Why we need "Net zero"

[SteamyTea]

8 hours ago, Crofter said:

Today's XKCD seems relevant.

And true to a lot of people.

[Beelbeebub]

"bUt rENeWabLes arE maKiNg elEcTrIcitY mOrE ExPeNsIvE!!...."

[LnP]

On 29/03/2026 at 14:03, -rick- said:

 

This and long term this is where hydrogen can be useful. Use excess solar during the summer to make hydrogen, store it for peaker use in winter. All done in one site, no need to pipe it anywhere.

 

Other note is that batteries can fill all the short term responsive capacity that peaker/stored hyrdo used to do. The only thing batteries can't really do is longer duration peaker load. ie, those 1-2week super cold winter periods.

The problem with using curtailed renewable energy to generate hydrogen (or ammonia) is that the kit is expensive. The capital cost has to be amortised over the small amount of MWh it will produce, so the cost of that electricity will be high.

That's especially hard to justify if the generation has been curtailed due to grid capacity, in which case the money would have been better spent debottlenecking the grid to reduce the curtailment.

There are those who would say that any plan involving hydrogen as an energy vector is doomed to failure due to poor economics. And this will never be fixed by new or improved technology. It's inherent in the thermodynamics.

... Hope my comment makes sense. I jumped in on this thread and haven't read all 24 pages 😀.

[DamonHD]

8 hours ago, LnP said:

The problem with using curtailed renewable energy to generate hydrogen (or ammonia) is that the kit is expensive. The capital cost has to be amortised over the small amount of MWh it will produce, so the cost of that electricity will be high.

That's especially hard to justify if the generation has been curtailed due to grid capacity, in which case the money would have been better spent debottlenecking the grid to reduce the curtailment.

There are those who would say that any plan involving hydrogen as an energy vector is doomed to failure due to poor economics. And this will never be fixed by new or improved technology. It's inherent in the thermodynamics.

... Hope my comment makes sense. I jumped in on this thread and haven't read all 24 pages 😀.

I think that we should be generating stored H2 to cover Dunkelflauten from serious *overbuild* of solar and wind, not from trying to work round transmission constraints.

[saveasteading]

41 minutes ago, DamonHD said:

Dunkelflauten

Love it. Thanks for introducing me to this term.

 

Not in the same league as street train stopping place though.

Edited 11 hours ago by saveasteading

[DamonHD]

Kein Ding

Edited 11 hours ago by DamonHD

[jack]

On 11/04/2026 at 11:11, Beelbeebub said:

"bUt rENeWabLes arE maKiNg elEcTrIcitY mOrE ExPeNsIvE!!...."

 

This is equivalent to posting a picture of an unseasonably low temperature forecast for a particular summer's day and saying "bUt cLImatE ChaNgE is waRmInG thE pLaNet!!...".

[Beelbeebub]

2 hours ago, jack said:

 

This is equivalent to posting a picture of an unseasonably low temperature forecast for a particular summer's day and saying "bUt cLImatE ChaNgE is waRmInG thE pLaNet!!...".

A fair point except the climate example misses the fundamental difference between climate and weather.

 

In this case I'm showing that renewables are cheap. The rise in electricity prices track the rise and fall of gas prices not the rise and rise of renewables.

 

Renewables have steadily risen in last decade

But electricity has tracked gas prices. 

 

The fact electricity is more expensive now is despite our increace in renewables not because of. 

[ProDave]

As mentioned many times, the ridiculous pricing system we have ensures we will be paying prices set by gas, until there is so much renewables that the very last gas power station has shut down.

 

Ministers may say otherwise but that is the sad truth until someone changes the way retail electricity prices are set.

[JohnMo]

41 minutes ago, ProDave said:

As mentioned many times, the ridiculous pricing system we have ensures we will be paying prices set by gas, until there is so much renewables that the very last gas power station has shut down.

 

Listened to podcast on electricity pricing and its way more bonkers than that. Can't recall the exact pricing mechanism, but its a bidding system.  I could bid to supply electric to London although I'm in NE Scotland, be within the pricing range deemed acceptable, they would then look and say its not practical for me supply that electric to London as I am too far away, and then pay me not to generate and instead pay another supplier the highest bid to supply the electric. Until the system is simplified we are stuffed.  Plus there are so many cost adders to the price we pay, it always going to expensive. 

 

Generally the policy setters and the wholesale pricing system has completely lost the plot

[Gone West]

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/blog/wholesale-energy-costs-and-your-bills

 

"Currently in Great Britain, wholesale gas prices can set the price of wholesale electricity a large majority of the time because there are not enough renewables built to avoid some use of gas. As we continue to generate more renewable electricity and develop ways to store it, for example using battery storage, gas could set our electricity prices much less frequently. Based on the National Energy System Operator (NESO)'s modelling, we estimate that gas could set this price just 30% of the time by 2030. This will mean wholesale gas prices will have a much lower impact on electricity bills."

 

[Beelbeebub]

I do get the logic behind the marginal price auction system and it should be pointed out that the CFD system of strike prices basically negates some of that by effectively fixing the price for renewables over a long period. I don't quite know how it feeds into the price we pay as consumers or if the over/under just goes the treasury. 

 

However, it would be nice if the cost savings from renewables could be passed on more. 

 

The flip side is the profits to be made from putting in renewables does encourage more to be put in. 

 

Of course it would be nice if the gov, who can borrow money nice and cheaply (relative to companies) borrowed, built and operated some windfarms and solar parks to sell the power to the grid at a low cost. 

[SteamyTea]

14 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

The flip side is the profits to be made from putting in renewables does encourage more to be put in. 

This is part of the reason the system was set up.  It may have run its course and now need modifying.

 

16 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Of course it would be nice if the gov, who can borrow money nice and cheaply (relative to companies) borrowed, built and operated some windfarms and solar parks to sell the power to the grid at a low cost. 

While the idea seems good, in principle, private investment would quickly dry up, and/or bigger risks would be taken by the private sector investors on marginal sites/plants/technology knowing the the government would probably bail them out.

 

Financing public services, through private investment has not proved very successful in the past.

[Beelbeebub]

24 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

This is part of the reason the system was set up.  It may have run its course and now need modifying.

Possibly. 

 

24 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

While the idea seems good, in principle, private investment would quickly dry up, and/or bigger risks would be taken by the private sector investors on marginal sites/plants/technology knowing the the government would probably bail them out.

 

Financing public services, through private investment has not proved very successful in the past.

No. I mean the government build and operate the facilities themselves.  They may (prob will) use private companies to do that but the asset will remain the property of the government and be operated by the government. 

 

We used to do it. We used to build and operate national railways, hospitals, schools, even power stations. 

 

Whilst there are pitfalls in this approach, it would be hard to argue that the privatisation model eg railways, water, hospitals has been a success on all fronts. 

 

Edit: I don't mean PFI or similar - I've been involved in hospital and school PFI schemes and they are often really shit for the tax payer. Not only is the build quality really low, the contractual conditions of the "landlord" are terrible. 

 

The power facilities are going to be big enough and around long enough for a corps of efficient government employees to form to operate them. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Beelbeebub

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

No. I mean the government build and operate the facilities themselves

I think, when we were part of the EU, there were rules against too much government ownership.  Did not stop the French taking over EDF though, so probably a way around that rule (and similar ones here).

If a government did own, plan, build, run and sell energy (even at arms length) it would affect the private companies investment plans i.e. why bother when the government can undercut.

They could put a capacity cap in place i.e. no more than 20% of the expected 2050 needs.  But then they could also change the rules if they wanted to (think student loans and retirement ages).

I don't know the answer, and I am sure some clever people are working on it, be interesting to see what happens.