4 ms·

isn't uk already spending some multibillions on cfd/feedin, transmission and curtailment of existing deployments?

ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Yes that's my point, the stories you have read probably said something like: Wind curtailment payments cost 1 billion a year (boo hiss renewables bad and expensive! even though, just like you they make no attempt to even argue that non-renewables would be cheaper, possibly because they know that's not true. Instead random big scary numbers get thrown around with no context) A better story would be that 1/3rd of that was money spent on curtailment going to the wind turbines as if their output was used and 2/3rds was spent on gas to generate the same power closer to the demand. Because gas costs more than wind. An even better story would point out that the UK has a single zone of pricing, so you can't sell the wind cheaper in Scotland so it gets used but only offer it on the single marketplace and when it gets bought in England, then supply it with gas at great cost and curtail in Scotland. Aside 1: This can get so absurd that France can buy Scottish wind power and then get it delivered by gas generators from England. Aside 2: If Scotland had its own pricing zone it would have the cheapest electricity in Europe due to its wind power, even including UK taxes and levies. A great story would point out that the reason there is wind being generated in Scotland, but not England and the root cause of all that extra cost and curtailment is that the conservatives banned onshore wind for a decade in England. But that's never stated. Apparently we can talk about building more transmission (at a cost to bill payers, boo hiss renewables are bad and expensive! Again, this is cheaper than gas.) and even zonal reform which would indirectly encourage more renewables being built in England, since the new government loosened the build restrictions but not directly address the elephant in the room. And to bring it round to my original point, any cost or really just any large number that can be associated with renewables in the US will be used to write scary stories but I fully expect the financial impacts of this current act of self-sabotage to never be mentioned again.

Yes that's my point, the stories you have read probably said something like: Wind curtailment payments cost 1 billion a year (boo hiss renewables bad and expensive! even though, just like you they make no attempt to even argue that non-renewables would be cheaper, possibly because they know that's not true. Instead random big scary numbers get thrown around with no context) A better story would be that 1/3rd of that was money spent on curtailment going to the wind turbines as if their output was used and 2/3rds was spent on gas to generate the same power closer to the demand. Because gas costs more than wind. An even better story would point out that the UK has a single zone of pricing, so you can't sell the wind cheaper in Scotland so it gets used but only offer it on the single marketplace and when it gets bought in England, then supply it with gas at great cost and curtail in Scotland. Aside 1: This can get so absurd that France can buy Scottish wind power and then get it delivered by gas generators from England. Aside 2: If Scotland had its own pricing zone it would have the cheapest electricity in Europe due to its wind power, even including UK taxes and levies. A great story would point out that the reason there is wind being generated in Scotland, but not England and the root cause of all that extra cost and curtailment is that the conservatives banned onshore wind for a decade in England. But that's never stated. Apparently we can talk about building more transmission (at a cost to bill payers, boo hiss renewables are bad and expensive! Again, this is cheaper than gas.) and even zonal reform which would indirectly encourage more renewables being built in England, since the new government loosened the build restrictions but not directly address the elephant in the room. And to bring it round to my original point, any cost or really just any large number that can be associated with renewables in the US will be used to write scary stories but I fully expect the financial impacts of this current act of self-sabotage to never be mentioned again.