[Mailman]

I'm genuinely curious as to the merits or otherwise of the much-vaunted Great British Energy that the Labour Party are promoting heavily in this election as one of their central policy issues.

What I struggle with is the difference it would make in the energy generation sector with its present pricing structures especially how it would necessarily lead to lower prices whilst the UK is still heavily dependent on gas-fired power stations for electricity generation to pad out the supply provided by non-carbons (wind, solar, hydro, nuclear etc). Throw in the marginal price model determining what all the producers are paid except those that supply under a cfd (contracts for difference) and I struggle even more.

The yearly cfd scheme auction (AR5) failed in 2023 and the AR6 process is underway with contracts to be awarded later this summer. Even one of the offshore AR4 contracts collapsed Vattenfall Norfolk Farm Project

Possibly a higher maximum price for offshore wind in AR6 (66% above the disasterous AR5 figure) will create an avalanche of bids when the results are announced.

Rambling I know but where would Great British Energy fit into this? If they are going to be truely independent, they would have to tender for the same allocations as the likes of Vattenfall did in AR4. This is all assuming that the current generation remuneration structures remain in situ.

[retrotecchie]

@Mailman

There is also the elephant in the room that you can build all the low-carbon generation in the world, but until the £38 billion upgrade to the grid infrastructure is in place, the ability to bring any new generation onstream is rather limited. As for headquartering in Scotland, that makes very little sense to me. Whereas much of Scotland is rather suitable for wind power, getting the power to where it's actually going to be used just won't happen without a lot of additional costs.

[Mailman]

Originally Posted by retrotecchie

@Mailman

There is also the elephant in the room that you can build all the low-carbon generation in the world, but until the £38 billion upgrade to the grid infrastructure is in place, the ability to bring any new generation onstream is rather limited. As for headquartering in Scotland, that makes very little sense to me. Whereas much of Scotland is rather suitable for wind power, getting the power to where it's actually going to be used just won't happen without a lot of additional costs.

Yes I recall you mentioned the grid in another recent thread 👍

I struggle with the concept that having a state-run generator thrown into the mix is going to do anything for the price/kWh of what we as customers pay and/or secutity of supply (to stop us being 'under Putin's boot') within the next 11 years (and certainly not within the next 5 years). After 11 years if present targets are met then 0% will be met by non-renewables. Is it at all realistic to generate the entirety of the electricity supply by renewables by 2035? I 'm sure lots of modelling has been done to calculate just how much bigger the National Grid then needs to become by 2050 if the entirety of the UK's energy provision is sourced by renewable electricity. So who is responsible for upgrades to The National Grid infrastructure? Is it NGESO? and I am correct in assuming that a large proportion of the funding required to do this comes from what we pay in SC?

[retrotecchie]

@Mailman

A small proportion of the funding comes from our SC. That pays to maintain the current grid. NGSEO are looking for that £38 billion on top. Either a government (taxpayer) handout or from private (probably Chinese or French) investment.

About 15 years ago, I took myself off-grid. That is to say, I only used 100% renewable energy generated by me. The first rule of going off grid is to pare your consumption down to the absolute minimum and then work out how much energy/heating/water you actually need. once you've done those calculations then you can size your systems accordingly.

Clearly, if I wanted to use air conditioning, electric cooking and have all the trappings of a 'consumerist lifestyle' that entails rather a lot more resources up front to facilitate the transition. By reducing my requirements to an absolute minimum, it wasn't so much of a stretch.

It's all very well trying to increase generation capacity, but the most important first step is to pare down individual/local/regional/national demand to as low as it will go. Then, target the generation as close as possible to where it is needed.

I'm all for Tata closing down the blast furnaces in Port Talbot. But putting in a 'cleaner' electric arc furnace to replace it? Where is that electricity going to come from? The new Wylfa nuclear plant, which will take another 15 years to come on stream? Then you have to put the power lines in to get that power from A to B. Captain Hindsight (Kier Starmer) might think that 'Great British Energy' is a right-on idea, but without the joined-up thinking and putting the infrastructure in place first (out of money they haven't got) I can't see it possibly bringing any benefit to the bill-paying punters.

[Mailman]

@retrotecchie

Good points as always.

I wonder though if the figure of £38 billion is a bit on the low side. THIS NGESO document talks about £58 billion to cater for the need for an additional 21GW of additional offshore wind. Stonkingly big numbers whatever they turn out to be and def the elephant in the room. Another snippet that stands out is its eye-watering 64% forecast growth in electricity demand between now and 2035! I suppose another elephant (I think this has been mentioned in the recent past by Labour) is a possible reset of aspects of the planning regulations (amended in 2023) to swathes of (possibly) cheaper onshore wind. We have quite a few turbines dotted about the NE now but I daresay room for many more.

As it stands one of the aspects of planning for onshore wind states that, in addition to the area's suitability in local development plans, 'the planning impacts identified by the affected local community have been appropriately addressed and the proposal has community support'. Possibly the NIMBYs could be over-ruled on the grounds of 'National Emergency - Net Zero' if a Labour government gets elected and proceed with changing the planning laws only recently amended. Possibly this will become clear when manifestos are published.