5 ms·

Those are the weaker arguments. In the UK, I've heard many more convincing arguments against wind power. e.g. - Often wind typically need to be subsidised hea

Those are the weaker arguments. In the UK, I've heard many more convincing arguments against wind power. e.g. - Often wind typically need to be subsidised heavily by the government and are not cost effective over its lifetime. - Typically wind needs to be backed up by fossil fuel or nuclear power generators as it is unreliable or you need to buy capacity from elsewhere. I won't pretend to know enough to state whether they are valid arguments or not. But they are potentially much stronger arguments against wind power than the others frequently made.

olau 1y ago
The UK used to have very high subsidies for offshore wind for some reason. The last I've heard, subsidies for new plants are much lower today. As for being cost effective, onshore wind is probably the cheapest option, and I think it's hoped that offshore will come close to that once more of the learning curve has been traversed. Perhaps fossil gas from the North sea is still cheaper for now, if you ignore the external cost. I think solar power is even cheaper, but doesn't deliver much in the winter so far up north. Backup: Batteries are cost effective for short term shortages. For long term shortages, you'd fire up thermal plants, either biomass or biogas (fossil gas for now). It doesn't make sense to back up wind with nuclear. Nuclear has a high capital cost and relatively low running costs, so you don't save much from being standby but you still need to pay back the loans.
HPsquared 1y ago
Different arguments work on different people.
DrScientist 1y ago
> Often wind typically need to be subsidised heavily by the government and are not cost effective over its lifetime. Have you looked at the government subsidies for nuclear in the UK and the massive lifetime cost? In terms of offshore wind - initially it was subsidized to get it up and running - but now it's established those have dropped and dropped. > Typically wind needs to be backed up by fossil fuel or nuclear power generators as it is unreliable or you need to buy capacity from elsewhere. Sure - but no-one is claiming 100% wind is the target - total strawman argument. The UK goverments own net zero plan actually still includes gas generation! One of the more bonkers arguments in the UK was when there was a massive fossil fuel price shock a couple of years ago due to wars and rising global demand - the fossil fuel lobby blamed rewnewables for the high prices!
- extraisland 1y ago
  > Have you looked at the government subsidies for nuclear in the UK and the massive lifetime cost? In terms of offshore wind - initially it was subsidized to get it up and running - but now it's established those have dropped and dropped. I said I don't know. I said had heard the argument and these are examples of better arguments against wind IMO if they are true. I don't know what to believe. I am dubious of any reporting on these issues. > Sure - but no-one is claiming 100% wind is the target - total strawman argument. The UK goverments own net zero plan actually still includes gas generation! Neither are they claiming wind is 100% the target. > One of the more bonkers arguments in the UK was when there was a massive fossil fuel price shock a couple of years ago due to wars and rising global demand - the fossil fuel lobby blamed rewnewables for the high prices! I don't remember this. I am sure people will point the finger elsewhere rather than themselves. I blame the high prices on fuel duty and taxes. Fuel Duty is 52.95 pence per litre and then you have to add VAT. The current diesel price is ~£1.40 per litre at the local Tesco filling station. So that is ~50% of the cost if I am understanding this correctly. https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-shopping/fuel-duty https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-shopping/fuel-duty
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - zekrioca 1y ago
    > I said I don't know. I said had heard the argument and these are better arguments against wind IMO if they are true. > I don't know what to believe. I am dubious of any reporting on these issues. The person didn’t ask if you know, they asked if you had looked at reports. You cannot for once believe there weren’t subsidies as these endeavors are very time consuming with hundreds of regulations that need to be met. > Neither are they claiming wind is 100% the target. What do you perceive when they say wind is not reliable and increase electricity costs? I mean, it is free electricity, with minimal impact. The way you understand about gas prices, while dismissing some arguments in favor of renewables is a bit telling.
    - extraisland 1y ago
Moldoteck 1y ago
Offshore wind is indeed expensive and requires high CFD's. For onshore it's still manageable (yet). The reason is solar eats part of their profits and payoff becomes too long Firming argument is valid, but UK deploys nuclear/gas anyway. You can start feeling real challenges past ~70% ren generation - firming becomes more expensive due to opex but you still need it and gas opex is smaller vs nuclear in this low utilization area. So now you are in a moral dilema- ditch nuclear and build gas firming or reorganize capacity market so that nuclear has some CFD or is compensated for firming&grid stabilization (not all nuclear can operate in island mode so that's another factor) Germany choose the path of gas expansion if you read Fraunhofer. UK is still in a mix. Nordics are lucky with hydro so they can expand basically all low carbon tech
- zekrioca 1y ago
  Nordics (Sweden, Finland) are expanding nuclear as well. Their energy ministers are very pro-nuclear, for some funny reason.
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    Politically Sweden the current government is wanting to expand nuclear power through the largest subsidy program in Swedish history. The company supposed to build them held a tender for first SMR, then pivoted to large scale reactors and shortlisted three options. Then that tender disappeared and now they have shortlisted 2 SMR options. What is happening is a no one wanting to admit the absolutely ludicrous costs and hope the question will fizzle out. Which as we all know are paper products which rely on ”scale” to achieve anything. No one seems to talk about who will buy the couple hundred SMR prototypes to achieve said scale.
    - Moldoteck 1y ago
      I'm not sure about largest subsidy program. Large reactors make more sense but since Korea was banned by US, realistically it's better to pick Hitachi to get something on the grid
CalRobert 1y ago
Of course, the UK subsidizes fossil fuels by way of the NHS (asthma and lung disease are no joke) but that is apparently fine.
UncleMeat 1y ago
> Typically wind needs to be backed up by fossil fuel or nuclear power generators as it is unreliable or you need to buy capacity from elsewhere. I have never understood this complaint about solar and wind. If we could have our electricity 100% generated by green sources most of the time and then rely on other sources (even natural gas) to supplement when there isn't enough being generated by solar and wind I would weep with joy. That'd be an astonishingly huge victory in the fight against climate change. I wouldn't even care if we needed significant government subsidies to ensure that the gas plants stay profitable while their demand is unpredictable.
- extraisland 1y ago
  If you need to get your power from elsewhere. This raises several issues: - This increases demand on other sources of energy. If there is a sudden change in demand you have a price spike. This leads to an increase in price to consumers. - If the grid also has to be re-balanced. This has a financial cost in of itself. If the grid can't be re-balanced you can have blackouts. Blackout can potentially kill people, it effects business etc. - If you are getting it from other countries, this means you are reliant on another nation for your energy needs. This is a security issue. e.g. Norway threatened to ration energy exports back in 2022. This would of course increase the price. - Energy prices have a knock affect to everything in the economy and are a significant driver of price inflation. This obvious has an adverse affect on the economy. Subsidies are paid for via taxation. At the moment the UK is likely to increase taxation again in October as they were unable to cut benefits earlier this year. The larger the subsidies a government are paying the more money they need collect in taxation, or you have to borrow. The UK is unlikely to be able to collect much more tax, and we are borrowing a huge amount of money as it is.
derbOac 1y ago
The problem is the cost of oil is downstream. The reasons why citizens want an alternative is because of those costs. If you added on all the environmental and health costs — all of them — you'd find oil is being subsidized in a different way. I'm not even antioil in general but I am pro diversification, and think it's absurd to bring up government in that way when a major point of government should be to represent value for the citizens, that might not be represented in the market otherwise.
- ACCount37 1y ago
  Oil is often subsidized directly too. Same reason why agriculture is - too vital of an industry. Which might make sense from a national security standpoint - but it also gives the oil industry yet another reason to fight tooth and nail against anything that can diminish the importance of oil. If oil ever became non-vital to the country's infrastructure and economy, those subsidies would stop, and the entire industry might go the way of British coal.

olau 1y ago

The UK used to have very high subsidies for offshore wind for some reason. The last I've heard, subsidies for new plants are much lower today. As for being cost effective, onshore wind is probably the cheapest option, and I think it's hoped that offshore will come close to that once more of the learning curve has been traversed. Perhaps fossil gas from the North sea is still cheaper for now, if you ignore the external cost. I think solar power is even cheaper, but doesn't deliver much in the winter so far up north. Backup: Batteries are cost effective for short term shortages. For long term shortages, you'd fire up thermal plants, either biomass or biogas (fossil gas for now). It doesn't make sense to back up wind with nuclear. Nuclear has a high capital cost and relatively low running costs, so you don't save much from being standby but you still need to pay back the loans.

HPsquared 1y ago

Different arguments work on different people.

DrScientist 1y ago

> Often wind typically need to be subsidised heavily by the government and are not cost effective over its lifetime. Have you looked at the government subsidies for nuclear in the UK and the massive lifetime cost? In terms of offshore wind - initially it was subsidized to get it up and running - but now it's established those have dropped and dropped. > Typically wind needs to be backed up by fossil fuel or nuclear power generators as it is unreliable or you need to buy capacity from elsewhere. Sure - but no-one is claiming 100% wind is the target - total strawman argument. The UK goverments own net zero plan actually still includes gas generation! One of the more bonkers arguments in the UK was when there was a massive fossil fuel price shock a couple of years ago due to wars and rising global demand - the fossil fuel lobby blamed rewnewables for the high prices!

extraisland 1y ago
> Have you looked at the government subsidies for nuclear in the UK and the massive lifetime cost? In terms of offshore wind - initially it was subsidized to get it up and running - but now it's established those have dropped and dropped. I said I don't know. I said had heard the argument and these are examples of better arguments against wind IMO if they are true. I don't know what to believe. I am dubious of any reporting on these issues. > Sure - but no-one is claiming 100% wind is the target - total strawman argument. The UK goverments own net zero plan actually still includes gas generation! Neither are they claiming wind is 100% the target. > One of the more bonkers arguments in the UK was when there was a massive fossil fuel price shock a couple of years ago due to wars and rising global demand - the fossil fuel lobby blamed rewnewables for the high prices! I don't remember this. I am sure people will point the finger elsewhere rather than themselves. I blame the high prices on fuel duty and taxes. Fuel Duty is 52.95 pence per litre and then you have to add VAT. The current diesel price is ~£1.40 per litre at the local Tesco filling station. So that is ~50% of the cost if I am understanding this correctly. https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-shopping/fuel-duty https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-shopping/fuel-duty
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- zekrioca 1y ago
  > I said I don't know. I said had heard the argument and these are better arguments against wind IMO if they are true. > I don't know what to believe. I am dubious of any reporting on these issues. The person didn’t ask if you know, they asked if you had looked at reports. You cannot for once believe there weren’t subsidies as these endeavors are very time consuming with hundreds of regulations that need to be met. > Neither are they claiming wind is 100% the target. What do you perceive when they say wind is not reliable and increase electricity costs? I mean, it is free electricity, with minimal impact. The way you understand about gas prices, while dismissing some arguments in favor of renewables is a bit telling.
  - extraisland 1y ago

Moldoteck 1y ago

Offshore wind is indeed expensive and requires high CFD's. For onshore it's still manageable (yet). The reason is solar eats part of their profits and payoff becomes too long Firming argument is valid, but UK deploys nuclear/gas anyway. You can start feeling real challenges past ~70% ren generation - firming becomes more expensive due to opex but you still need it and gas opex is smaller vs nuclear in this low utilization area. So now you are in a moral dilema- ditch nuclear and build gas firming or reorganize capacity market so that nuclear has some CFD or is compensated for firming&grid stabilization (not all nuclear can operate in island mode so that's another factor) Germany choose the path of gas expansion if you read Fraunhofer. UK is still in a mix. Nordics are lucky with hydro so they can expand basically all low carbon tech

zekrioca 1y ago
Nordics (Sweden, Finland) are expanding nuclear as well. Their energy ministers are very pro-nuclear, for some funny reason.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  Politically Sweden the current government is wanting to expand nuclear power through the largest subsidy program in Swedish history. The company supposed to build them held a tender for first SMR, then pivoted to large scale reactors and shortlisted three options. Then that tender disappeared and now they have shortlisted 2 SMR options. What is happening is a no one wanting to admit the absolutely ludicrous costs and hope the question will fizzle out. Which as we all know are paper products which rely on ”scale” to achieve anything. No one seems to talk about who will buy the couple hundred SMR prototypes to achieve said scale.
  - Moldoteck 1y ago
    I'm not sure about largest subsidy program. Large reactors make more sense but since Korea was banned by US, realistically it's better to pick Hitachi to get something on the grid

CalRobert 1y ago

Of course, the UK subsidizes fossil fuels by way of the NHS (asthma and lung disease are no joke) but that is apparently fine.

UncleMeat 1y ago

> Typically wind needs to be backed up by fossil fuel or nuclear power generators as it is unreliable or you need to buy capacity from elsewhere. I have never understood this complaint about solar and wind. If we could have our electricity 100% generated by green sources most of the time and then rely on other sources (even natural gas) to supplement when there isn't enough being generated by solar and wind I would weep with joy. That'd be an astonishingly huge victory in the fight against climate change. I wouldn't even care if we needed significant government subsidies to ensure that the gas plants stay profitable while their demand is unpredictable.

extraisland 1y ago
If you need to get your power from elsewhere. This raises several issues: - This increases demand on other sources of energy. If there is a sudden change in demand you have a price spike. This leads to an increase in price to consumers. - If the grid also has to be re-balanced. This has a financial cost in of itself. If the grid can't be re-balanced you can have blackouts. Blackout can potentially kill people, it effects business etc. - If you are getting it from other countries, this means you are reliant on another nation for your energy needs. This is a security issue. e.g. Norway threatened to ration energy exports back in 2022. This would of course increase the price. - Energy prices have a knock affect to everything in the economy and are a significant driver of price inflation. This obvious has an adverse affect on the economy. Subsidies are paid for via taxation. At the moment the UK is likely to increase taxation again in October as they were unable to cut benefits earlier this year. The larger the subsidies a government are paying the more money they need collect in taxation, or you have to borrow. The UK is unlikely to be able to collect much more tax, and we are borrowing a huge amount of money as it is.

derbOac 1y ago

The problem is the cost of oil is downstream. The reasons why citizens want an alternative is because of those costs. If you added on all the environmental and health costs — all of them — you'd find oil is being subsidized in a different way. I'm not even antioil in general but I am pro diversification, and think it's absurd to bring up government in that way when a major point of government should be to represent value for the citizens, that might not be represented in the market otherwise.

ACCount37 1y ago
Oil is often subsidized directly too. Same reason why agriculture is - too vital of an industry. Which might make sense from a national security standpoint - but it also gives the oil industry yet another reason to fight tooth and nail against anything that can diminish the importance of oil. If oil ever became non-vital to the country's infrastructure and economy, those subsidies would stop, and the entire industry might go the way of British coal.