UK to get nine new offshore wind farms
A wicked waste of Britain's capital. To be paid for by inflation, which is a tax on savers
Britain is set to get nine new offshore wind farms after the Government’s latest renewables auction.
The nine new projects compare to none last year, and include what will be Europe’s largest and second largest wind farm projects – Hornsea 3 and Hornsea 4 off the Yorkshire coast.
They are part of a new wave of green power projects including onshore wind and solar farms, which officials said will generate enough power for 11 million homes.
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said the auction had got the offshore industry “back on its feet”, adding that the projects are “essential to give energy security to families across the country”.
The projects were announced as part of this year’s Contracts for Difference (CfD) auction, a process started in 2015 as the Government’s mechanism for making sure renewable energy schemes are built.
Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband (PA Wire)
Because clean projects can be expensive, developers bid to secure a guaranteed rate – or strike price – their project will get for every megawatt hour (MWh) of energy it produces in the coming years.
If the price of electricity on the open market dips below that, subsidies will kick in to top up payments to companies. If the price is higher, companies have to pay back the difference.
The latest round marks an improvement on last year, when no new offshore wind development contracts were agreed because the price was set too low to meet increasing costs in the industry.
But the Government still came in for criticism on Tuesday after the total amount of energy that the latest round of projects can generate is lower than previous totals.
The new projects will create about 9.6 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power, compared to 11GW in a similar auction in 2022.
Meanwhile, offshore wind generation will total just 5GW, lower than the 7GW in 2022.
It is roughly half of what is required each year to meet the Government’s target of 50GW of new offshore wind by 2030.
Ami McCarthy, Greenpeace UK’s political campaigner, said: “This urgently needs to be followed up with a much bigger auction next year, as well as investment for faster grid connections, better planning, and more storage to hold the green power for when it’s needed.”
Gwynt y Mor, the world’s second largest offshore wind farm off the coast of North Wales (Ben Birchall/PA) (PA Wire)
Others praised the auction for bringing a record number of projects – 131 – across on and offshore wind, solar and floating offshore wind and tidal energy.
Keith Anderson, chief executive of ScottishPower, which won contracts for two major offshore wind farms, said offshore is “back on track after last year’s misstep”.
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, part of the London School of Economics and Political Science, said it was “a very successful auction and should have instilled more confidence in renewables developers that the Government is taking into account the recent rises in their costs”.
The auction comes after the Government scrapped a de facto ban on onshore wind farms earlier this month via the planning system.
It also follows the formation of Great British Energy, a state-owned energy investment firm which will target £8.3 billion of funding at renewable power projects including offshore wind.
Dan McGrail, chief executive of trade body RenewableUK, said the auction showed Britain is “back in the global race for clean energy investment”.
He said the nine offshore wind projects “will increase investor confidence”, but that future auctions will “need a big step-up from today” to meet 2030 targets.
Emma Pinchbeck, chief executive of Energy UK, added that Tuesday’s figures showed the CfD programme is “once again fit for purpose”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/new-offshore-windfarms-uk-wales-b2606105.html
*******************************************************Better batteries won’t save the energy grid
A reader took the time to send a respectful response to the recent Wall Street Journal op-ed in which Jason Hayes and I discussed our new report on the threat to grid reliability in seven Great Lakes states.
This reader wrote:
You raise some interesting points. One clear solution is more storage. Renewable sources such as wind and solar often produce peak power at the wrong time of the day. Storage choices will expand over the next five to ten years and the cost will decline.
Another part of the mix should be small scale nuclear which is much safer and more sophisticated than the old nuclear plants of Three Mile Island or Fukushima days. Bill Gates’ Terrapower plant in Wyoming, which is on the site of an old coal-fired generation plant and employs some of the same workers, is an interesting model.
I saw a report that gas at the wellhead in parts of Texas has been reported to be selling for negative prices as oil producers are paying to have it piped away. This does argue for keeping some natural gas-fired power stations if the gas can be moved to them economically.
.....
These are reasonable points to bring up, and we appreciate the thoughtful feedback. So here are some additional thoughts:
When it comes to utility-scale battery storage, unfortunately, doing so at scale encounters prohibitively high prices due in no small part to the inefficiency of the batteries and the relative scarcity of the minerals needed for the batteries. While it is true that the market works to improve prices and options, the fundamental issues of utility-scale storage remain: They store far too little at far too high a cost.
Energy analysis group Doomberg finds that battery storage is improving, but at a pace far below what we need:
According to projections from industrial research firm Wood Mackenzie, the US is set to add 191.6 gigawatt hours (GWh) of battery backup systems across residential, non-residential, and grid-scale installations between 2022 and 2026. This sounds impressive until you realize the US produced 4,116,000 GWh of electricity on the grid in 2021 alone. By our math, the Wood Mackenzie projection amounts to a grand total of 24 minutes of total backup capacity added to the system over the quoted five-year period. (Emphases in original.)
In addition, these batteries use critical minerals whose reliable extraction is increasingly costly and difficult. A report from the International Energy Agency (an organization very clear in its support of net zero) admits that "mineral demand for use in EVs and battery storage is a major force [of mineral demand increases], growing at least thirty times to 2040"
"A utility-scale storage system sufficient for [a] 100-MW wind farm would entail using at least 10,000 tons of Tesla-class batteries," according to a report from the Manhattan Institute. In another report, the Manhattan Institute notes, "Barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in all utility-scale batteries plus all batteries in one million electric cars in America." (Emphasis in original.)
Weather conditions in 2023 reduced wind generation to less than 1% of its capacity on June 6th that year, a representative from Southwest Power Pool, the electric grid operator for the Great Plains region, told a U.S. House Subcommittee. The wind turbines in that grid are rated to generate up to 32,000 megawatts of electricity but produced only 110 megawatts – that is, wind production fell to about one-third of 1% of its capacity. (He talks about this at a little after the 35-minute mark on the video.) German utilities have experienced this frequently in their leap to wind and solar, calling it "dunkelflaute."
When this happens, to my knowledge, no battery system in existence has ever provided enough electricity to meet demand throughout the night. Despite all that we've built, battery backup lasts a matter of minutes, not the entire night. The battery backup lasts just long enough for natural gas plants to turn on and meet the supply that weather-dependent generation didn't meet.
Battery storage is improving over time, but it would require a quantum leap to become genuinely viable in meeting current demand, let alone the demand of a growing economy.
On the point of nuclear energy, we are most certainly in agreement. Small modular reactors are promising developments, but traditional fission plants often get a far worse reputation than is fair. "There were no acute radiation injuries or deaths among the workers or the public due to exposure to radiation resulting from the incident," wrote the World Health Organization in its Fukushima report. Had the Fukushima plant's backup generators not been built in at-risk, low-lying areas(which some scientists at the time opposed), there would never have even been a meltdown. Nuclear plants have been providing France with a majority of its power for decades — cleanly, reliably, cheaply, and with no disasters to speak of. The country is the world's largest net exporter of electricity.
On natural gas, as well, we agree. No serious plans for America's energy future can exclude natural gas. It can ramp up quickly to meet surprise demand, it is energy-dense, it emits less carbon, and it is widely available at low prices. Natural gas is harder to transport than coal and vulnerable to supply chain issues, but policy changes can ameliorate these problems. The cost-benefit analysis shows natural gas to be a cornerstone of a reliable energy portfolio.
Even major innovations in batter technology would do little to mitigate the change to unreliable energy sources. The push to wind and solar is a shift from cheap, reliable, and energy-dense forms of power generation to subsidized, weather-dependent, less efficient forms of generation. Wind and solar do not work as advertised by politicians, bureaucrats, and activists. The replacement of traditional thermal generation with less-dense, less-reliable energy is driven not by market demand or technological reality but by orders from capitol buildings around the country.
We get effectively nothing from this transition. The supply chains for wind and solar are dominated by China and other unfriendly nations. If the United States were able to achieve 100% renewable electricity generation and ban fossil fuels entirely, that would, using the IPCC's own MAGICC modeling, lower global average temperatures by nine-tenths of one tenth of one degree Celsius in 2100. The cost-benefit analysis shows we would end up crippling our grid for nothing.
I hope that you find this information helpful and convincing. Jason Hayes and I discuss the topic further in the reportmentioned in the Wall Street Journal op-ed. Thank you for your response as well as for your time and attention.
https://jasonhayes.substack.com/p/better-batteries-wont-save-the-energy
***********************************************************NJ residents hit with doubled bills as lawmakers fume at Murphy's ‘energy disaster plan,' demand hearings
After a surge in home energy bills that left many New Jersey residents with costs that have doubled, or more, there have been widespread calls for hearings to hold the state utility commission, the governor and supporters of green energy accountable.
State Sen. Mike Testa, R-Vineland, echoed those calls and said on Wednesday that much of the blame goes to Democrat Gov. Phil Murphy’s "Energy Master Plan," launched in 2020.
"New Jersey is already one of the most unaffordable states in the United States of America. Now people are being hit with energy bills that are essentially doubled. And look, I get it that it was a hot July, but it wasn't that hot that your energy bills should have doubled," Testa said.
One constituent apparently told Testa they raised their thermostat four degrees on average this summer in the hopes of saving money but that the cost still somehow increased "significantly."
I want to lower people’s energy costs: DeSantisVideo
Homeowners in suburban Morris County vented about the news on a local social media group, according to the Morristown Daily Record, with a Parsippany resident questioning a $782 monthly bill.
"Quite frankly, what I think happened is, via the Murphy Energy Master Plan that I've often called the energy disaster plan, it seemed that the BPU (New Jersey Board of Public Utilities) and the Murphy administration are working in tandem chasing this green energy dream.
"It’s what I call the energy disaster plan. It's a green energy nightmare," he said, adding that BPU officials went so far as to wear windmill pins at public functions amid New Jersey’s kerfuffle over offshore turbines.
In a lengthy statement, BPU acknowledged it had received correspondence from New Jerseyans and offered several potential reasons for the rate hikes.
The board cited increases in generation costs and usage, and it asked customers to contact their utility or the board right away if they find an "anomaly and cannot determine an explanation" A one-time $175 bill credit program is also available, a board spokesperson said.
PJM, the energy transmission company that covers much of the Mid-Atlantic, offered data to Fox News Digital on the matter as well.
PJM research showed electricity demand is likely to increase in the region particularly due to "proliferation of high-demand data centers" and "thermal generators retiring at a rapid pace due to government and private sector policies as well as economics."
Meanwhile, at the federal level, Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., fumed at the BPU this week in a letter obtained by Fox News Digital, which cited "thousands" of constituents discovering unbearable bill increases.
"Given these alarming reports, I demand that the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) hold a public hearing in South Jersey to allow residents to voice their concerns directly to the Board," he wrote, adding the board must also determine whether there is a correlation between the rate hikes and the offshore wind turbine operations in his Cape May district.
Van Drew said New Jersey officials must take the situation seriously, and he dismissed claims that the "unseasonably warm summer" was the only variable.
"We need transparency and accountability from the NJBPU to ensure that the needs and concerns of South Jersey residents are being effectively addressed," he said.
Van Drew previously noted how Danish green power company Ørsted withdrew its windmill plans for the Jersey Shore despite Murphy’s full support and taxpayer funding: "They still couldn't make it."
While Murphy’s office did not return a request for comment, the governor previously praised his Energy Master Plan’s goal of 100% clean energy by 2050 in the Garden State.
"The Energy Master Plan comprehensively addresses New Jersey’s energy system, including electricity generation, transportation and buildings, and their associated greenhouse gas emissions and related air pollutants," he said.
In a statement Tuesday, the Murphy administration highlighted a "Residential Energy Assistance Payment (REAP) Initiative" to provide financial relief to thousands of households, of the same $175 figure cited by BPU.
"Making our state more affordable for New Jersey families has been the top priority since day one," Murphy said in the statement.
State Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, D-Perth Amboy, added it is "great to see this resource added to the growing list of support available to residents who need a little extra help in our state."
Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz, R-Summit, said price-per-kilowatt hour increases averaged 8.6% in Central Jersey.
"It’s simple economics: When supply drops and demand surges, prices go up," she told Fox News Digital.
"I'm of the belief that Americans are innovative. … The government can't be mandating deadlines at the same time that they're … shutting down natural gas production."
Munoz, who serves on the Budget Committee, said there are likely Democrats who agree the rate hikes are a problem: "That's kind of a silly concept for them to think, like, do they not care that their constituents are the ones that are having to absorb these massive increases in cost?"
Citing attempts to make New Jersey vehicle sales 60% electric by 2035, Munoz said there won’t be the proper infrastructure to fulfill the need, regardless of opinions on EVs themselves.
When Testa was asked about other states’ similar green energy endeavors – such as then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo shuttering the Indian Point nuke plant on the Hudson River opposite Haverstraw in 2020 – he expressed relief that crackdowns hadn’t gotten that far at home.
A similar nuclear plant in Lower Alloways Creek Township remains operational, he noted, adding that he is proud to have it and its jobs and generation ability in his district.
Testa said the state’s energy portfolio is 50% natural gas, 40% nuclear and 10% other, which flies in the face of Murphy’s aversion to additional natural gas production.
While some energy experts fear crises arising from nuclear power, such as the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown in Dauphin County, Pa., Testa said technology has advanced since and that there are also small modular nuclear reactors similar to those on submarines that could generate safe, clean energy inland at low cost.
"By the way, we’re positive that those don’t kill whales," he said
*************************************************
£1 billion paid to windfarm companies to stop generating electricity is scandalous waste of money
Last week I wrote in these pages about the perennial problem that is fuel poverty. This is not a new problem but it often feels like the solutions get further away rather than closer. Clearly, some creativity is required.
This week brought two news stories which illustrate the frustrations people in the Northern Isles have about our place in energy generation for this country. The first was the completion of the Viking windfarm in Shetland, which is expected to provide enough power for 500,000 homes across the UK at peak capacity.
The second was the revelation that energy company SSE has already claimed £2 million in “constraint payments” – when energy companies are paid to stop generating energy – for the windfarm as it sat idle this past summer.
If ever anything summed up just how broken our energy market is, this is it. In the part of the country with the highest level of fuel poverty, we are paying £2m to one of the “Big Six” energy firms not to use the windfarm they have just built.
Anger and injustice
A burning sense of anger and injustice may be all that many Shetlanders have to keep themselves warm this winter as Ofgem yet again increases the ironically named “cap” on consumer fuel bills. And that £2m payment is just the tip of the iceberg.
Last year UK lost the better part of £1 billion – £920m to be more precise – in curtailment costs, created by having to shut down windfarms due to overcapacity and bottlenecking in the National Grid. One estimate by the Carbon Tracker think tank found that curtailment was already costing the average household £40 per year in 2023, and that this could more than triple by 2026.
The logic behind constraint payments may be sound on a case-by-case basis – it’s better than overloading the entire grid – but it feels perverse that so much public money goes into paying for energy not to be produced, particularly for windfarm sites within sight of people crying out for cheaper power.
Access to fishing grounds cut off
For years, we have spoken about “community benefit” from local renewable energy developments. The reality for Shetland is that the SSE payment to the community is more or less the same as SSE were paid not to generate last month. When we are talking about communities with some of the highest energy needs in the country, that inequality of outcome simply will not cut it.
What happens today in onshore wind will happen for future offshore developments. We are already seeing our fishermen pushed out of their traditional fishing grounds to make way for the big corporates to develop there. It doesn’t have to be this way, but all the signs are that it will be. The most recent ScotWind round of offshore leases, mismanaged by the SNP, was as close as it could be to being a cash giveaway.
The coming of renewables should be an opportunity for the communities that are expected and well placed to host them. That opportunity risks being squandered by regulators and ministers who have become immersed in the detail and bound by rules that they have made for themselves. This is the time for them to stop tinkering with process and focus on outcomes.
***************************************
All my main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment