What happened to the concept of ever lowering energy costs? Can't wait to see what Andrew Montford, John Constable and Prof Gordon Hughes have to say about this.
The Introduction of NPFs is an attempt to get a wider value assessment of the bid (as if it wasn't previously priced in!). It has panic all over it and will lead to only one outcome - more expensive bids and more expensive electricity. It assumes that the NFPs weren't implicitly covered off in previous auctions and is a scam.
I'm resigned to this lot of clowns leading us to financial ruin. Their pursuit of Net Zero will not be put off course no matter what - not even physics David. Not long ago all those in power who have presided over this debacle for the last 20yrs promised us; cheap power, green jobs and lower CO2 emissions. My iron law of Govt intervention wins again and I can't see changing anytime soon; every single intervention they make, EVERY SINGLE ONE, is net negative for Society. They have failed on all 3 (given that CO2 is apparently the cause of global issues we should only measure it's reduction on a global scale and that shows it most definately rising).
I used to think that they would change their mind when the physics started to bite, but it's no obvious they won't. What has happened to a party that used to try and be economically literate.
And finally - ignoring the fact that we must have a 100% back-up storage system to run intermittent sources, haven't we already reached (or even exceeded) W&S capacity on the mixed energy source grid?
Good informative piece, exposes the misguidedness very nicely.
As to solar at 55 deg North with in a country with a maritime climate, the mind boggles!
Another matter that I haven't seen mentioned is that of the momentum removed from the weather system, particularly by the very high off-shore windfarms, which won't be replaced instantaneously.
If these things reduce the speed of rotation of the cyclone belt, some very interesting things could happen.
What happened to the concept of ever lowering energy costs? Can't wait to see what Andrew Montford, John Constable and Prof Gordon Hughes have to say about this.
The Introduction of NPFs is an attempt to get a wider value assessment of the bid (as if it wasn't previously priced in!). It has panic all over it and will lead to only one outcome - more expensive bids and more expensive electricity. It assumes that the NFPs weren't implicitly covered off in previous auctions and is a scam.
I'm resigned to this lot of clowns leading us to financial ruin. Their pursuit of Net Zero will not be put off course no matter what - not even physics David. Not long ago all those in power who have presided over this debacle for the last 20yrs promised us; cheap power, green jobs and lower CO2 emissions. My iron law of Govt intervention wins again and I can't see changing anytime soon; every single intervention they make, EVERY SINGLE ONE, is net negative for Society. They have failed on all 3 (given that CO2 is apparently the cause of global issues we should only measure it's reduction on a global scale and that shows it most definately rising).
I used to think that they would change their mind when the physics started to bite, but it's no obvious they won't. What has happened to a party that used to try and be economically literate.
And finally - ignoring the fact that we must have a 100% back-up storage system to run intermittent sources, haven't we already reached (or even exceeded) W&S capacity on the mixed energy source grid?
Good informative piece, exposes the misguidedness very nicely.
As to solar at 55 deg North with in a country with a maritime climate, the mind boggles!
Another matter that I haven't seen mentioned is that of the momentum removed from the weather system, particularly by the very high off-shore windfarms, which won't be replaced instantaneously.
If these things reduce the speed of rotation of the cyclone belt, some very interesting things could happen.