Wind is main source of UK electricity for first time

[Mr Bump]

Absolutely superb , we are starting to make serious inroads into clean green energy now imagine in another 10 years.

Wind is main source of UK electricity for first time

Wind power overtakes gas for the first time in the UK during first three months of year.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Which would be interesting, if it wasn't a nonsense.

Wind contributed 4.1% to the energy supply in 2022, against 39.6% from gas and 36.4% from oil: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63976805

On the other hand, windmills are generally more attractive than gas or oil generation buildings....

 

[wyx087]

Which would be interesting, if it wasn't a nonsense.

Wind contributed 4.1% to the energy supply in 2022, against 39.6% from gas and 36.4% from oil: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63976805

I think you are misunderstanding the data you have been presented.

According to your source, 24.6% of electricity supply comes from wind in 2022.
OP's data is: "In the first three months of this year (2023) a third (33%) of the country's electricity came from wind farms, research from Imperial College London have shown."

You've posted data for 2022 and you are quoting total energy use, instead of electricity generation. Total energy use includes domestic heating (gas central boiler), transport (cars and buses) and manufacturing (eg. high temperature processes). This is why total energy use has 36% oil whereas electricity generation only uses 0.6%. Many of above energy uses can easily be electrified right now (heating and transport).

This is the more important graph, where it shows as we progress into 2020's, we are able to use more and more renewables (deep green)

 

[lindsay]

Hence why I have significant investments in renewables in mine and wife's pensions (TRIG and UKW for those interested)

 

[woof woof]

"In the first three months of this year a third of the country's electricity came from wind farms, research from Imperial College London have shown."

A third seems to be less than half to me and the other two thirds are surely the main source? Whatever. Maybe this is a case of statistics being manipulated and presented to suit an agenda and then we have the questions raised by manufacture and end of life issues and subsidies and the strain and hardship these impose on us all.

 

[Pound Coin]

Hmmm.

If only straw-clutching was an energy source.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

think you are misunderstanding the data you have been presented.

I think it's all quite clear.

Wind is providing well short of 5% of all energy. That it provided a greater proportion of electricity output than gas is interesting but 3 months may correspond to a blip. Let's see what has happened after 12 months, If the proportion remains the same, then it will be more interesting.

 

[wyx087]

A third seems to be less than half to me and the other two thirds are surely the main source?

The second largest source of electricity would be gas, but it would be less than a third, hence not "main source". This is not a black/white world where there is only 2 sources. There's solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, bio, gas and others.

Wind is providing well short of 5% of all energy.

That's not what was said. Source of electricity is the topic at hand.

Again, many of those fossil fuel energy uses can easily be electrified and thus be powered by renewables such as wind.

 

[F1.2]

I sometimes have the wind , They are welcome to it if they are brave.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

That's not what was said. Source of electricity is the topic at hand.

That is, indeed, what the headline said.

My point is that it's extremely misleading if the proportion of all energy it generates is not considered at the same time. The article links to the article giving the true proportion, so why not include that figure in the headline or at least in the first paragraph?

 

[wyx087]

That is, indeed, what the headline said.

I'm sorry for your inability to face facts.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I'm sorry for your inability to face facts.

I have no problem with facts, provided the presentation of those facts is not distorted to give a false impression of the totality.

In this case, the impression is being given that wind power is now an important part of the energy mix in the UK, whereas the BBC reported on the previous day that in 2022, wind power represented a tiny part of all the UK's energy sources. There's no technical flaw in either report but the effect of the later report is to make wind power appear to be far more important than it is. My argument has nothing to do with the truth of the facts but with the way in which those facts have been misrepresented. I was told many years ago that to misrepresent, it is not necessary to lie but only to emphasize that which you wish the listener to believe, over that which would cause the listener to think otherwise.

 

[Nod]

in 2022, wind power represented a tiny part of all the UK's energy sources.

Isn't it 2023 now though? Things do change in a year.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Isn't it 2023 now though? Things do change in a year.

Indeed they do.

However, the BBC published the article "Wind is main source of UK electricity for first time" today and the article "Renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels: The UK's changing energy mix" yesterday. I'm not convinced that things change quite that much in a single day!

 

[woof woof]

The second largest source of electricity would be gas, but it would be less than a third, hence not "main source". This is not a black/white world where there is only 2 sources. There's solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, bio, gas and others.

I see the temptation to describe a third as a main source but I think it's dubious, just in my VHO, and in my VHO the remaining two thirds are the main source(s) here.

Also timing and what was going on in the world could be key here. I just don't know and I haven't read up on this but I do remember similar claims being shown to be overly optimistic (to be kind) in the past.

 

[Pound Coin]

Indeed they do.

However, the BBC published the article "Wind is main source of UK electricity for first time" today and the article "Renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels: The UK's changing energy mix" yesterday. I'm not convinced that things change quite that much in a single day!

But they are different stories, about different figures.

 

[Pound Coin]

I see the temptation to describe a third as a main source but I think it's dubious, just in my VHO, and in my VHO the remaining two thirds are the main source(s) here.

Also timing and what was going on in the world could be key here. I just don't know and I haven't read up on this but I do remember similar claims being shown to be overly optimistic (to be kind) in the past.

It is the biggest source, for the period in question. So it isn’t really a claim, but a fact.

It is important to develop renewables and this is a milestone in that development, one to be noted.

 

[Mr Bump]

It is the biggest source, for the period in question. So it isn’t really a claim, but a fact.

It is important to develop renewables and this is a milestone in that development, one to be noted.

yeah that was pretty much why i linked to it.
but the dinosaurs just don't like that do they?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

But they are different stories, about different figures.

They are different takes on the (apparently) same data, published on the same website, by the same organisation, roughly 24 hours apart.

The bald statement that electricity only meets 18% of the UK's energy needs requires some more detailed explanation to clear up the disparity between the claims.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

but the dinosaurs just don't like that do they?

There be neither whales nor dinosaurs in these 'ere waters, Cap'n.

 

[Pound Coin]

They are different takes on the (apparently) same data, published on the same website, by the same organisation, roughly 24 hours apart.

The bald statement that electricity only meets 18% of the UK's energy needs requires some more detailed explanation to clear up the disparity between the claims.

Surely one dataset is a subset of the other, and one story is about one dataset, the other, about the other?

 

[wyx087]

I see the temptation to describe a third as a main source but I think it's dubious, just in my VHO, and in my VHO the remaining two thirds are the main source(s) here.

Ok, so let's change wording:
"Wind delivered the biggest portion of electric supply in Q1 2023. "
Does that sound better than main source?

Or "Low carbon sources (renewables and nuclear) are the main source of UK electricity supply in Q1 2023, making up 54.4% of total electricity supply."

Data source: https://www.current-news.co.uk/wind-generates-more-electricity-than-gas-in-britain-for-first-time/
"In Q1 2023, wind delivered 24TWh, gas provided 23.4TWh, imports made up 9.2TWh (12.6%) closely followed by nuclear which provided 9.2TWh (12.5). Rounding off the electricity fuel mix is biomass, solar, hydro and coal which accounted for 5.7%, 2.3%, 1.5% and 1.3% respectively."

They are different takes on the (apparently) same data, published on the same website, by the same organisation, roughly 24 hours apart.

The topical and comparable data you are looking for is here for 2022, from your BBC link:

 

[mj4456]

Now we just need to make wind turbine components recyclable, it seems the blades can not be reused and so are buried, sure I saw that Germany are decommissioning many turbine farms due to this, I saw a report that all electricity in Scotland is produced by renewable sources, they failed to mention that it not a sufficient quantity to stop electricity being supplied through the inter connector and so we’re still using fossil fuels. It’s all spin.

 

[wyx087]

Problem with renewables is that its supply cannot be manipulated to match the demand.

There's a few solutions:
- Build interconnects, the bigger the renewable area, the less it is affected by local weather. In this case, Scotland exported a lot of its surplus energy and imported when needed. After tally up, they achieved almost 100% net renewable, not fully renewable powered
- Demand-shaping, things like reduce peak load by paying consumers, or time-of-use tariff. Reward people to shift their demand away from periods of low supply.

So I personally don't think it's spin in any shape or form. Net consumption is an important metric to show capacity growth. Reaching true 100% renewables is impossible without HUUUUUUUUGE infrastructure change, it is not possible in the near future. Just like the drive to "net-zero", it's an actual achievable goal compared to true zero carbon society.


Wind turbine components are currently not recyclable, same for solar panels I don't think. But over its whole life, including manufacturer and decommission, per-kWh of electricity, wind and solar are still among lowest carbon emittor and cheapest. Same concept with nuclear, just because there is a tiny risk of meltdown, we shun this power source and continue to burn hugely polluting fossil fuel? The key is to focus on whole-life carbon, risk and cost, as well as not geopolitically tied energy independency.

 

[Bristolian]

The amount of wind generated electricity would be significantly higher if National Grid would get their act together and speed up the connection of wind farms to the grid. They have been dragging their feet for more than 5 years, finding excuse after excuse because it doesn't fit with their ideal of a nuclear revival.

Not only is wind energy cleaner than nuclear but it is currently one third of the cost - a differential that will increase significantly when Hinckley Point C comes on stream. The contracted price was £92.50/MWh when negotiated in 2012, but this is subject to adjustment linked to inflation during the construction period and over the subsequent 35 years tariff period - in 2021 it was already £106/MWh. Many people assume that if there's no wind then a wind farm can't contribute to the grid but this isn't the case. All of the latest (and future) wind farms have on-shore battery storage for those occasions.

Possibly more important than the burden on consumers is that ALL of the profits from Hinckley C will go to Chinese and French companies and the French Government, who own EDF Energy. Existing EDF profits in the UK are used to subsidise French energy prices.

 

[Bristolian]

Problem with renewables is that its supply cannot be manipulated to match the demand.

There's a few solutions:
- Build interconnects, the bigger the renewable area, the less it is affected by local weather. In this case, Scotland exported a lot of its surplus energy and imported when needed. After tally up, they achieved almost 100% net renewable, not fully renewable powered
- Demand-shaping, things like reduce peak load by paying consumers, or time-of-use tariff. Reward people to shift their demand away from periods of low supply.

So I personally don't think it's spin in any shape or form. Net consumption is an important metric to show capacity growth. Reaching true 100% renewables is impossible without HUUUUUUUUGE infrastructure change, it is not possible in the near future. Just like the drive to "net-zero", it's an actual achievable goal compared to true zero carbon society.


Wind turbine components are currently not recyclable, same for solar panels I don't think. But over its whole life, including manufacturer and decommission, per-kWh of electricity, wind and solar are still among lowest carbon emittor and cheapest. Same concept with nuclear, just because there is a tiny risk of meltdown, we shun this power source and continue to burn hugely polluting fossil fuel? The key is to focus on whole-life carbon, risk and cost, as well as not geopolitically tied energy independency.

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, but for the second half of the last sentence. I suspect that every European government would give their right arms for energy independency right now. Relying on old adversaries and unstable dictatorships semi-democratic republics for the supply of large amounts of energy can backfire dramatically. We are running the same risk by having Hinckley Point C built by a Chinese-French consortium, either of which can simply turn it off (or worse) if UK plc doesn't play nicely with their geopolitical aims.

 

[wyx087]

The amount of wind generated electricity would be significantly higher if National Grid would get their act together and speed up the connection of wind farms to the grid. They have been dragging their feet for more than 5 years, finding excuse after excuse because it doesn't fit with their ideal of a nuclear revival.

Also from BBC, talks about this significant backlog in "plugging in" renewables.

Renewable energy projects worth billions stuck on hold

Major UK renewable energy projects being delayed by more than 10 years as grid reaches capacity.

www.bbc.co.uk

High standing charge seems like it's here to stay, unfortunately:

Ofgem says it has agreed to allow the National Grid to raise an additional £20bn over the next 40 years from customer bills to pay for the huge upgrades the grid needs.

 

[bass_junkie83]

Now we just need to make wind turbine components recyclable, it seems the blades can not be reused and so are buried, sure I saw that Germany are decommissioning many turbine farms due to this, I saw a report that all electricity in Scotland is produced by renewable sources, they failed to mention that it not a sufficient quantity to stop electricity being supplied through the inter connector and so we’re still using fossil fuels. It’s all spin.

Already done. Recyclable turbine blades are now a thing.

 

[JonathanRyan]

Same concept with nuclear, just because there is a tiny risk of meltdown, we shun this power source and continue to burn hugely polluting fossil fuel? The key is to focus on whole-life carbon, risk and cost, as well as not geopolitically tied energy independency.

It's a tricky one because as you say you are trading a low frequency, locally devastating risk for a certain planet wide cost. But I'm still not awfully keen on nuclear and I was somewhat miffed when our Chancellor declared them to be "environmentally sustainable" in the last budget.

Our local nuclear power station closed in 2006. They managed to get all of the fuel out in only 7 years. A decade later, it's still there. It's a nice little earner in the local economy but when people say "yeah, they take a while to decommission" they means decades. I was there last week and there are still radiation warnings all over it.

 

[wyx087]

It's a tricky one because as you say you are trading a low frequency, locally devastating risk for a certain planet wide cost. But I'm still not awfully keen on nuclear and I was somewhat miffed when our Chancellor declared them to be "environmentally sustainable" in the last budget.

Our local nuclear power station closed in 2006. They managed to get all of the fuel out in only 7 years. A decade later, it's still there. It's a nice little earner in the local economy but when people say "yeah, they take a while to decommission" they means decades. I was there last week and there are still radiation warnings all over it.

Well, it's a very fine balancing act. Renewables are not completely dependable without huge change in both infrastructure and the way we consume energy. From the smart meter rollout, we know people aren't keen to change. Nuclear gives a dependable base load and has the capability to ramp up when prolonged "once in 100 years" no-wind or no sun event.

I used to be renewable-only, but now I think for quicker de-carbonise and a more dependable grid, a good mix of source is needed. Nuclear is inside this mix. The only source isn't in this mix is anything to do with burning (gas, coal, oil, may be biomass).

 

[Bristolian]

@wyx087 A major problem with nuclear is that it isn't a quick fix. It took decades to get all the permissions needed for Hinckley C and even then it was another five years before construction started. Generation day has been put back at least twice (three times in actuality but one of those was due to Covid and the need to reduce the on-site workforce) and construction costs have soared and generation day pushed back to September 2028 (at the earliest).

I don't know where you live but living within 30 miles of Hinckley many people find it difficult to ignore the possible repercussions of a nuclear "accident". A visit to Chernobyl is a very sobering event.

 

[wyx087]

Yes, it's not a quick fix like gas/coal. But the problem with only relying on renewable is that it's theoretical, it's difficult to put into practice at such a large scale, which may take even longer time than nuclear, there's more uncertainty. Nuclear is much less ideal power source than renewable, not in price and certainly not in risk. But it has its up sides as proven base load source.

On nuclear accident, the data shows it's actually safer than coal and gas. Only bettered by wind and solar. But same as flying, the consequence of any failure is much more catastrophic so it is harder to ignore. Fukushima have shown even when accidents occur, modern plants are much safer. Of course, I have to say I have much less faith in UK government clean up efficiency and speed than Japanese......

The key is having the right mix at the right time as technology progress. I'm not saying 100% nuclear, nor am I ruling out nuclear. Only thing I'm completely against is continued burning stuff.



(I've not visited Chernobyl nor do I live near existing or planned nuclear plants. But I have seen pop culture depictions and parents used to live not far from Hinckley point (they've moved for other reason). )

 

[onomatopoeia]

We are running the same risk by having Hinckley Point C built by a Chinese-French consortium, either of which can simply turn it off (or worse) if UK plc doesn't play nicely with their geopolitical aims.

If that happened a one line Bill in parliament could deal with it in a day, which we know, the French know and the Chinese know.

The more interesting question is why no British companies wanted to make these apparent profits that are going overseas.

 

[Bristolian]

If that happened a one line Bill in parliament could deal with it in a day, which we know, the French know and the Chinese know.

The more interesting question is why no British companies wanted to make these apparent profits that are going overseas.

A Bill in parliament doesn't help if you don't know the back-door into the software that the Chinese will undoubtedly have included for just such a situation. Paranoid? Maybe, but it has been a real concern of the Atomic Energy Authority from day one.

TBH, there were no British companies with the expertise or financial resources to build and operate a nuclear power station when the tenders were issued. Hopefully that will be resolved by the time HPC is completed.