You seem to have a grasp of the energy market but your knowledge of grid operation is seriously lacking. Renewables are not as cheap as you make out nor are their operating costs low. This is reflected in the CfD prices for renewables having to be increased as they previous offers from government were not viable. (Also some generators did not apply their CfD prices as they could charge higher market prices. I believe this loop hole is now closed though?) You cannot run a grid on renewables and there becomes a level of renewable input that cannot safely be exceeded. The backbone of the grid, whether running strongly when wind is weak or vice versa is CCGT. It carries out virtually all the grid supply and demand balancing, and together with nuclear, hydro and the little coal we have left provides inertia for frequency stability. Reactive power and short circuit current support for a stable voltage and satisfactory grid protection system opertaion respectively. Wind and solar can provide none of these essential grid services. They are not an alternative nor can they replace conventional generation. Because of all the support that allows them to run at even current levels is the reason our unit cost to the consumer is so high. We need to have a capacity to match that of renewables as well as them. It is not an economic system at all.
@@theclimateClub Then why suggest that we need to have far more wind generation capacity when it is disruptive and requires considerable support? Wind is not an answer at all and solar is even worse.
The problem with this is that if electricity becomes much cheaper, it no longer becomes worth the capital investment cost of building more renewable power plants. The market will naturally readjust to a point where non-renewable power sources become significant again, as people reduce the rate at which they build new renewable power plants.
@@grekiki For nuclear you don’t tend to “buy less” as you want to run the plant as much as possible due to costs of turning it down, which the simplified graph I made doesn’t show well unfortunately. But buying less of them wouldn’t increase the price after as it still depends on their costs. However it could make them less profitable and thus would probably turn to more and more capacity payments (which I didn’t cover in this video).
Just a load of utter bollux, lets just have a law that any energy provider must appear to be able to generate on demand within a black box without CO2 emmissions. if the bulk of the energy is coming from solar or wind, the black box must include its own load balancing system with all costs and profits going to that black box. Normally nuclear does not follow the grid, it has the privilige of being baseload, but to some extent as in France it can load follow, and Molten Salt Reactors can easily load follow. For solar or wind to load follow would mean impossible amounts of battery storage as well as peaker plants hidden within the system. When intermittent systems have to cover the full cost of making themselves look fully dispatchable, their true costs will be revealed esp if any use of carbon emissions is included. Nuclear is the only way forward with out playing stupid games esp when you have to generate all energy as carbon free at something like 5TWe for the whole world for all energy use.
100% wrong and fission has no place in the future. Facts matter and I can build 20 GWh solar while you build 1 GWh of nuclear. Storage will catch up long before any nuclear plants can be built.
True if 100% CO2 free but expensive vs a 90%+ Renewable Grid where we use Gas Peakers as a last resort backup. Other backups will be Hydro, Pumped Hydro, Batteries, GeoThermal and Gas Peakers compliment them and mean a 90%+ Renewable Grid is the lowest cost option.
💡Thoughts on the merit-order effect?
🗞Feel free to comment other interesting topics I should cover
🎁Consider subscribing and liking!
You seem to have a grasp of the energy market but your knowledge of grid operation is seriously lacking.
Renewables are not as cheap as you make out nor are their operating costs low. This is reflected in the CfD prices for renewables having to be increased as they previous offers from government were not viable. (Also some generators did not apply their CfD prices as they could charge higher market prices. I believe this loop hole is now closed though?)
You cannot run a grid on renewables and there becomes a level of renewable input that cannot safely be exceeded. The backbone of the grid, whether running strongly when wind is weak or vice versa is CCGT. It carries out virtually all the grid supply and demand balancing, and together with nuclear, hydro and the little coal we have left provides inertia for frequency stability. Reactive power and short circuit current support for a stable voltage and satisfactory grid protection system opertaion respectively.
Wind and solar can provide none of these essential grid services. They are not an alternative nor can they replace conventional generation. Because of all the support that allows them to run at even current levels is the reason our unit cost to the consumer is so high. We need to have a capacity to match that of renewables as well as them. It is not an economic system at all.
@@iareid8255 I was just focusing on the spot market and the merit order in this video. I'm fully aware of all the things you have mentioned.
@@iareid8255 But perhaps that's the issue with trying to do a quick simplification.
@@theclimateClub
Then why suggest that we need to have far more wind generation capacity when it is disruptive and requires considerable support?
Wind is not an answer at all and solar is even worse.
@@iareid8255 because of carbon emissions? How else do you propose to decarbonise the power sector?
Well broken down and very clear! 🙌
Thanks!
Superb channel. Clear and to the point.
Thanks!
The problem with this is that if electricity becomes much cheaper, it no longer becomes worth the capital investment cost of building more renewable power plants. The market will naturally readjust to a point where non-renewable power sources become significant again, as people reduce the rate at which they build new renewable power plants.
👏👏
Wouldn't buying less from nuclear and gas power plants increase their price when you do buy from them though?
@@grekiki For nuclear you don’t tend to “buy less” as you want to run the plant as much as possible due to costs of turning it down, which the simplified graph I made doesn’t show well unfortunately. But buying less of them wouldn’t increase the price after as it still depends on their costs. However it could make them less profitable and thus would probably turn to more and more capacity payments (which I didn’t cover in this video).
Just a load of utter bollux, lets just have a law that any energy provider must appear to be able to generate on demand within a black box without CO2 emmissions.
if the bulk of the energy is coming from solar or wind, the black box must include its own load balancing system with all costs and profits going to that black box.
Normally nuclear does not follow the grid, it has the privilige of being baseload, but to some extent as in France it can load follow, and Molten Salt Reactors can easily load follow.
For solar or wind to load follow would mean impossible amounts of battery storage as well as peaker plants hidden within the system.
When intermittent systems have to cover the full cost of making themselves look fully dispatchable, their true costs will be revealed esp if any use of carbon emissions is included.
Nuclear is the only way forward with out playing stupid games esp when you have to generate all energy as carbon free at something like 5TWe for the whole world for all energy use.
100% wrong and fission has no place in the future. Facts matter and I can build 20 GWh solar while you build 1 GWh of nuclear. Storage will catch up long before any nuclear plants can be built.
True if 100% CO2 free but expensive vs a 90%+ Renewable Grid where we use Gas Peakers as a last resort backup. Other backups will be Hydro, Pumped Hydro, Batteries, GeoThermal and Gas Peakers compliment them and mean a 90%+ Renewable Grid is the lowest cost option.