Posted by: @batalto

I guess in my view I see no reason why a renewable producer would want a differing market rate, especially when that rate would be lower. They are in the market because that's how markets work. If I make some gold and I can do it cheaper, why would I charge less for my ounce of gold? Just because the price goes up, doesn't mean I am somehow bound to charge less.

If I can get more for my power, and I can make it cheaper, then that's more margin for me and my business and as such the market encourages more lower cost generation - Gas power plants aren't making lots of profit, gas sellers are. Therefore if you build power assets, why would you build more gas? High gas prices actually encourage renewables as they have, by far, the biggest margins once running - especially at these prices.

Hi Batalto,

If my understanding is correct it is not quite that simple.

In the early days of encouraging transition to renewables, the then market rate for electricity was insufficient to make investment in renewable generation a viable proposition. So a system was put in place to guarantee a minimum price for any green energy produced, probably paid for in part or solely by the additional taxes paid by electricity consumers.

According to one of the guest speakers on the videos, now that the market rate for electricity is higher than the guaranteed rate, any excess payment received is returned to the government, though I do believe that the consumers still pay the full tariff price. Where the funds from the excess payment actually goes I am not certain. Maybe someone else can shed some light.

Posted by: @pauldavies83

I suspected so.

But to have that differentiated, but the price according to the source not, seems remarkably unfair.

 

example:

I have a giant Solar Farm two fields away from me, in the North West / Mersey region. It is much easier to get that power from there to me than anything else. And I have a "100% renewable source" tariff with Octopus. But I get charged one of the highest rates in the country for the easiest to transmit and greenest source we have possible.

 

The whole "system" is totally broken.

Hi Paul,

I'm afraid it is not quite that simple.

Since it is a large solar farm, it is unlikely that it will be connected to the grid at the local level, since to do so would probably overload the local distribution system. It is more likely that it will be connected to the 33kV or even 66kV grid. Even if it was possible to connect the solar farm to the local system, the rapid variation in output from a solar system would cause unacceptable instability in the local network.

Getting power around the country in a safe and reliable manner is not an easy task. The Alternators at the power stations normally generate at 24kV, but this is fairly quickly transformed to anything up to 400kV.

Transporting power around the country is carried out by a super grid at a voltage of 400kV, a 275kV grid system and a 132kV grid system. These systems feed power to the 66kV and 33kV networks that feed the various areas. In many ways it is similar to the modern day road network, where the motorways are the main arteries, feeding the A roads, on down the system to the country lanes.

Whilst the system is not broken, it is no longer ideal. When the various grid systems were designed and built, the location and size of the demand for electrical power was reasonably well known and/or could be predicted. The location of the generating stations to feed this demand was either already known or planned. So it was just a matter of calculating how much power was to be transported from A to B and sizing the grid to suit. This of course has all changed with the rapid move to renewable energy sources, which may or may not easily tie in with the present grid systems.

An undersea cable is to be installed from further North down to the area where I live, to get the power from the wind farms in the North to areas further South, which of course takes time to plan and construct and also costs a considerable amount of money. The changes in government policy and the lack of adequate forward planning are some of the reasons for the present problems.

Given a lot of these wind farms are in the sea, can anyone explain to me what the difficulty would be with constructing something - either to pump water into or out of - so as to store excess electricity in times of plenty as pumped storage hydropower. It’d obviously need to move a lot of water, but the North Sea kinda has that in abundance. 

If it were possible, that’d certainly allow the turbines to keep turning as long as there’s wind, and PSH is close to 100% efficient storage.

I shold say, of course, that it’s just an off-the-cuff suggestion, and I haven’t looked meticulously at how viable it’d be.

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

Given a lot of these wind farms are in the sea, can anyone explain to me what the difficulty would be with constructing something - either to pump water into or out of - so as to store excess electricity in times of plenty as pumped storage hydropower. It’d obviously need to move a lot of water, but the North Sea kinda has that in abundance. 

If it were possible, that’d certainly allow the turbines to keep turning as long as there’s wind, and PSH is close to 100% efficient storage.

I shold say, of course, that it’s just an off-the-cuff suggestion, and I haven’t looked meticulously at how viable it’d be.

There actually is a large PSH in Wales. Just Google Dinorwig Power Station.

One thing that I think may be a viable idea, would be to have small dams at various points in the river system. They could be used not only to generate electricity, but also help to control flooding in areas downstream.

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

Given a lot of these wind farms are in the sea, can anyone explain to me what the difficulty would be with constructing something - either to pump water into or out of - so as to store excess electricity in times of plenty as pumped storage hydropower. It’d obviously need to move a lot of water, but the North Sea kinda has that in abundance. 

If it were possible, that’d certainly allow the turbines to keep turning as long as there’s wind, and PSH is close to 100% efficient storage.

I shold say, of course, that it’s just an off-the-cuff suggestion, and I haven’t looked meticulously at how viable it’d be.

I think the scale needed to make it worthwhile is huge.  It's not so much the water, it's where you pump it to. If you look at  hydro or pumped storage schemes, they normally take advantage of helpful existing topography.  

Here's a novel idea though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60066690

My new Octopus rates 😳. Well we knew everything was going up!  I need to get a spreadsheet going to determine the best route, given the ASHP and EVs

@julianc batteries - at these rates the payback is insane

Agreed @batalto. Im still pinning my hope on V2

@julianc excuse my ignorance.... is the Octopus Go deal a 12 month fixed?

Octopus talk about their Flexible Octopus tariff only having 30 days notice of price changes and being capped at the ofgem price cap. Is that the tariff they are quoting or is the flexible tariff in the screenshot something else?

Have they said if they will put the Flexible Octopus tariff up on 1st April? 

@julianc, that is crazy and this is something that a lot of people are struggling with. I get about 5-6 emails a week from homeowners that have turned their ASHPs off and are not heating their homes this winter because it's unaffordable.

While most people on the forums have taken the air source heat pump route, for the skeptics out there, there is no financial incentive to move away from fossil fuels. To achieve running cost parity on oil you need an SCOP of around 4.2 and 3.5 on mains gas. This is based on kerosene at 61.5p per litre, electricity at 29p/kWh and gas at 7p/kWh (in line with the new cap). From recent data I've seen, the average SCOP for a heat pump in the UK is 2.8. 

@jeff yes Octopus Go is a fixed annual. Mine runs out 22/3/22 when I get the choice of these new rates. 
@editor whilst electric costs have increased (which is disappointing) oil continues to rise. I estimate my ASHP will cost me about £983 for heating & hot water. Compared to 1500L oil at 62p/L or £930. Not much difference. My SCOP is 3.12 (see Worcestershire ASHP blog). I believe I can beat that next year using weather compensation curve. But let’s see. 
Government needs to move taxes to none green energy sources (gas and petrol) to drive HP & EV adoption. Then, as the tipping point is achieved, move to road pricing. 
Whilst I recognise I’m lucky to be able to be an early adopter of such technology, we all need to do our bit to reduce our CO2 footprint. Or our children and our childrens children are going to live in a different world. 

@editor I think the average scop is frankly down to the rubbish ways people run heat pumps. Throughout winter, since using proper weather compensation I've never had a combined COP (DHW and heating) of less than 2.8. even on very closest days where I averaged 2 of 3° across the whole day.

I expect things could be better, but at 55° flow temperature you aren't going to do well.