Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

[Richie]

I am curious why we dont have some hydro as well, we are surrounded by water.

We don’t have any natural lakes at the top of mountains or anything we could create with a dam, hence no hydro.

Some parts of the UK have a bit of hydro and capable of a lot more....

Our hydro portfolio totals 1,459MW of installed capacity, including 300MW of pumped storage and 750MW of flexible hydro. This includes the 100MW Glendoe Power Station which opened in 2009 becoming the first large-scale hydro power station to be constructed in Scotland since the hydro revolution of the 1940s and '50s.

SOURCE

Nimby-ism is an issue just now. They want to install another Hydro battery system (*pumped Hydro) beside Loch Ness however the locals say it will harm the wildlife etc.

*Pumped Hydro - it will use the excess electricity generated by other renewable sources (such as wind) to pump the water up into a holding dam and then release it through the hydro turbine(s) when its needed again. This will help with things like Curtailment costs (where producers are paid to turn off the wind turbines as the grid is unable to cope with the amount be generated at specific periods).

 

[b0rn2sk8]

These are all tiny though, a single medium to large scale hydro electric dam can have a 1000mw generating capacity.

There are two dams in Canada that exceed 5000kw each.

The biggest hydroelectric dam is in China and is rated at 22,000mw.

Everything we have is small/micro scale.

 

[chrcoluk]

@b0rn2sk8 I read about the curtailment costs Richie mentioned some time back, do you know why we turn off wind turbines instead of gas plants when the grid seems to hit some kind of capacity limit? and I was also curious why that excess cant be dumped in battery storage, up until Octopus released that video saying that even batteries cant be built right now due to grid limitations.

 

[bigmike20vt]

I dont understand why we dont have more solar in the middle of lakes. We have a lot of fairly decent sized lakes that a section could be given over to a floating solar farm. Apparently there are few downsides as its meant to be good for natural habitat, the water keeps the panels cool in hot weather, reduces evaporation, and surely NIMBYs will have less to complain about with panels in middle of a lake rather than on green land.

like all things, it would only be a small piece of the puzzle, but if we are going to have a green grid it will be victory by 1000 cuts rather than a single knock out blow.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

@b0rn2sk8 I read about the curtailment costs Richie mentioned some time back, do you know why we turn off wind turbines instead of gas plants when the grid seems to hit some kind of capacity limit? and I was also curious why that excess cant be dumped in battery storage, up until Octopus released that video saying that even batteries cant be built right now due to grid limitations.

A lot of it it comes down to supply contracts, where the power is being generated and where it’s needed.

If we excess wind in Scotland and not much out on the East of England, your going to need to turn on fossil plants ‘down south’ and turn off wind farms ‘up north’ as the transmission lines don’t have the capacity to move the excess wind power to where it’s needed.

Thats why the national grid wants to build new pylons and transmission lines but the NIMBYs are fighting them all the way. ‘Why should we have to have pylons running through the middle of nowhere so people in the south east can have electricity’ is basically the argument. It’s the same in the east of England where they need to get power down from the North Sea down to London.

We’ve actually got a fair bit of battery storage on the grid now but getting grid connections is a real problem at the moment and isn’t something that will be solved overnight unfortunately.

 

[bigmike20vt]

A lot of it it comes down to supply contracts, where the power is being generated and where it’s needed.

If we excess wind in Scotland and not much out on the East of England, your going to need to turn on fossil plants ‘down south’ and turn off wind farms ‘up north’ as the transmission lines don’t have the capacity to move the excess wind power to where it’s needed.

Thats why the national grid wants to build new pylons and transmission lines but the NIMBYs are fighting them all the way. ‘Why should we have to have pylons running through the middle of nowhere so people in the south east can have electricity’ is basically the argument. It’s the same in the east of England where they need to get power down from the North Sea down to London.

We’ve actually got a fair bit of battery storage on the grid now but getting grid connections is a real problem at the moment and isn’t something that will be solved overnight unfortunately.

i guess it will cost more than pylons.... but maybe underwater cables will be cheaper than buried underground cables on land..... surely there must be some way to make use of the fact we are a small (relatively) island?

 

[Pyr0m@nI@]{]

I dont understand why we dont have more solar in the middle of lakes. We have a lot of fairly decent sized lakes that a section could be given over to a floating solar farm. Apparently there are few downsides as its meant to be good for natural habitat, the water keeps the panels cool in hot weather, reduces evaporation, and surely NIMBYs will have less to complain about with panels in middle of a lake rather than on green land.

like all things, it would only be a small piece of the puzzle, but if we are going to have a green grid it will be victory by 1000 cuts rather than a single knock out blow.

I think they should put floating panels on the reservoirs, it would help reduce the evaporation and possibly the hose pipe bans.

 

[dlockers]

I think they should put floating panels on the reservoirs, it would help reduce the evaporation and possibly the hose pipe bans.

Don't they put floating balls on them?

 

[b0rn2sk8]

i guess it will cost more than pylons.... but maybe underwater cables will be cheaper than buried underground cables on land..... surely there must be some way to make use of the fact we are a small (relatively) island?

Pylons are by far the cheapest option and the easiest to construct/maintain.

Burying cables is more expensive than pylons.

The campaigners are pushing for offshore cables, they say it’s cheaper but I just can’t see how it could be. It’s also an option that carries more risk, not just from a repair and maintenance point of view but also national security. They need specialist skills to manufacture, install and maintain.

Offshore is also susceptible to both accidental damage from fishing vessels and large ship anchors. Sabotage is also a ver real threat, the Russians are training specifically to do this kind of activity via submarines.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

i guess it will cost more than pylons.... but maybe underwater cables will be cheaper than buried underground cables on land..... surely there must be some way to make use of the fact we are a small (relatively) island?

Opposite. The underwater cables are costing more to get them down towards London rather than cheaper.

From what I can tell cheapest to most expensive is Pylons, Sea cables, buried land cables.

Simply IMO there needs to be more subsidy to those affected (via reduced electricity costs) in order to get over the NIMBY issue.
If there was a real benefit of it locally then I would expect those positive for it to outweigh the NIMBYs. But right now no one really cares, so the limited number of NIMBYs win.

 

[Richie]

Thats why the national grid wants to build new pylons and transmission lines but the NIMBYs are fighting them all the way. ‘Why should we have to have pylons running through the middle of nowhere so people in the south east can have electricity’ is basically the argument. It’s the same in the east of England where they need to get power down from the North Sea down to London.

I have 2 main irritations on the above, given its, generally, the SE that require this energy to be moved to them from other parts of the country:

1. The very region that needs the energy to be moved to (SE) have their fair share of NIMBY-ism i.e. they object to the network in their areas being increased
2. The very region requiring the rest of the country's network to be upgraded to allow transmission to them happily have the lowest SC in the entire country.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

I have 2 main irritations on the above, given its, generally, the SE that require this energy to be moved to them from other parts of the country:

1. The very region that needs the energy to be moved to (SE) have their fair share of NIMBY-ism i.e. they object to the network in their areas being increased
2. The very region requiring the rest of the country's network to be upgraded to allow transmission to them happily have the lowest SC in the entire country.

I agree there are NIMBYs everywhere but as someone who lives in the countryside, it’s fair to say the countryside folk are particularly NIMBYish. Those that live in the middle of the large towns/cities in the south east don’t really care where the pylons go.

They have the lowest SC because population density is the highest. The total costs are higher but there are more people to spread that cost over.

Large scale transmission lines are not a significant driver of distribution costs, it’s all the ‘last mile’ connections. Serving a village in the Scottish highlands costs significantly more per connection than a housing estate on the edge of Basildon. It’s that simple really.

 

[Feek]

Since i switched to octopus, they put my monthly direct debit @ £113 per my usage figures, this might be on the low side by a bit.

Recently they auto recommended £134, so i logged in and put it to £120, which i think is fine.

My plan is to pay what i will 100% use, then in winter, i would do a one off payment so my account goes into positive by £1 or so, if the monthly bill exceeds the direct debit amount.

I read there is variable direct debit but there is no option to change to this, will it show up after my smart meter is installed next month or do i need to call/email them?

Basically i dont want to build up credit, i was paying quarterly bill amount until i've switched as EDF/British gas switched me to monthly, and octopus is much better website/interface etc, if im going to be paying monthly etc.

Email them, you can change to pay what you use.

I know roughly what I'm going to pay over a year, I divide that by 12 and each month, on the day after payday, a standing order transfers that amount into a Chase savings account. My direct debit with Octopus is to pay for what I use and it comes out of that savings account. This means that over the year, I build my own credit buffer up and I'm earning interest on it.

 

[Richie]

I agree there are NIMBYs everywhere but as someone who lives in the countryside, it’s fair to say the countryside folk are particularly NIMBYish. Those that live in the middle of the large towns/cities in the south east don’t really care where the pylons go.

Easy to be less NIMBY-ish when you're already surrounded by concrete and other industrial style infrastructure compared to having a nice rolling field outlook from your home. Would the exact same people living in London be as accepting of the building if they then moved out to the countryside?

I don't agree with unreasonable Nimbies but sometimes its a matter of personal perspective/circumstances as well.

They have the lowest SC because population density is the highest. The total costs are higher but there are more people to spread that cost over.

Large scale transmission lines are not a significant driver of distribution costs, it’s all the ‘last mile’ connections. Serving a village in the Scottish highlands costs significantly more per connection than a housing estate on the edge of Basildon. It’s that simple really.

Oh I get it, I just don't fully agree with it. Remote areas foot more in their bill to provide resources to themselves, so why can't it work the other way? If an area demands more of a resource that requires investment further afield in order to provide said resource, then the demand area should be footing more of the bill for that investment.... Anyways, this argument has been done to death on here so I will just leave it at that

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Well that’s the thing, they already do, it’s just not a large driver of the SC.

The people that live in a tiny hamlet half way up a mountain or on a remote island in Scotland are the distribution cost driver. Those costs are ultimately socialised to everyone that lives in Scotland.

Essentially what you are asking for is for those who produce or distribute the energy in their areas is to get a rebate on their own expensive distribution costs.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Essentially what you are asking for is for those who produce or distribute the energy in their areas is to get a rebate on their own expensive distribution costs.

This is exactly what I think should happen.
It needs to be large enough that those who have to put up with the eyesore, or potential for issues (however remote) get some recompense for it.
As I said, once the level of recompense is high enough I would expect NIMBYs to be outvoted locally.

 

[Richie]

Essentially what you are asking for is for those who produce or distribute the energy in their areas is to get a rebate on their own expensive distribution costs.

All I have been asking for, as in the previous discussions which I realise you may not have seen, is for the costs to be equalised throughout the UK.... I mean its a UK wide distribution network of a basic life necessity who's cost, IMO, should be met equally across the UK.

 

[chrcoluk]

Easy to be less NIMBY-ish when you're already surrounded by concrete and other industrial style infrastructure compared to having a nice rolling field outlook from your home. Would the exact same people living in London be as accepting of the building if they then moved out to the countryside?

I don't agree with unreasonable Nimbies but sometimes its a matter of personal perspective/circumstances as well.




Oh I get it, I just don't fully agree with it. Remote areas foot more in their bill to provide resources to themselves, so why can't it work the other way? If an area demands more of a resource that requires investment further afield in order to provide said resource, then the demand area should be footing more of the bill for that investment.... Anyways, this argument has been done to death on here so I will just leave it at that

I get your point but we cant stand still, everyone wants that unspoiled view for eternity, but the cost of that is no infrastructure progression.

Pylons wont be a big deal its not like they building a tower block right in front of you.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

This is exactly what I think should happen.
It needs to be large enough that those who have to put up with the eyesore, or potential for issues (however remote) get some recompense for it.
As I said, once the level of recompense is high enough I would expect NIMBYs to be outvoted locally.

All I have been asking for, as in the previous discussions which I realise you may not have seen, is for the costs to be equalised throughout the UK.... I mean its a UK wide distribution network of a basic life necessity who's cost, IMO, should be met equally across the UK.

I guess playing devils advocate, some in the south east might say they subsidise enough of the rest of the country already and if you want to live ‘in the sticks’, your services may just cost more.

To be clear, I don’t live in the south east but I can very much imagine a Londoner saying that!

That said, I don’t agree they have the kinds of impact that people make out and the number of people they actually impact are tiny.

The new lines that run though East Anglia run very close where I live and run parallel with 2 existing transmission lines. Massive shrug as far as I am concerned. I’d much rather some pylons and off/onshore wind turbines than a gas/coal power station being build on the edge of town.

It’s not like when you go past the existing lines they make you feel sick in your mouth, they’ve been there so long, you don’t even see them.

It’s the same with the solar farm NIMBYs saying they are destroying the environment by industrialising the countryside. Farming is literally the industrialisation of the countryside and is highly damaging to the natural environment and ecosystems. All they are doing with a solar farm is replacing one monoculture which provides zero environmental benefit with another.

We need to get the economy going or we are all up the creek, this infrastructure is beyond critical at this point.

 

[200sols]

All I have been asking for, as in the previous discussions which I realise you may not have seen, is for the costs to be equalised throughout the UK.... I mean its a UK wide distribution network of a basic life necessity who's cost, IMO, should be met equally across the UK.

What you want is local costs fixed equally across the country though, not nationwide distribution. You want people in the south east mainly to subsidise the high costs of rural supply.