Re: There’s inefficient, and then there’s really inefficient

[dave andrews]

Phil, the capital cost of our present fossil stations is about 0.5 p/kWh on everyone's electrical bill.  Over the next 30 years, if we pursue a non wind future, then the power stations will gradually change as they become lifed out, so you will still be paying that sort of amount in all your or your children kWh for the new stations.

 

Presently I think the fuel component in your bill is around 5 p per kWh and the maintenance and opex about say 0.4 p.

 

If we went for a very high wind scenario, then we would still need the same sort of quantity of fossil stations, maybe a bit less, but that is irrelevant, (which you can call back up but it is a misleading term,) and therefore you or your children assuming they haven't gone to a more sensible country, will still be paying that same sort of capital element. so the cost of the low load factor back up will remain much as it is now, 30 years into the future about 0.5p/kWh.

 

The big difference will be that you will be having a lot less gas cost in your elec bills. 

 

But you will be paying a large amount more for the capital cost of wind assuming it is off shore.

 

Elec prices will undoubtedly rise with wind, but not due to the cost of the back up which you will be paying for either way.

 

Kind regards

 

Dave

 

 

On 12 February 2012 15:20, Philip Harris <philsha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Dave

Couple of questions.

'Back-up' is a current cost and a component of total cost, and, (per unit of electrical output), is the most costly part of daily generation?

Presumably there will be more use of 'back-up' to complement increased use of  intermittent wind, as well as to cope with peak demand under conditions of high wind penetration?

Thus the ratio of the costly extra bit (fuel cost and price) will go up?

Similarly, "over-capacity" of wind and interconnection can 'solve' fluctuations in both supply and demand, but at a cost.

Whether fuel-saving from wind overall outweighs extra costs up-front, and outweighs more use of costly back-up and load-following and balancing services, is subject to calculation.

Personally, I see the need for wind and lots of it, but rather expect that electricity and lighting and heating are going to cost us an arm and a leg (with consequences) in more straitened times, however which way we do it?

very best to you and Fred

Phil

---

From: dave andrews <tynin...@gmail.com>
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com; Claverton Supergrid group <grid-supergrid-in...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 February 2012, 12:56
Subject: Re: There’s inefficient, and then there’s really inefficient

Fred, why will the pathetic load factor of back up plants add to electricity costs?

 

We are already committed to paying the capital element with or without any wind.  This is about 0.5p/kWh, as I have endlessly pointed out.  so the back ups will not add any cost.  What will reduce is the cost of the fuel that would otherwise have to be put through them.

 

The same applied to low load factor intern connectors.

 

Dave

On 12 February 2012 13:44, star...@yahoo.com <star...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Herbert

 

This was an enjoyable read, bu the fact is that everything apart from wind can normally be operated at our discretion......This of course will not be quite so true of nuclear after about 2016 when only Sizewell remains.

 

But it is interesting that the load factor of all of the back up plants is so pathetic and will add to electricty costs.

 

We should also keep in mind that if we had 30GW of undersea interconnectors to support wind these too would have a poor load factor.

 

Fred

From: Herbert Eppel <He...@HETranslation.co.uk>
To: Claverton Discussion <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 February 2012, 9:06
Subject: There’s inefficient, and then there’s really inefficient

FYI:

<http://alansenergyblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/theres-inefficient-and-then-theres-really-inefficient/>

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion-group+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

--

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)  631 926 885
+ 44 (0) 1225 837978

 

 

--

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)  631 926 885
+ 44 (0) 1225 837978