Would anyone sane buy a car costing about 10 times the normal price to buy and run, that can only work one day in five, when you never know which day that might be ? And then insist that its technology is the only way to power the whole economy.
Whilst somewhat distant (in the Land Down Under), I share your views David & 'financial' conclusions in principle. However, two things if you et others here might be prepared to consider.
Firstly, your repeated use of the term 'Renewables' is IMHO is misleading & unhelpful. That's a word carefully chosen for its positive connotations by those promoting the Green Dream Agenda when in fact the more accurate word for the likes of wind farms & solar-PV's is the 'Unreliables'.
Your continued use of the word 'Renewables' provides (unthinkingly), a free kick for those promoting something that's supposedly positive, when in fact they are exactly the opposite. Just call them for what they are ie the 'Unreliables' or "Unreliable Energy'. Simple & more accurate. That's my take on it anyway.
Secondly, since the energy market has been largely been commercialized (sold off in OZ to the private sector), I'm inclined to the view that all that's required to resolve this issue is nothing more than a Sensible Energy Policy. Something along these lines.
Neither OZ, nor any other developed economy can function without a sensible, affordable, reliable, available (24/7) easy to understand, market driven Energy Policy. One that works from the consumers interests back, NOT from the energy industries interests forward.
In the absence of empirical evidence proving the case against CO2 (there is none as best as I can determine), the key elements of such a Sensible Energy Policy would require that it;
1. Is technology agnostic; (i.e., embraces both fossil fuels, hydro, wind, solar, geo-thermal, biomass, wave, batteries & nuclear – All on the table).
2. Removes ALL subsidies & discriminatory legislation that favours one, or operates against any other technology over another (i.e., a level playing field with the choice of power generating technology entirely at the discretion of respective power generators as dictated by their respective, individual Business Plans).
3. Requires contractual obligations (via auction?) to deliver guaranteed power in response to an offer from whom-ever the Energy Regulator might be (eg; the AEMO in Australia) to supply electricity in accord with clearly defined Quality of Service (QOS) standards eg; 99.98% availability.
4. Imposes SUBSTANTIAL financial penalties upon power generators who fail to meet their contractual & associated QOS obligations (force majeure permitting in the event of natural disasters e.g., earthquakes, floods, bushfires).
5. Requires a substantial bond to meet restoration of environment (ie; decommissioning & removal of all infrastructure, land rehabilitation and/or disposal/recycling costs for solar-PV panels, wind turbine blades, etc) as is currently required of mining companies in Australia & presumably elsewhere.
6. Repeals anti-CO2 regulatory legislation (in OZ, the RET, LRET, SRES & Safeguard Mechanism etc), including the removal of the current ban on nuclear in OZ.
If the power generating industry finds these principles unpalatable, tough. Simply re-nationalize the industry. Return it to whence it came ie; the responsibility of respective State and/or Federal Govt’s & be done with it. Easy.
Difficult exercise would be to isolate and attribute a part of the large acceleration in grid capex to solar and wind. Probably as meaningful (and marginal cost per wind turbine is increasing) as balancing costs?
Then there are the hidden costs, and instability, and ... friends don't let friends be fooled: using chaotic inputs to create stable environments is foolish. Fission is the answer (Thorium/Uranium: cheaper than coal) until fusion becomes the answer.
Suggested reading LCOE is the wrong measure FCOE is the correct measure.
https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jms/article/view/0/47241
Journal of Management and Sustainability; Vol. 12, No. 1; 2022
ISSN 1925-4725 E-ISSN 1925-4733
In California too https://investigativeeconomics.substack.com/p/average-cost-of-electricity-for-pg
I strongly agree with your 4th point in your conclusions: BEIS’s own figures show that after hidden costs are taken into account, nuclear becomes the cheapest low-carbon, reliable source of electricity generation. Therefore, in the medium term, we should invest much more in nuclear power
Weather-Dependent “Renewables result in Germany – UK – France
Productivity Capacity% for the decade 2012 - 2022
Onshore wind power 22.5%
Offshore wind power 32.7%
Solar PV on grid 11.6%
Weather-Dependent generation in Europe overall 18.7%.
Conventional power generation, Gas-firing, Coal or Nuclear technologies ~90%:
The extent of the actual measured variability for details see:
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2021-european-wind-drought-analysed/
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2022-weather-dependent-renewables-in-germany-uk-and-france/
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/3-graphs-say-it-all-for-renewables/
Would anyone sane buy a car costing about 10 times the normal price to buy and run, that can only work one day in five, when you never know which day that might be ? And then insist that its technology is the only way to power the whole economy.
Whilst somewhat distant (in the Land Down Under), I share your views David & 'financial' conclusions in principle. However, two things if you et others here might be prepared to consider.
Firstly, your repeated use of the term 'Renewables' is IMHO is misleading & unhelpful. That's a word carefully chosen for its positive connotations by those promoting the Green Dream Agenda when in fact the more accurate word for the likes of wind farms & solar-PV's is the 'Unreliables'.
Your continued use of the word 'Renewables' provides (unthinkingly), a free kick for those promoting something that's supposedly positive, when in fact they are exactly the opposite. Just call them for what they are ie the 'Unreliables' or "Unreliable Energy'. Simple & more accurate. That's my take on it anyway.
Secondly, since the energy market has been largely been commercialized (sold off in OZ to the private sector), I'm inclined to the view that all that's required to resolve this issue is nothing more than a Sensible Energy Policy. Something along these lines.
Neither OZ, nor any other developed economy can function without a sensible, affordable, reliable, available (24/7) easy to understand, market driven Energy Policy. One that works from the consumers interests back, NOT from the energy industries interests forward.
In the absence of empirical evidence proving the case against CO2 (there is none as best as I can determine), the key elements of such a Sensible Energy Policy would require that it;
1. Is technology agnostic; (i.e., embraces both fossil fuels, hydro, wind, solar, geo-thermal, biomass, wave, batteries & nuclear – All on the table).
2. Removes ALL subsidies & discriminatory legislation that favours one, or operates against any other technology over another (i.e., a level playing field with the choice of power generating technology entirely at the discretion of respective power generators as dictated by their respective, individual Business Plans).
3. Requires contractual obligations (via auction?) to deliver guaranteed power in response to an offer from whom-ever the Energy Regulator might be (eg; the AEMO in Australia) to supply electricity in accord with clearly defined Quality of Service (QOS) standards eg; 99.98% availability.
4. Imposes SUBSTANTIAL financial penalties upon power generators who fail to meet their contractual & associated QOS obligations (force majeure permitting in the event of natural disasters e.g., earthquakes, floods, bushfires).
5. Requires a substantial bond to meet restoration of environment (ie; decommissioning & removal of all infrastructure, land rehabilitation and/or disposal/recycling costs for solar-PV panels, wind turbine blades, etc) as is currently required of mining companies in Australia & presumably elsewhere.
6. Repeals anti-CO2 regulatory legislation (in OZ, the RET, LRET, SRES & Safeguard Mechanism etc), including the removal of the current ban on nuclear in OZ.
If the power generating industry finds these principles unpalatable, tough. Simply re-nationalize the industry. Return it to whence it came ie; the responsibility of respective State and/or Federal Govt’s & be done with it. Easy.
Rgds, Jim Simpson, Sydney Australia.
A very strong argument for the case against renewables. 2 questions:
Does the UK industrial gas price factor in imported gas from international markets as well as domestic markets?
What is the trend like for UK industrial gas and electricity prices before 2008?
Hi there from Belgium,
Well done.
Difficult exercise would be to isolate and attribute a part of the large acceleration in grid capex to solar and wind. Probably as meaningful (and marginal cost per wind turbine is increasing) as balancing costs?