[stone]

Thanks for sharing. Maybe I'm being thick, but that suggests that my assumptions were broadly right about energy bought on the spot market (next-day and same-day markets) but it doesn't explain how the future market might be different. It suggests as well that decoupling electricity price from gas price would require market reform, which presumably would require us to have the same approach as whatever the EU come up with.

I suppose windfarms sell some of their electricity to people who fulfil future contracts. On days with a very high spot price, windfarms typically consequently get less for the supplied electricity than the spot price on that day. The spot price also gets brought down if the bidding for electricity is less frenetic because wind power is meeting some of the demand.

[Fultonius]

On the train, on my phone, so not going to go into too much detail but...

The majority of new wind energy is basically fixed price, either via a "strike price" via the contracts for difference mechanism, or via a corporate power purchase agreement.

So, while the spot price of the electricity is somewhat variable, the actual rate paid to the producer isn't. Most of the variability comes from balancing costs (ramping up and down gas powered stations, interconnectors, pumped hydro, battery etc.) or paying constraint payments when the wind power can't be used.

When these projects are consented, there are some fixed costs and some variable. The developer has to commit to this fixed prices while some of these costs can go up and down (hint, they don't come down that much). Thst said, the CfD mechanism has brought simply huge reductions in the last 20 years, from over £150/mwh to as low as £37/mhw iirc. However, it's now widely agreed that because of higher cost of capital, steel costs, inflation etc. These low prices are not achievable, and that the projects aren't viable. (hence why no bids last year in AR5 and an increase in the target strike prices for AR6)

Now. Labour. Great British Power. Not sure what their exact plan is, the details haven't been spelled out yet. My thoughts will be lower cost capital, and maybe some level government backed insurance. Both of those are quite significant line items in the overall cost build up of these major offshore wind projects, and the only aspects I can see where a dent could be made. Basically, instead of pension funds and other major private investors making their returns on investment, it'll be you and me via gov issued money. The insurance is a guess.

The challange for the gov will be the same as for everyone else - the "experienced" development teams are already stretched, with anyone showing a hint of past experience and nouse in very high demand. So they're at a disadvantage, meaning there's always the chance of poor investment choices.

The devil will, as always, be in the detail.

So far they're making some good, high profile hires so it's a promising start. I'd say, watch this space.

[Fultonius]

https://www.sustainableviews.com/how-great-british-energy-can-deliver-vital-less-profitable-clean-energy-infrastructure-f827fe6c/

Some interesting other perspectives on how GB Energy might work and what it might invest in.

TL:DR - they may deliberately chose to develop less profitable but more strategically beneficial wind sites, and they can stay out of the CfD mechanism, and just agree Power Purchase Agreements with energy offtakers (i.e. the public) at rates that are less profitable (aka cheaper).

[stone]

I was struck by this

Labour’s 20-point gap between Remain and Leave voters is down substantially on the 36-point gap from 2019.

https://www.focaldata.com/blog/how-britain-voted-2024
So the GE2019 degenerated into a re-run of the EU referendum but with a constituency FPTP voting system. 

[teestub]

How are you interpreting that data? To me it looks like more people who voted leave voted for Labour this time, with them losing remain voters to Libs and Greens who had stronger pro Europe messages. This would seem to fit in with the genera polling around peoples opinions on the success of Brexit

[Bradders]

So the GE2019 degenerated into a re-run of the EU referendum but with a constituency FPTP voting system. 

This surely isn't news is it?

There was a party literally called "The Brexit Party" running in all non-Conservative held seats and the Conservative's primary slogan was "Get Brexit Done"!

[stone]

How are you interpreting that data? To me it looks like more people who voted leave voted for Labour this time, with them losing remain voters to Libs and Greens who had stronger pro Europe messages. This would seem to fit in with the genera polling around peoples opinions on the success of Brexit

I agree with you about Labour/Leave voters returning to Labour in 2024 after voting Labour in 2017/2015 but then Tory/Brexit-Party in 2019.

However:-
The LibDems got 3,519,163 votes in 2024
The LibDems got 3,696,419 votes in 2019

The huge gain in LibDem seats despite the fall in votes was because in 2024 they got votes in Tory/LibDem marginals that in 2019 voted Conservative (despite Brexit and despite often being Remain majority seats) so as to keep Corbyn out.

There were similar numbers of voters switching LibDem 2019 to Labour 2024 and vice versa.

Sheffield Hallam is an example of a very strong Remain, LibDem-Labour marginal. In 2024 Labour increased compared to the LibDems in Sheffield Hallam.

This interactive data map shows Remain/Leave, voting, opinions and demographics https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/datamap.html

[teestub]

The huge gain in LibDem seats despite the fall in votes was because in 2024 they got votes in Tory/LibDem marginals that in 2019 voted Conservative (despite Brexit and despite often being Remain majority seats) so as to keep Corbyn out.

Which graph shows they voted Con only because they didn’t like your mate Jeremy? It seems the Libs ran an amazing targeted campaign this time particularly in SW and Scotland and made their vote share count.

[stone]

It was the chart and paragraph "the Conservative Blue Wall Fractured" in https://www.focaldata.com/blog/how-britain-voted-2024

[spidermonkey09]

https://x.com/JasonGroves1/status/1813454336195702893

The first example, no doubt of many, of a new Green MP opposing infrastructure...for green energy. Laughable.

[Johnny Brown]

Ah yes, says the Daily Mail. I'm sure their take is the whole truth.

[SamT]

 Erm.. undergrounding cables is always an option.. just usually more expensive than slapping gert big unsightly pylons across the landscape.  We have the tech and the wherewithal.. just not the motivation as yet.

[spidermonkey09]

I knew someone would point that out when I posted it! He was talking to the Today programme I think, if thats better. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00213vc .... from 56.50 onwards.

Re undergrounding, that really is quite a lot more expensive isnt it? Before we get onto the additional difficulties of fault finding, repairing etc. There are probably certain sections that could be undergrounded but surely not a reasonable use of costs to do the whole thing underground.

[andy popp]

Burying obviously improves resilience, which will only become more important with climate change. We have several friends in Texas who recently experienced hours or days of power outage during very hot temperatures following Storm Beryl. Many friends in PA (where temps and humidity have been in the 90s for a week or more) are currently without power following a big thunderstorm last night. The vast majority of low and medium voltage power lines are buried here in Denmark - in fact, I think it is now a requirement that all new cables be buried. Ditto Netherlands and Germany.

[spidermonkey09]

From what I gather I think the voltage is the issue? For low to medium, its pretty achievable, for high voltage, much less so. I'm not an electrical engineer though.

This has been an enjoyable way to waste half an hour so far this morning! This was an interesting read. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/undergrounding-electrical-transmission-cables/

[Mike Highbury]

From what I gather I think the voltage is the issue? For low to medium, its pretty achievable, for high voltage, much less so. I'm not an electrical engineer though.

It's to do with getting rid of the heat, ain't it? More cables and in separate ducts are needed when HV is installed underground.

[seankenny]

Re undergrounding, that really is quite a lot more expensive isnt it? Before we get onto the additional difficulties of fault finding, repairing etc. There are probably certain sections that could be undergrounded but surely not a reasonable use of costs to do the whole thing underground.

We must do this project more slowly and expensively because it’s an urgent planetary emergency. Tsk tsk, isn’t that obvious?

[stone]

In Germany, they have terrible CO2 emissions from electricity generation. Much of that is due to public protests against overhead transmission and consequent inability to make use of renewables. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-conservative-opposition-says-overhead-power-lines-save-eu35-bln-grid-expansion

The huge Paraguay-Brazil transmission cable is overhead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Itaipu

In the UK we transmit Scottish electricity to England undersea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_HVDC_Link

[Oldmanmatt]

From what I gather I think the voltage is the issue? For low to medium, its pretty achievable, for high voltage, much less so. I'm not an electrical engineer though.

It's to do with getting rid of the heat, ain't it? More cables and in separate ducts are needed when HV is installed underground.

All of the above, plus shielding.

[SamT]

Not sure if this is the right place, but has some resonance,

https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/publications/other_publications/ethel_by_helen_mort-15864

[Fultonius]

Ah, Dan's nimbyist conservation rant thinly disguised as a book review....

[Oldmanmatt]

Not sure if this is the right place, but has some resonance,

https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/publications/other_publications/ethel_by_helen_mort-15864

Is that “our” Dan and is that an onshore wind/solar farm rant?
Personally I’m fine with limiting onshore energy farms, as long as multiple small scale nuclear plants replace that need.
I mean, that lovely view is going to be ruined by climate change otherwise and a postmortem right to roam has limited appeal.
(Not a serious comment, I’m sure there’s a reasonable negotiation to be made about siting such energy farms. I don’t, however, think “but I can see it” is a reasonable position against).

[Johnny Brown]

Is that “our” Dan and is that an onshore wind/solar farm rant?

It's neither. It's an entirely reasonable book review. Given the subject matter, it would be remiss for it not to consider the parallels with the present.

It's to do with getting rid of the heat, ain't it? More cables and in separate ducts are needed when HV is installed underground.

I don't know much about this project but my impression was that the preferred option of 'the Nimbys' was an offshore transport network. If you look at the map below you can see why. Clearly undersea transmission is a solved problem as they all use it already.



It does seem a bit perverse that the preferred route to get the power to where it's needed (London) is via Norwich. Turns out it's a legacy of the previous approach:

The Offshore Transmission Network Review (OTNR) was launched in 2020, in response to growing concern that the developer led approach, where offshore wind projects connected individually to the grid on a radial (point-to-point) basis, would present a major barrier to realising our increased ambition of building 50GW in offshore wind capacity by 2030.

The farms are all already using undersea links arranged radially, i.e. mostly straight to the beach. Stringing them together would seem a lot more logical, and quite possibly involve less undersea cabling total. The dutch, meanwhile, are doing this AND building an offshore hub, not only to aggregate transmission but much more.

The plan envisions the collection of 10 GW-30 GW wind energy, as well as a power-to-gas conversion and storage in the form of hydrogen

and

for far-offshore wind farms, a coordinated international approach with an island-based solution will be 30 percent more cost-effective than the traditional connection model with HVDC converter platforms on individual jackets.

I doubt such a project would even be within the National (privatised, natch) Grid's gift. But they do know how to build pylons...

[petejh]

Not in anyone(who votes in the UK)'s backyard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xlinks_Morocco%E2%80%93UK_Power_Project#:~:text=Morocco%20has%20been%20hailed%20as,reduce%20reliance%20on%20fossil%20fuels.&text=If%20built%2C%20the%204%2C000%20km,of%20the%20UK's%20electricity%20consumption.

[Will Hunt]

"If built, the 4,000 km (2,500 miles) cable will be the world's longest undersea power cable, and would supply up to 8% of the UK's electricity consumption."

Does anyone else see this and just think, "fuck me, that's a massive national security liability"?