I thought this an interesting article by Edward Lucas in the Times today:
Energy revolution brings power to the people
June 16 2017, 12:01am,
Edward Lucas
As consumers are forced to pay more for their gas and electricity, disruptive technologies offer a cheaper alternative
Big decisions made by big companies. That used to be the way the energy industry worked. Extracting oil, gas and coal, and turning it into power, involved costly projects that lasted for decades.
Not any more. The era of energy dinosaurs is over. The mammals are on the march.
The clearest example so far comes from the United States, where technological change and the liberalisation of energy exports have put nimble, innovative shalemen in the driving seat of the global hydrocarbons industry.
Only a decade ago, Saudi Arabia was the “swing producer”, moving the world oil price with a twist of a sheikhly wrist on a stopcock. Now the Saudi-led Opec oil cartel is impotent. Instead of production determining the price, it’s vice versa, just as in most other commodities. Restrictions on output are futile: they simply hand market share to competitors. From a low point in 2008, US crude oil production has already doubled, to a record 10 million barrels a day.
The boom affects the natural gas market too. Last week the first shipment of American liquefied natural gas (LNG) arrived in Poland, a country which used to be in the grip of Russia’s corrupt and exploitative gas-export industry. In neighbouring Lithuania, an LNG import terminal has already paid for itself: before a molecule moved, Russia offered a hefty discount on its pipeline gas.
Abundance and diversity spell freedom. Eastern Europe no longer needs to kowtow to the Kremlin. The West no longer needs to curry favour with Opec.
Utilities dump the cost of big, expensive projects on customers
Much more is to come. Intense competition and human ingenuity are bringing innovations in the fracking and horizontal drilling techniques which have stoked the shale boom. So far it is almost entirely confined to the US, where the financial, geological and legal environment is most favourable. When unconventional oil and gas extraction spreads to other countries, the old energy behemoths’ bets on high-cost projects such as Arctic or deep-water drilling will seem like truly catastrophic mistakes.
For other dinosaurs, even bigger trouble looms. The coal industry is collapsing. One reason is head-on competition from cheap gas (gas-fired power stations are far cheaper to build than coal ones).
But coal is ailing even in countries without abundant natural gas. China and India are turning away from the black stuff, partly to stem public fury at air pollution, but also because of the tumbling price of solar energy, down 40 per cent in the past year in India. A solar electricity provider recently won a supply auction there with a bid of 2.62 rupees (3.2p) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) — undercutting coal-fired power by a fifth.
The economics of renewable energy are devastating for the incumbents. The marginal cost of solar and wind power is zero: once the panels and windmills are installed, they produce electricity willy-nilly. The old producers’ only real advantage is reliability. They can provide power on demand, whereas renewable energy tends to be intermittent: on calm cloudy days, output from both solar and wind drops precipitously. Even that advantage is crumbling. The cost of storage is plummeting as battery technology advances and the economics of mass-production kick in. James Sprinz of Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), a research company, notes that the cost of capacity in lithium-ion batteries is down by nearly three-quarters since 2010. Cheap storage means that renewable energy can be used whenever it is needed.
Technology also allows us to become a lot more intelligent in the way we consume electricity. One of the most interesting ideas in the electricity market now is “demand response”. Instead of building capacity to provide extra megawatts, we instead use “negawatts”— forgone power consumption. This already works well with cooling, heating and pumping, which are mostly not time-sensitive. If you run greenhouses, or cold-storage equipment, your only priority is keeping the contents within the right temperature range. Whether the machinery comes on at five minutes to the hour, or ten minutes past, does not particularly matter.
To the people running our electricity networks, this flexibility matters a lot. When demand spikes — say on winter mornings — they no longer need to use the dirtiest and most expensive generating capacity, such as banks of diesel generators, to keep the lights on. Instead they pay people to postpone their power consumption to a more convenient time. The result is greater efficiency and lower costs. Increased use of electric vehicles will create even more flexibility: they can charge overnight on cheap wind power, and even send electricity back into the network when needed.
This is not good news for the utility companies. They like big, expensive investments because, in a regulated market, they can dump the cost — plus a profit margin — on the consumer. The question that no country has answered is how to manage the transition between the expensive, old-style power system and the decentralised, flexible, low-cost (and low-carbon) future.
BNEF’s annual energy outlook, published yesterday, forecasts $7.4 trillion (£5.8 trillion) of new investment in renewable energy by 2040. That is an encouraging leap on previous predictions — but still short of the nearly $13 trillion investment in zero-carbon power it reckons is necessary to keep global warming below 2ºC. Getting the economics of power generation right sounds boring. It may be a matter of life and death.
Edward Lucas writes for The Economist
Gransnet forums
Science/nature/environment
On the economics of energy
(27 Posts)Whilst I agree with the writer's view of the regulated energy industry and the major utility companies (the "big six" in the UK)I can't see anything there to justify fracking and the use of shale gas. In my opinion, renewables and technological change are sufficiently well advanced to make the "nimble, innovative shalemen" look like ecologically damaging asset-strippers rushing to exploit a gap in the market that need not exist. I worry that the Tory removal of support for renewables is a deliberate move to help frackers to make a fast buck.
Sadly renewables are not sufficiently well advanced to make the "nimble, innovative shalemen" look like ecologically damaging asset-strippers rushing to exploit a gap in the market that need not exist. Nor, as the article states are battery technology advances kicking in
In this country we have relied far too much on wind turbines and solar power to generate renewables, two technologies that are highly wind/sun dependent. Currently a website I watch
gridwatch.co.uk/]] shows that at this moment 10% of our power is coming from wind and 6% from solar, but look at the spread of last months figures and on some days, wind was making virtually no contribution to our power consumption and solar very little.
In addition the fluctuating contribution of renewable sources of power on, almost, a minute to minute basis make keeping a steady supply of power very difficult. Some electricity grid controllers have compared it with controlling a bucking bronco.
More importantly, it is putting enormous stress on the conventional plant, like gas-fired power, which normally need start-up time. They are now expected to turn power on and off like a light switch, putting incredible stress on plant, leading to breakdowns, keeping plant fired up and consuming gas without producing power, ready for when needed and the government has set up a network of diesel generated plants round the country ready to get the grid up and running again if it collapses completely.
What we should have done is invested in tidal systems like the Severn barrage and give an immediate go ahead to the planned tidal lagoons off South Wales. The French has had such a system up and running since 1964, when General de Gaulle (remember him?). Cut the ribbon on its operating start-up. And of course we should have been installing nuclear plant, like the French.75 % of their power is generated in nuclear plants and most of the rest is renewable
As for battery technology. The danger with all batteries is the danger of explosion Samsung (I think) produced a high power mobile phone battery recently that had to be withdrawn because it kept exploding at inconvenient times, like on aircraft. Compare a phone battery with the battery or batteries necessary to hold enough power to supply the country for 1 hour, let alone 1 day and think how big the explosion would be if it did. I would not want to live within 50 miles of such a battery
In this looking for solutions to clean domestic and industrial power, everyone conveniently overlooks the real major energy consumer - and that is transport. Electricity is not the answer because you need to generate the electricity and the source for that is usually gas, certainly not renewables. Schemes for public transport, biking and all those minimal schemes do not put even a dent in world energy consumption by transport.
In the vast expanses of countries like, Africa, Asia, Americas, goods need to be moved long distances over difficult and hostile environments, what price a bike or train service there?
As Monica says, renewable is only a small part. Nuclear energy is the only certain way to go.
The wind farm nearly completed off the Sussex coast will supply all the electricity to Sussex for at least the next 50 years.
Wouldn't call that a small part. No pollution or potential devastation -have a look at the potential flood risk at Dungeness and then think whether Nuclear is the only way to go.
Not according to the article on the conversation that you haven't read, lemongrove.
www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(17)30012-0
Roadmap for 139 countries which can have 100% renewables without nuclear.
I'm watching Hull, City of Culture on catchup at the moment. It reminded me of Siemens wind turbine factory on the Humber.
"Hornsea Project One will be the first wind farm in the world to have a capacity of more than 1GW and will provide enough energy for well over one million UK homes," said the project's engineering, procurement and construction director, Claus Norgaard.
"Using the same foundation solution for all turbines means we benefit from economies of scale and experience, and therefore maximise efficient construction of the project," Norgaard added.
The monopiles will support Siemens' 7MW offshore turbines and the project expected online in 2019. Preparatory onshore construction activity for the project started earlier this year."
Hull will be one of the first cities to be submerged if we continue the way we are on climate change.
You are a real old busy-body durhamjen
But for your information I have read the entire article.
Renewables cannot provide us with enough electricity for the UK no matter what wind farms are in Sussex.
Nuclear energy is clean and will give plentiful amounts of energy, there is no excuse not to use it.
lemon I would be interested in your clearly informed knowledge. I assume there is no danger with regard to places like Dungeness or I assume you would recognise this in your posts?
Talk to a physicist about it ww. I was against nuclear until I spoke to someone who really understands what they're talking about.
Hmm, I understand at the moment that the flood risk is 1/20yrs, at Dungeness - to my mind totally unacceptable.
Utter devastation should that risk be realised.
primrose your assumption that I am anti- nuclear is wrong, but given the choice I would always go for non- polluting forms of energy, and I am not convinced by the insufficient energy option.
I am also worried about the lack of investment in flood defence in these high risk areas.
What's that supposed to mean, lemon?
Tell the people in Japan that nuclear energy is clean.
Compared with other kinds of energy nuclear is the safest:
ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy/
Renewables aren't included in that is it bags?
The UK, never mind the whole world, with huge population growth will need to make use of nuclear power.Renewables are not nearly enough.
To not use it is tantamount to saying to farmers, no more tractors, use horses only, and no combined harvesters either, gather in the harvest by hand in the old traditional way.In other words, fear of new technology by some is holding nuclear energy at bay, but it will happen, because it has to.Clean, efficient, cheaper etc.
But you are arguing against a door that is partially open lemon
What I am saying is that risk relating to nuclear production, is not being acted upon. And this causes a deadly risk.
here you go ww
Nuclear is safer than renewables.
www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf
That's right, whitewave, no solar or wind or wavepower.
Does that mean no deaths from them?
Nuclear is clean and cheap until you have an acident like at Fukushima. What about clean-up costs for that, and three mile island?
Our nuclear power plants do not have that written into them because the costs would be so huge.
Come on, primrose. The IEAE says that nuclear is safer than solar. Wow!
Sorry, IAEA.
Are they not a valid source of information regarding nuclear? Everyone seemed pretty happy about quoting Euratom when they were discussing Brexit issues.
They are sort of biased.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »

